So, you all believe that if you do a poor job, the future surveyors should uphold the shoddy work? This is merely enabling those Dewey Cheatem and Howe firms. The surveyor who set those pins that are off by 2 and 11 feet should be held responsible. Nobody is perfect, but we should all acknowledge our own mistakes and correct them.
Let's take this into the permitting arena. Let's just say both of these lots were cut at the minimum lot area and only the one with the excess was developed. Now the enabling surveyor comes along and the undeveloped lot no longer contains the requisite area and is determined to be unbuildable. Not everybody is happy to rely on those monuments.
I just retraced an area. Two deed descriptions lying in between several plans. I found several original iron pipes called for on the original plan and in the original deeds but not shown on the later plans. These conflicted with the later plans by a foot or two. One gap, three overlaps. Everything is within brushy overgrown forgotten about areas, so there has been no real reliance on any of the corners. I held the pipes and showed the plan overlaps.
PS, the common lines on the later plans did not match with several gaps and overlaps. So it's a mess no matter what.
I read someplace that surveyors create gaps and overlaps?
> So, you all believe that if you do a poor job, the future surveyors should uphold the shoddy work? This is merely enabling those Dewey Cheatem and Howe firms. The surveyor who set those pins that are off by 2 and 11 feet should be held responsible. Nobody is perfect, but we should all acknowledge our own mistakes and correct them.
>
>
One of the more reliable cardinal rules of sound property boundary land surveying is to put them where they were, not where they should have been.
Stephen
Stephen,
That is why I make some of the sarcastic comments that I do, so maybe it will sink in to some. Gets tiresome repeating the same concept every day that monument mean things.
It is possible that the surveying profession can be one of "adjusting" monuments to where they should have been set, and not where they were found.
I contend that if that were to happen, there would not be a requirement for a license and technicians could do the work.
(Maybe happening now?)
Keith
Very true.
Drive a lathe by the original corner and note findings on plat.
Brian,
thanks for the info. the case law backs up the way that i learned it..."there is no error in the original monuments"..."but the contrary may be shown"
> I have done my work locating the conflict. Further resolution of the 11' encroachment will be by agreement of the adjoiners or litigated by the attorneys. The two tracts are out of the same parent tract. The deeds are dated identically, they were both signed on October 19, 1981, notarized on November 30th, 1981 and recorded on December 8th, 1981. I don't think the resolution is going to be a junior/senior rights issue but not sure if these would be considered simultaneous conveyance.
>
> The irons that the clients have held to be their property corners since 1996 appear to have been set in error, perhaps a bad backsight angle. I am investigating other factors to see if they can support a claim for adverse possession. The original surveyor is still alive and surveying in a nearby town and I need to find out what type of monument he was setting in 1981. If they are original mons set in error and the clients have held them as their corners since purchasing in 1996, I think they have a strong case. The nice shiny new plastic capped two bit rebars are correct for the bearing and distance, but the new fence has client greatly annoyed.
Andy,
Can you by chance give the specific language of the deeds?
I don't think this is a Junior/Senior Rights question.
Every Deed has to hit the dirt eventually. This one hit the dirt a little far from expectation but original monuments should not be disregarded.
In this case, the burden would not be to just accept found monuments, but because of the discrepancy to prove they are original and have good reason to believe they are at the original location. Land owners do move monuments, found one of mine that the owner had removed and saved. Later he needed it to divide a tract with undivided ownership and I was asked to recover monuments and set one more at an angle point, without that my moved monument would have been discovered by others. When I set a new monument where the wandering monument was originally set, the owner under his breath said that he thought he measured closer than that, I told him that he did measured fairly good, but he had measured from the wrong monument which was an angle point about 30 feet South of the one he should have used. Holding the found monument would not have been wise here, so research is always needed when found monuments are not close to where they are expected, especially when other found monuments fit well within themselves. I left the moved monument in place with my cap still on it and noted on the survey drawing what had taken place. Being professional does not include blindly accepting every monument that is found where not expected. What that should do, is trigger a diligent attempt to find out why you found it where you did, had an underground utility been put in place after the original was set, etc..
jud
Good post and the opposite can be true too. As in, it is professional to accept evidence of the corner that is other then an obvious original brass capped monument.
In other words, it is not professional to disregard the iron stake that is close and call it a goat stake.
Kieth, true. The burden is to have sound reason to reject or accept any found evidence and that requires enough research to find comfort and confidence in your judgement, not a rule blindly applied. There is always going to be a chance that the judgement of others may be different than yours, just make it hard for them, do the best you can, cause no harm and move on.
jud
I absolutely agree Jud
> Knocking on both doors of the adjoiners and including them both in a solution would have been a wise move by the surveyor who set the new monuments,
> jud
That should be at the top of the list of surveying commandments!!!
Thou shalt speak to the neighbors (especially when a new pin will result in a foreseeable argument).
> Being professional does not include blindly accepting every monument that is found where not expected. What that should do, is trigger a diligent attempt to find out why you found it where you did, had an underground utility been put in place after the original was set, etc..
> jud
Jud
You are on a roll. I have not read so many comments that I felt compelled to agree with in a long time.
> I read someplace that surveyors create gaps and overlaps?
Keith, gaps and overlaps only exist on paper, they do not exist on the ground.
> Thou shalt speak to the neighbors (especially when a new pin will result in a foreseeable argument).
Would you ask your client first?
If your client didn't want you talking to the neighbor, would you still talk to them?
I would not ask for permission, I would be telling them like I always do that I will probably be talking to their neighbor and sending them a curtsey copy of the Record of Survey, there are two adjoiners with a common boundary. If I was told up front to not talk to the adjoiner, I would tell them that I will honor their request because I will not be be doing their survey, then show them the door.
jud
No, I would not ask my client first. I usually tell them at the outset that I will be contacting the neighbors.
1. My opinion on the matter is that as Jud has already said - it is a common line, so treating people with decency and respect would indicate contacting them should be necessary. I know I would not like a stranger to be wondering around my property without knowing who they were.
2. Also, my interpretation of the Kentucky Standards of Practice indicates that it would be required to meet those standards. Examples:
2a. Section 5 Record Research - ...a professional land surveyor shall conduct research to obtain and evaluate the following: (5) Any other available data or documents pertinent to the boundary survey.
What the neighbor knows seems to be data and if they have an unrecorded plat or other document you would be obligated by the standards to research this possibility.
2b. Section 6 Field Work - A professional land surveyor shall thoroughly: (4) Gather, analyze, and document relevant parol evidence;
Perhaps what the neighbor tells you is not relevant, but you really can't know until you have talked with them and analyzed what they had to say about the boundary.
3. Finally, in Kentucky we have a right of entry law on the books (KRS 320.470). In it, we are provided two things a right and a responsibility. While we have the right of entry, we also have a responsibility to "... make reasonable effort to notify adjoining landowners upon whose land it is necessary to enter."
Given all of the above reasons, I try to call ahead of time and speak with each neighboring land owner. If I do not get in touch with them, I knock on doors as I begin my survey. If I still do not get in touch with them and there is a problem, I make sure to contact them before flagging things up. In that manner, I can usually diffuse a situation before it becomes a problem.
