A rural section, all lots 40+ acres. In 1989 a survey subdivided the north half of the section. He found the SW corner and NW corner but not the W1/4 corner. On the S1/4 corner he said he found an original BT and set a rebar/cap. He found a 1? IP at the SE corner, an iron pipe at the E1/4 corner and a stump hole at the NE corner.
In 2016 a survey found the 1989 distance on the W line is 20 feet too long so he reproportioned the W1/4 corner. I disagree, although it??s a blunder several Deed exchanges have occurred in the N1/2 in reliance on the 1989 survey so it shouldn??t be changed. We could be correcting things forever if we never accept that there is repose.
The S1/4 2016 doubts that 1989 found the Original so he SPd it and moved it considerably east to the straight line. I disagree, the BT is gone. 1989 said he found a stump of BT at the SW corner but there is a beautiful open blazed dead oak tree there. 1989??s notes are somewhat sparse. I think he confused the 2 corners and actually found a stump at the S1/4 and a tree at the SW corner. The S1/4 BT is in a stock pond graded about 2002. Furthermore I think evidence detailed on old surveys should be presumed accurate unless there is solid evidence refuting it.
The SE corner does not affect my survey but 2016 found the wrong sized pipe, probably an old fence post. The huge original BTs are there and alive, they swing out to a spot about 5 feet east which fits 1989??s data.
2016 surveyed in the south half and did lot line adjustments so I would hold his monuments for the south half only.
It is a sad, sad thing that so many surveyors feel that whatever they dream up must be correct.?ÿ Numbers are merely numbers.?ÿ Evidence outweighs numbers.?ÿ One of my early surveys involved using a north quarter corner that was incredibly close to being one chain off from what the record indicated.?ÿ It really stands out when the half mile from the north quarter corner to the northwest corner of the section is 132.15 feet longer than the half mile from the north quarter corner to the northeast corner of the section.?ÿ It was within a couple tenths of being a straight line, too.?ÿ If some (defecatory matter for brains) surveyor came along and tried to "correct" that corner, all HECK would break loose.?ÿ Especially by the guy whose 100+ year-old house would be cut in two by said "correction".
My default is to hold the monument.
If the disagreement is based on techniques how to set the monument I will likely defer to the set monument.
If I finally decide to not accept it, I will call the surveyor and have a chat about it. But, at that point I will want to have a very good reason, usually a found original monument or evidence of original positions that disputes the set one, or some strong evidence of a blunder.
Pulling a set monument at a lost corner is always an iffy thing to do.?ÿ
I don't want to have multiple monuments at any corner, it defeats the purpose of hiring a surveyor.
I had one of mine disputed and I finally told them they can only set theirs if they pull mine and bring it to me.?ÿ
@mightymoe I believe you describe what is the best practice, to give a monument the benefit of the doubt, to not disregard monuments without a very good reason for doing so. If a monument has been in place for decades then it should not lightly be rejected because the corner must become finally settled and not continually readjusted. Even where a long established monument is founded in an error but if it would create more distress and confusion by disregarding it than it would to place it in the correct location then it should be left in repose.
It never fails to amaze me how many surveyors will proclaim a monument 'wrong' when it doesn't fit their math perfectly and will then set their own monument in the 'correct' location and completely disregard the decades of acceptance by the property owners that have relied on the old monument.?ÿ
About a decade ago I had a heated argument with another surveyor over a monument that I'd set marking a parcel corner and ROW where two old subdivisions met. He had come in from the adjacent subdivision and was subdividing a parcel in his old subdivision while I was working off of control is my old subdivision. He wouldn't budge that my survey was somehow at fault for their being a kink in the ROW at the location where the two met. When I asked him how many corners he'd recovered in the subdivision I was working in, the answer was zero. He wanted to set one of his corners less than a foot away from mine, but the property owner had dug up around the corner I'd set and placed a 24' CMP over it and filled it with concrete. Pincushion that.
It never fails to amaze me how many surveyors will proclaim a monument 'wrong' when it doesn't fit their math perfectly and will then set their own monument in the 'correct' location and completely disregard the decades of acceptance by the property owners that have relied on the old monument.?ÿ
About a decade ago I had a heated argument with another surveyor over a monument that I'd set marking a parcel corner and ROW where two old subdivisions met. He had come in from the adjacent subdivision and was subdividing a parcel in his old subdivision while I was working off of control is my old subdivision. He wouldn't budge that my survey was somehow at fault for their being a kink in the ROW at the location where the two met. When I asked him how many corners he'd recovered in the subdivision I was working in, the answer was zero. He wanted to set one of his corners less than a foot away from mine, but the property owner had dug up around the corner I'd set and placed a 24' CMP over it and filled it with concrete. Pincushion that.
A tablet set in the concrete would be a efficient pincushion.
For some reason surveyors generally have a mysterious love affair with mathematically "straight" lines. The abhorrence of "kinks" founded on any general?ÿ legal principle, nor do they create any practical difficulties for land owners. Pincushions on the other hand do.?ÿ
If a monument has been in place for decades then it should not lightly be rejected because the corner must become finally settled and not continually readjusted. Even where a long established monument is founded in an error but if it would create more distress and confusion by disregarding it than it would to place it in the correct location then it should be left in repose.
There is a Maryland case where the court wrote that it's inconsequential if the pipe in question was originally set with the intent to mark the corner based on the math in the deed because, over time, it had acquired a "reputation" in the neighborhood as marking the corner.?ÿ
