Thanks to all. The lots have gained additional area as a result of the original monuments. As I stated in the op, this is all a result of a dispute not directly related to the street width. Rather, it is a dispute over an easement, tied to the easement adjacent to the street with ties to lot corners that don't fit due to the discrepancy between the platted width and the monumented width. It is a private party dispute that has potentially involved the County.
Again, this forum has proved to be a valuable resource.
The general principle is that monuments mark what they were intended to mark. If the dedication is 60 feet but for whatever reason the Surveyor marked a 50 foot width (perhaps the Plat was revised after monuments were set) then the City has a solid claim to 60 feet especially in the case where the lots are their platted depth with a 60 foot street.
This is different from the case where the Surveyor intended to mark a 60 foot street but did so with errors which are normally to be expected.
Monuments in place can cause objective uncertainty and good faith acceptance of the monuments by all involved may cause the street to be recognized as 50 feet wide.
If there's an extra five feet of lot width each side of the street the case can well be made that the monuments are witness corners 5 feet out into a boulevard of the street. An unusual way to do it.?ÿ
@dave-karoly Yeah, but I would still argue the intent was 50 feet, evidenced by the monuments set at the time.?ÿ Of course, if the monuments were not set at the time, and you can prove that, then maybe something else.?ÿ But general rule remains, the monuments set are consummation of the deal, especially when both parties accept them.
I agree, strong case for 60 foot.?ÿ We surveyors get in the middle of these things.?ÿ To me, the utilities were installed and the easement recognized by the monuments set per the deeds according to the op.
Personally/ Professionally; I would not disturb the current understanding of the boundary. Court might disagree.
What do the platting regulations in force at the time of this subdivision say. Around here the regulations for many years called for a minimum of 50' for feeder roads up until the around the late 80's/early 90's when they were changed to 60'. Before I were to draw any conclusions, I would want to know what the rules were at the time the subdivision was approved, but not necessarily monumented. I could see it happening during a transitory period where rather than go out and remonument the subdivision, they changed the width on the plat so the reviewer would check that off. If that were the case and the subdivision was approved on the basis of a 60' vs. 50' ROW, those would effectively be witness corners.?ÿ
Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get me.
Yeah, but I would still argue the intent was 50 feet, evidenced by the monuments set at the time.
Here is the part that seems to be continually overlooked by surveyors:
The plat is the intent of the proprietor, not the surveyor.
The proprietor has every right to conduct their land division(s) in the manner they see fit, and as long as it is "blessed" by the approving "agencies". This arrangement protects all the parties: proprietor, municipality, and grantees (lot owners).
"Assuming" there is no other evidence that shows the intent of the proprietor had changed, or there was no additional legal change to the plat, the scenario, as presented, indicates a clear error on the part of the surveyor, which would make the analysis of this case different.
I too love found monuments, but monuments only control until they don't.
?ÿ
Recent surveys performed due to conflicts unrelated to the right of way reveal that the original monuments were set for a street width of 50'.
This line indicates: initial problems with the boundary, is a statement of conclusion without supporting evidence, and dismissive of subsequent scrutiny.
Why don't you just ask the surveyor or firm that monumented the plat instead of determining through subsequent surveys what is going on out there?
This sounds like a newer subdivision based on your initial description.
The monuments are visible and have been relied upon by the lot owners since the plat was recorded. There are also easements adjacent to the right of way as indicated on the plat. There are buried utility lines within the area represented by the monuments.
Monuments are wrong all the time, and so are lot owners, and utilitiy companies. "Relied upon" sounds like an assumption.
?ÿ
The grantor (proprietor) was clear what they wanted to sell, based upon the plat.
Does a grantee take more than a grantor can sell to the detriment of a 3rd party?
Not impossible, but not likely. A lackey surveyor that botched something sounds much more plausible than trying like hell after the fact to formulate some complicated legal theory about their potential mistake.
Ask 3 surveyors and you'll get 5 opinions.
@michigan-left The plat is only one indicator of intent; monuments are another and get more weight.?ÿ You need stronger evidence to deviate from the rules of construction than to follow them.?ÿ
The fact that something has been approved for planning purposes has no effect on the location of sale of lots, or conveyance of the right of way.?ÿ
The developer should be required to submit a revised map for approval showing the actual area of conveyance to lots and right of way.
Intent is objective and about what the parties actually did, not subjective and about what we think they thought they were going to do.
We could argue about whether monuments should be treated as they always have by the courts in the modern world.?ÿ But seems to me the rules work well in this case.?ÿ Clearly there is a 50 foot wide right of way and lots clearly marked, with a 10 foot utility easement containing actual utilities.?ÿ If that's not what was approved, that's another separate issue.?ÿ The reason (surveyor mistake or not) is irrelevant.
?ÿ
@duane-frymire great explanation of how the courts usually look at things.
There would be a much stronger argument for a 60' ROW if there was no evidence of reliance, or if those monuments showed up years after the subdivision was approved, but the courts are consistent in the idea that landowners have the right to rely on original monuments. Even the Federal goverment doesn't get to claim back an error in the neighbors favor by an original surveyor (even if the error is 100's of feet).?ÿ
Of course this can all go out the window in front of a court of equity, and appeals are expensive...
I think one reason surveyors have made this transition is because of our dealings with DOTs. They often bluff their way to what they want.
Not true in all cases. My mentor was a DOT surveyor who taught that the full width theory only applies when monuments and improvements (i.e, reliance, establishment) are absent. That's the way I practiced as a DOT surveyor for 47 years. From what I have seen the courts will do the same as a rule unless they are hoodwinked.?ÿ
The plat is the intent of the proprietor, not the surveyor
The argument against this is the proprietor hired the surveyor to express the proprietor's intent by monumenting it on the ground. The surveyor acted as an agent of the proprietor, thus the proprietor is responsible for the location of the monuments and does not get to argue they don't express his intent. If they didn't express his intent, the proprietor should have had them moved before they were relied upon.
?ÿ
More to the story.
It is difficult to distill all of the facts of a situation into a single posting.
Questions raised here motivated some additional research into the history of this subdivision. It was originally platted in 1994 with a 50' wide "private road - irrevocable ingress/egress easement." It was replatted in 2004 by the same company/surveyor with the additional width of right of way dedicated to the "County for the use of the public forever."
I have talked to the surveyor who has since retired and has no recollection of the project details. Apparently, the found monuments were set for the original plat and none were set or adjusted for the revised width.
The lot that is the focus of the dispute that lead to the discovery of the conflicting widths was vacant until 2020.
Again, I thank everyone for their input. I have learned more in four years as County Surveyor than in the preceding 48 years in private practice.
?ÿ
the found monuments were set for the original plat and none were set or adjusted for the revised width.
More to the story.
It is difficult to distill all of the facts of a situation into a single posting.
Questions raised here motivated some additional research into the history of this subdivision. It was originally platted in 1994 with a 50' wide "private road - irrevocable ingress/egress easement." It was replatted in 2004 by the same company/surveyor with the additional width of right of way dedicated to the "County for the use of the public forever."
I have talked to the surveyor who has since retired and has no recollection of the project details. Apparently, the found monuments were set for the original plat and none were set or adjusted for the revised width.
The lot that is the focus of the dispute that lead to the discovery of the conflicting widths was vacant until 2020.
Again, I thank everyone for their input. I have learned more in four years as County Surveyor than in the preceding 48 years in private practice.
?ÿ
And now my question: Why the "H E Double-hockey-sticks" did the platting surveyor not show the bounds he had set on his re-plat?!!!
Nothing like generating a problem where none need to have existed.
@aliquot Yeah, which is why given one could go with standard rules of construction and wind up with equitable outcome, why do otherwise??ÿ
Go with 60' ROW and now you have break in the standard rules and have elevated to clear and convincing rather than preponderance of evidence.?ÿ And, the improvements no longer agree and in fact might be hundreds of thousands of encroachments.?ÿ
I'd rather lose on the former than lose on the latter.
@kscott Sort of makes sense.?ÿ But why would there be 10 foot utility easement outside the 60 foot??ÿ I mean, seems like they granted the extra 10 feet to capture the utilities under County control?
@kscott Sort of makes sense.?ÿ But why would there be 10 foot utility easement outside the 60 foot??ÿ I mean, seems like they granted the extra 10 feet to capture the utilities under County control?
Lots to digest in this thread.?ÿ ?ÿIt's a developed subdivision, you hold the original monuments used by the unsuspecting owners that have relied upon them to build their lot improvements.
With that said, 10'+ utility easement are a requirement in all 10+ municipalities i work in.?ÿ They do this because it makes the lots bigger rather than 80' right of way they have 60' + two 10' utility easements bordering each side of the right of way.?ÿ This is typically used for dry utilities, sometimes drainage, sometimes other things.
?ÿ
@wa-id-surveyor great if no lots have been sold, otherwise it would seem you need signatures of individual lot owners.?ÿ
Old subdivision in my area where I found a deed to Town of 10 feet either side of platted road.?ÿ Several landowner signatures, but no way to know if any particular landowner at the time signed off without extensive research of all the lots. No revised plat.?ÿ Abstracts don't go back that far.?ÿ?ÿ We show boundary to original plat line with note that it might be 10 feet different.?ÿ No guidance from the Town, they will not take a position on whether they claim to original or 10 feet further. Setbacks were changed to center of traveled way (with my input) to avoid controversy there. But geez, we really should be part of helping to do better.
@duane-frymire I thought he said the plat was from 1994.?ÿ Pretty sure all of lots would of been sold by now but he doesn't really say.?ÿ If this were in Idaho you would be required by State Code to contact and resolve the issue with the original surveyor and not just kick the can down the road.?ÿ In WA, not so much.
@wa-id-surveyor Seems like more of a title issue than survey issue. But surveyors should be instrumental in trying to clear it up.