-
As usual, Kent can only argue his case if he changes the
arguments of those disagreeing.
For instance in my thread below “How about a good thread on land surveying?”, his final post stated this;
“Well, considering that Keith has endless argued that any marker a later surveyor places along a boundary automatically alters the location of that boundary, and without regard to the seniority of title, I think a surveyor is much safer starting with the more general rule that it isn’t so.”
The readers know full well that I have not stated what Kent thinks I have and it should be obvious to all surveyors that any and all monuments are not accepted and that some are even when they are not instrument line exact.
And of course it does not take a genius to understand his “general rule” and that is to NEVER accept a subsequent (junior) monument that is not on that instrument straight line between ONLY original corner monuments.
My point has been made over and over again on that thread and simply is the fact that if we all were to use Kent’s general rule, this profession would be nothing more than an expert measuring trade.
All you guys that are establishing monuments for your clients; either accept Kent’s general rule of NEVER accepting any monuments that are a hair off that senior line (wherever that is) or accept the fact that land surveyors before you, did their best at establishing their clients boundaries.
You also can figure out for yourselves that his method would be a constant moving of boundaries and would only make yourselves look silly.
My point has been made, loud and clear.
Keith
-
154 Replies
-
The dawn!
Keith objects to my summary of his position in the following:
> “Well, considering that Keith has endlessly argued that any marker a later surveyor places along a boundary automatically alters the location of that boundary, and without regard to the seniority of title, I think a surveyor is much safer starting with the more general rule that it isn’t so.”
I’m thrilled that he’s trying to back away from what he’s dogmatically claimed for years now, i.e. that the monuments that later surveyors place on some boundary of a senior title to mark some subdivision of the land of the junior title adjacent, necessarily alter the location of the original line by adding angles points to it.
The dim first light of dawn!
-
Waaaahhh!! What a cry baby.
-
The dawn!
Kent, all you have to do is speak for yourself and try not to speak for me.
“I’m thrilled that he’s trying to back away from what he’s dogmatically claimed for years now, i.e. that the monuments that later surveyors place on some boundary of a senior title to mark some corner on the land of the junior title adjacent, necessarily alter the location of the original line by adding angles points to it.
The dim first light of dawn!“
Kent, if you would only believe that other surveyors can understand what I have stated and they know what your general rule is, we could have a general disagreement.
Kent, I asked before for any reference material and you of course come back in your normal flippant manner and cite the Constitution.
Well, then cite that portion of the Constitution whereas if supports your instrument line only theory.
I would rather you try some more appropriate survey reference material….anything.
Keith
-
The dawn!
> Kent, all you have to do is speak for yourself and try not to speak for me.
Keith, I’m not the only practicing surveyor who has attempted to help you figure out what you mean. Our estimable member of the bar, Duane Frymire, has also pointed out that the actual phrases you use don’t really mean anything in this case and has likewise attempted to restate what you are trying to say.
We’re here to help!
-
The dawn!
Kent,
If Duane wants to take the position that the writers of the BLM Manual do not know what they are writing about; that is one questionable opinion!!
Land surveyors really don’t need that kind of help!
Reference material………please.
Keith
-
The dawn!
Kent,
Maybe you want to help us with Duane’s statement; “Again, retracement or subdivision subsequent to an original survey may result in controlling monumentation. However, a “junior” monument just can’t control a “senior” one. We all know that a line intended to be straight (or curved for that matter) over long distances may very well end up not precisely so. That should not mean that each new survey can disregard the one before it. Which unfortunately is how some are interpreting the manual wording (based on my reading of problems encountered by surveyors in the PLSS).
What does the bold statement mean? Has anyone stated that a junior monument controls a senior monument?
And then there is this statement; “We all know that a line intended to be straight (or curved for that matter) over long distances may very well end up not precisely so.” WEll Duh………
Keith
-
The dawn!
Keith asked for help understanding the following statement by Duane Frymire:
>[i]”Again, retracement or subdivision subsequent to an original survey may result in controlling monumentation. However, a “junior” monument just can’t control a “senior” one.
I dunno, that seems pretty much self-explanatory. What part of that is hard to understand, eh?
-
The dawn!
Kent,
For Christ’s sake, who said it, beside Duane?
Keith
-
The dawn!
> Reference material………please.
Well, to tell you the truth, I really don’t know what you’re so confused about other than probably worrying that some future surveyor is perhaps going to disregard some work you did because it may appear to have been so carelessly run.
I don’t get the idea that you’re wondering what a straight line is in the usual acceptance of the term as used in plane surveying, since you yourself use the term.
I don’t get the idea that you don’t understand the idea of prior right of possession based upon the sequence of conveyances out of common grantor.
I guess you must just be wondering what property rights are?
-
Keith
“All you guys that are establishing monuments for your clients; either accept Kent’s general rule of NEVER accepting any monuments that are a hair off that senior line (wherever that is) or accept the fact that land surveyors before you, did their best at establishing their clients boundaries.
You also can figure out for yourselves that his method would be a constant moving of boundaries and would only make yourselves look silly.
My point has been made, loud and clear.”
Are you asking us to honor the “best effort” of a previous surveyor, in a junior survey, even if it encroaches onto the subject tract by 100 feet? By 50 feet? By 10 feet? By 2 feet?
Actually, the method Mr. McMillan espouses will result in the senior (read “original”) line never moving, especially by some surveyor who mistakenly (whether or not with good intentions) sets his corners in the wrong place.
The real problem is that too many land surveyors can’t or won’t look for those original corners and can’t or won’t research junior-senior rights.
-
The dawn!
> For Christ’s sake, who said it, beside Duane?
Oh, I’ll subscribe my name to his statement. Basically, the matter you’re having a hard time with is that of interpreting conveyances. Where the terms of a conveyance are clear and unambiguous, you evidently think that you are allowed to interpret them in ways suited to your convenience without regard to the vested rights of the parties.
As I previously pointed out, record title is the most fundamental form of bona fide right that you now are willing to dismiss from your retired bureaucrat’s point of view.
-
Permanence and stability
> Actually, the method Mr. McMillan espouses will result in the senior (read “original”) line never moving, especially by some surveyor who mistakenly (whether or not with good intentions) sets his corners in the wrong place.
Yes, the fact that Keith thinks that declining to accept some survey marker placed at the request of an adjoining owner is “moving” the boundary pretty well sums up his position, which is that the act of a surveyor driving a stake necessarily redefines the physical position of some possibly ancient boundary upon the ground. If it sounds weird, it’s not without good reason. It is weird.
-
The dawn!
Kent,
I thought that I previously have pointed out clearly that Duane’s statement, “junior” monument just can’t control a “senior” one.” does not pertain to the argument as at least I think you understand my argument (which the Manual states) is that a junior monument can control a senior line. Get it??
And you don’t have a clue about bona fide rights.
Keith
-
Jack
Kent can’t or won’t come up with any survey reference material to back up his instrument line ONLY argument, so can you?
Keith
-
Jack
“Are you asking us to honor the “best effort” of a previous surveyor, in a junior survey, even if it encroaches onto the subject tract by 100 feet? By 50 feet? By 10 feet? By 2 feet?” I didn’t put any distances on acceptance of previous monuments and didn’t say so.
A land surveyor’s judgement will determine if the subsequent junior monument is acceptable or not.
Keith
-
The dawn!
If the prior senior monuments are still there, and there’s a junior monument that’s off the line, then it’s just one of two things – if it’s a minor blunder, then the junior monument should be considered to be “on line” but shown with whatever offset. No kink.
If a senior monument is missing, then where’s the kink? Senior monument would be re-established while setting the intended corner. How can you end up with any meaningful kink if you are doing your due dilligence? And again, the intent is obvious, and as such, the junior corner should be considered on line, the kink is not or should not be meaningful. Unless it’s a blunder, then see below.
In either case, if it’s off by a lot, then it’s an error, and obviously a dilligent retracement was lacking. The rules that would apply to corners set with due dilligence really do not apply, it’s really no better than a goat stake if it’s off by a huge amount. But that then sparks a subsequent question, of whether or not that goat stake was unfortunately recognized as ancient and established, relied on, with signs of meaningful improvements and so on.
That’s really about all there is to it.
The answer is “it depends” and from there, it’s a decision chart and application professional judgement. The Manual provides a bit of a cookbook, but at the end of the day there are still several things that are a function of common sense.
-
I don’t recall Kent articulating any rule of “NEVER” accepting junior monuments.
Again, careful with the use of “always” and “never”.
-
Jack
I am assuming you are in Texas, so this question may not pertain to you, but you could still have an opinion on what it means. It is from the 2009 BLM Manual.
Junior-Senior Corners
7-23. This situation exists where one set of corners was established for one side of the line, and a second set of corners was established for the other side of the of the same line in the course of a later resurvey or retracement (figure 7-4).
The line is regarded as having been fixed in position by the senior survey and subsequent dependent resurveys or retracements. If both sets of corners are recovered, a junior survey,if it was established in the course of an obvious careful resurvey or retracement, reporting the most recent measurement of the line, will be used for alinement of the line and for control in restoring a lost senior corner of the line
Kent keeps implying that I am out there alone in my opinions, but as everybody else can understand, I am repeating what the Manual is saying.
Got an opinion on what it means?
Keith
-
Jack
> Kent can’t or won’t come up with any survey reference material to back up his instrument line ONLY argument, so can you?
Keith, you’re further gone than you may suspect if you don’t know that the question of straight lines has been extensively dealt with in litigation. A straight line is a geometric element along which at every point the angle between the rays forward and backward is 180°. The corresponding element in plane surveying is a line run so that likewise at every point along the line, the angle between the ray backward and forward is 180°. This is a transit line run without errors.
In at least one classic Texas boundary case, one issue boiled down to which surveyor, the plaintiff’s or the defendant’s, could convince the judge or jury that he had run the line more carefully and with less error. This was a cases in which the exact issue dealt with the location of an oil well in relation to a straight line between well-defined endpoints some ways apart.
-
Jack
How about pretty much ANY surveying text talking about “RETRACEMENT”?
If the survey is moving the line, then they ain’t retracing it. Either the corner is intended as on line and is shown with an offset or it’s a total screwup.
Call it what it is already.
Log in to reply.