I have a boundary issue that I would like to get some opinions on. I have attached a pdf of a portion of my survey in Vermont. IÛªm surveying Lot 1 on the attached map. The lots were created in 1979 and there is a filed map. The map certification states that it is a compilation of several older maps and a ÛÏcontrol surveyÛ along the road that is the southerly boundary of Lots 4-7. The exterior lines of the 1979 subdivision encompass Lots 1, 4-7. There are also discrepancies between monuments that I found and the filed map descriptions. The deed references shown are from when the parcels were conveyed as a result of the subdivision.
The exterior lines of the 1979 subdivision are measuring pretty close to record except there may be an issue with the location of the road on the south sides of lots 4-7 because the sidelines of lots 5 and 6 are coming up short by 50 to 80 feet, depending on whether I hold monuments along the road (corners for Lots 5 and 6) or monuments along the west side of Lot 1. It doesnÛªt look like the road has moved because itÛªs closely lined with large Maple trees throughout itÛªs length.
Another surveyor came in during the 1990Ûªs and set corners 4 & 5 based on corners 7 & 8 of my attached map. It doesnÛªt look like he tied into anything else, based on his filed map. The owner of Lot 5 says that the surveyor set corners 3 & 6 also. Normally IÛªd say a boundary line agreement is in order but my client doesnÛªt do agreements after property has already been acquired.
Thoughts?
Wow! Have fun with that. My guesses don't mean much without walking the site searching for any other possible clues plus studying all of the research you have done.
I frequently tell people that my specialty is stirring up hate and discontent. The defecatory material will hit the propulsion device once the adjoiners discover what you have discovered.
GMPLS, post: 348393, member: 8404 wrote: I have a boundary issue that I would like to get some opinions on. I have attached a pdf of a portion of my survey in Vermont. IÛªm surveying Lot 1 on the attached map. The lots were created in 1979 and there is a filed map. The map certification states that it is a compilation of several older maps and a ÛÏcontrol surveyÛ along the road that is the southerly boundary of Lots 4-7. The exterior lines of the 1979 subdivision encompass Lots 1, 4-7. There are also discrepancies between monuments that I found and the filed map descriptions. The deed references shown are from when the parcels were conveyed as a result of the subdivision.
The exterior lines of the 1979 subdivision are measuring pretty close to record except there may be an issue with the location of the road on the south sides of lots 4-7 because the sidelines of lots 5 and 6 are coming up short by 50 to 80 feet, depending on whether I hold monuments along the road (corners for Lots 5 and 6) or monuments along the west side of Lot 1. It doesnÛªt look like the road has moved because itÛªs closely lined with large Maple trees throughout itÛªs length.
Another surveyor came in during the 1990Ûªs and set corners 4 & 5 based on corners 7 & 8 of my attached map. It doesnÛªt look like he tied into anything else, based on his filed map. The owner of Lot 5 says that the surveyor set corners 3 & 6 also. Normally IÛªd say a boundary line agreement is in order but my client doesnÛªt do agreements after property has already been acquired.
Thoughts?
One thing that has helped me a great deal in retracement surveys (thanks JB) is realizing that we survey boundaries, not parcels, not blocks, not subdivisions. In other words, when performing a retracement, each boundary is a separate determination that needs to stand on its own evidence, fact set and law. Too many times we beat our heads against the wall trying to make the math/plat in the whole neighborhood work together, like perfect pieces of a puzzle. I'd suggest concentrating on one boundary at a time.
I was taught to establish the road ROW first;
Then the perimeter of the parent tract;
Then the junior - senior title...
Unless it is a subdivision. Then all the lots that were created by the subdivision have equal
weight.
And the last surveyor to touch the plan is responsible for the prior errors, if he relies on the prior surveyor's work.
But....
Then again, I sometimes try to make everyone happy.... and usually get myself in trouble.
JEFLS, post: 348443, member: 1771 wrote: I was taught to establish the road ROW first;
Then the perimeter of the parent tract;
Then the junior - senior title...
Unless it is a subdivision. Then all the lots that were created by the subdivision have equal
weight.
Sounds like good advice.
What reasons do you have to reject any of the found monuments? Plat distances are not usually a sufficient reason.
That NE corner of lot 1 looks like it warrants further investigation (monument found, power line, road and nearby wall (I think)).
It would be interesting to see the subdivision laid over an aerial.
Your client doesn't do agreements after purchase. Did he/ she get a survey before purchase?
That northeast corner has alot occupation and a survey map of an adjoiner supporting it so I feel good about that.
The aerial doesn't show much. It's all mature sugar maple except the northeast corner and a narrow dirt road along the south side of the southerly lots.
No, the client did not get this parcel surveyed prior to or at the time of purchase.
Gregg
I guess my reason for concern is the fact that those monuments are so far out from everything on the north end.
Thanks, that's a good reminder. My client has already had their real estate attorney helping research junior/senior rights as it relates to subdivisions. I was hoping to find some helpful Vermont case law.
I found these notes on my iPad:
Vermont:
Rambeau v. Barrows, 127 Vt 550, 255 A. 2d 175 - Vt: Supreme Court 1969 - Continued satisfaction and compliance with a boundary marked on the ground over an extended period of time, is strong evidence in support of its selection as the correct division. Amey v. Hall, 123 Vt. 62, 67, 181 A.2d 69; Brown v. Derway, 109 Vt. 37, 43, 192 A. 16. And the accepted boundary, when marked by identifiable monuments, will prevail over the description in the original grant where the two are at variance. Amey v. Hall, supra, 123 Vt. at 68, 181 A.2d 69; Neill v. Ward, supra, 103 Vt. at 147, 153 A. 219; Burton v. Lazell, 16 Vt. 158, 161.
Wow, thanks for the quick reply. Actually I do have that one.
I have some Tiffany Real Property boundary sections in PDF form which includes most states. I don't think I can post it here because it's copyright material. Our law library allows printing from their West Law service to PDF on a gig stick which is really handy.
The lawyers really have it well organized. Now with everything on computer it's really simple to pick up material and take it home. The Sacramento County Public Law library has the West Law service. They have National secondary sources but not necessarily state specific treatises other than California, obviously. I think they have all case law so I can get just about any u.s. case just not necessarily a Vermont treatise, for example. The treatises and secondary sources are really handy for finding actual case cites.
GMPLS, post: 348850, member: 8404 wrote: Thanks, that's a good reminder. My client has already had their real estate attorney helping research junior/senior rights as it relates to subdivisions. I was hoping to find some helpful Vermont case law.
If you email me at karolysurveyor at gmail dot com I'll reply with a PDF you may find mildly useful.
It looks like Corners 1 & 2 roughly agree with the found monument at the northeast corner of lot 1. Like the overall parallelogram should be skewed more southerly on the east. That would be better evidence of the north line of Lot 5 due to proximity than measuring from the road a half mile to the south. This is assuming the two pipes on the north line of the south road are not on offsets. The error would most likely be in that half mile.
On the other hand, 1995 was 20 years ago and corners 3, 4, 5, & 6 could be established by good faith reliance in them but this would depend what the owners of Lot 5 did in reliance on them, or didn't.
Do you have any history on corners 7 & 8, where did they come from?
You need to search at all the lot corners.
GMPLS, post: 348393, member: 8404 wrote: I have a boundary issue that I would like to get some opinions on. I have attached a pdf of a portion of my survey in Vermont. IÛªm surveying Lot 1 on the attached map. The lots were created in 1979 and there is a filed map. The map certification states that it is a compilation of several older maps and a ÛÏcontrol surveyÛ along the road that is the southerly boundary of Lots 4-7. The exterior lines of the 1979 subdivision encompass Lots 1, 4-7. There are also discrepancies between monuments that I found and the filed map descriptions. The deed references shown are from when the parcels were conveyed as a result of the subdivision.
The exterior lines of the 1979 subdivision are measuring pretty close to record except there may be an issue with the location of the road on the south sides of lots 4-7 because the sidelines of lots 5 and 6 are coming up short by 50 to 80 feet, depending on whether I hold monuments along the road (corners for Lots 5 and 6) or monuments along the west side of Lot 1. It doesnÛªt look like the road has moved because itÛªs closely lined with large Maple trees throughout itÛªs length.
Another surveyor came in during the 1990Ûªs and set corners 4 & 5 based on corners 7 & 8 of my attached map. It doesnÛªt look like he tied into anything else, based on his filed map. The owner of Lot 5 says that the surveyor set corners 3 & 6 also. Normally IÛªd say a boundary line agreement is in order but my client doesnÛªt do agreements after property has already been acquired.
Thoughts?
I'm not real clear on whether this is supposed to be a survey of a lot recorded in a platted subdivision (simultaneous conveyance) or is this a series of metes and bounds descriptions sold off sequentially as "lots". The map you provided seems to point to the latter with different "made" dates. If so, it looks like "Lot 1" might be the remainder parcel of the parent tract. I'm guessing that you don't have any evidence that these lots were surveyed by an original surveyor?
Email sent. Thanks for your help.
Gregg
Mr. Bowtie,
This was a recorded plat and it doesn't look like any interior lines were surveyed. I do believe the pins at the southerly corners of lots 5 & 6 are original.
Corners 7 & 8 may have been set by the surveyor that did the subdivision. Those 2 and the next corner to the west (SW corner of Lot 6 not shown) are all similar pipes. The deeds call for iron pipes.