I have a request to survey landowner A's property. While researching adjacent landowners reocrds I find a survey for landowner B's property "circa 1966" whith is next door. The surveyor set an iron pipe between landowner A and B deeded property and set a second pipe 5' into landowners B property, both set along the road R/W. The surveyor states on the plat landowner A is in possession of this 5'.
Several months after the survey the two land owners record a boundary agreement between them describing a strip of property 6.3' into landowners B property to take care of the encroachment.
Fast forward to today, both pipes are still in and undisturbed. Would you set a third pipe 1.3' from the second pipe and show all three or use the second pipe as a reference pipe and show the distance of 1.3' between them
I probably wouldn't set a pipe, but yes, I would monument the agreed upon line as no corner fits it.
Set a new pipe.
Years from now, who's going to know or remember there's an obscure note on a survey saying, "Iron pipe found 1.3' from corner", they're going to see, feel, and touch a physical monument.
I'd set a new pipe and suggest the owners pull the pipe at 5'. It will just add confusion in the future if you don't.
To set a new pipe or not
Set it, and refer to the others, to maintain a history, and keep confusion out.
N
set it and put your cap on it.
😉
To set a new pipe or not
There are all types of mistakes in our land records.
Where is the physical evidence that the owners have relied upon?
Make sure that that physical evidence is accurately described.
Remember, just as an attorney has no authority to file a lawsuit unless the lawyer has an aggrieved citizen as a client, so the surveyor has no authority to correct a record description UNLESS THE SURVEYOR HAS THE LANDOWNER AS A CLIENT! Then the surveyor must know and follow the procedures defined by your state law.
It is not necessary to add monumentation called for by an inaccurate record description and, if a surveyor does, that surveyor may be guilty of slander of title. Check out Lucas's 'Slander of Title' article in the POB archives. I believe the appelate court ruling refered to the deed staking survey as a 'bogus survey'.
Richard Schaut
I would set a new corner on the agreed line.
Richard
What thread are you replying to? It can't be this one where the landowners have agreed on a boundary presumably by a process that's legal in their jurisdiction. How is monumenting an agreed boundary going to result in a slander of title?
You seem to be quite the expert on slander. Libel is another subject you might want to read up on.
Have not checked the record to see if deeds have been exchanged. I assume that the described line between them was in and is in agreement and could be located. I would question the validly of any agreement to some other location than the described one when the described location is not in question. Maybe you should talk to both owners at the same time, locate the described line then write some descriptions which would allow for the owners to correct their deeds and then record them, if that correction would make one of those tracts non conforming with any land use laws go elsewhere. More to making choices than looking only at what you can see and all agreements are not legal. Some other action or non action may support a defective agreement but that alone will not make a non legal agreement legal. The owners need to correct their descriptions and the surveyor, placing a monument at a location based on a defective agreement sticks his neck out for a number of reasons.
jud
> I have a request to survey landowner A's property. While researching adjacent landowners reocrds I find a survey for landowner B's property "circa 1966" whith is next door. The surveyor set an iron pipe between landowner A and B deeded property and set a second pipe 5' into landowners B property, both set along the road R/W. The surveyor states on the plat landowner A is in possession of this 5'.
>
> Several months after the survey the two land owners record a boundary agreement between them describing a strip of property 6.3' into landowners B property to take care of the encroachment.
>
> Fast forward to today, both pipes are still in and undisturbed. Would you set a third pipe 1.3' from the second pipe and show all three or use the second pipe as a reference pipe and show the distance of 1.3' between them
really hard to get the gist of whats going on here - so, A's property picked up 5 additional feet of road frontage (for some reason) back in '66? Then shortly thereafter, A picks up an additional 1.3' (agreed upon), because of some encroachment? At first blush it appears neither pipe is presently correct, and a new monument should be set in accordance with the recorded boundary agreement. There would clearly be no reason to perpetuate the old pipes, which no longer appear to serve as legal monuments.
