Pins
On a platted subdivision which pins are honored the new pins that were set per the plat or the original pins? If a pin was missing and a new one was set by another surveyor is that pin honored? Trying to figure out since the survey that was done in 2015 and current are different by feet… Do we honor a pin that possibly was moved since it doesn’t match the plat 100%? One corner has three different surveyor’s put their pins but only 2 remain (the North West Pin). The South West Pin has 2 different survivors only 1 remains. It’s a mess I know just trying to figure this out.
What the legal way to set pin when missing pins when one cannot be found or when one is moved? Does the above follow this case for new pins?
This is for Texas FYI
- 33 Replies
Hire a surveyor…
Jim in AZ, post: 455342, member: 249 wrote: Hire a surveyor…
Looks like they did and he Least Squares Adjusted it.
Jim in AZ, post: 455342, member: 249 wrote: Hire a surveyor…
I have but didn’t get a straight answer other than they have to honor the original pins, from the plat but two of the original pins were missing at one time and then reappeared years later 12 inches away from another pin. But the other pin never came about. So that’s why I’m asking who’s pins are correct if there is multiple in the same area for the same platted lot.
I’m from Oregon/Washington, not Texas. But these truths are universal:
- Original pins called for in your deed, if undisturbed, are the true corners. If shown on a plat and your deed describes your property by reference to that plat the the pins are called for.
- Being certain that a pin has never been disturbed can be difficult to prove.
- Proper, good faith restorations of lost original pins have all the dignity of the original if the original pin is truly lost.
- Multiple pins at a single corner is called a “pin cushion” in the business. Setting a second pin to “replace” a “lost” pin that isn’t lost is a sign of poorly performed work. Two pins at the same corner is obviously a conflict that must be resolved. The second, non-original, pin would be worthless assuming that the original can be shown to be undisturbed.
- There may be good reasons for 2 pins to be within a few feet of each other. There may be 2 corners that far apart. That is common. There is no way for me to know if that is the case here without seeing the plat.
lakedude, post: 455429, member: 12730 wrote: I have but didn’t get a straight answer other than they have to honor the original pins, from the plat but two of the original pins were missing at one time and then reappeared years later 12 inches away from another pin. But the other pin never came about. So that’s why I’m asking who’s pins are correct if there is multiple in the same area for the same platted lot.
Mark Mayer gave you a good explanation. More than likely (I think) it’s doubtful that the “original pins disappeared”. If someone was going to move them then they would have pulled them out and moved them immediately, not take them out and put them in at a later date. They may have been buried or otherwise hard to find and a surveyor never found them and put in new pins at an erroneous location. We have all seen instances where a pin got dug up by a utility company or a fence company, and they stuck them back in the ground at an erroneous location. Sometimes an owner wants to do mischief and moves the pins to his benefit.
If there is not enough strong evidence that a pin has been moved, the surveyor will likely honor the original pins and set a missing one based on the ones he found. If that is what the surveyor you hired told you, I would agree with him. Hopefully he investigated well enough to come to the conclusion that those pins were in their original position.
Did the surveyor you hired prepare a survey plat or a report as to what he found and/or set as your corners?
lakedude, post: 455429, member: 12730 wrote: ….two of the original pins were missing at one time and then reappeared years later 12 inches away from another pin ….
Either they were never missing, or someone stuck some in. If they were never missing, and simply weren’t found, then they are original and mark your corner (if undisturbed). The “replacement” is a pin cushion. If someone stuck some in after 12 years and then claimed to “find ‘ it, then those stuck in ones are of no value. (Note that there are operations of law that might complicate this – if improvements were made in good faith reliance on this second pin then the improver may have the right to continue to rely on it.)
lakedude, post: 455340, member: 12730 wrote: On a platted subdivision which pins are honored the new pins that were set per the plat or the original pins? If a pin was missing and a new one was set by another surveyor is that pin honored?
Assuming that when you say original pins you mean pins set by the original filed map surveyor.
Any competent surveyor can later locate as many as possible of those original pins and correctly place new pins per the record. However it is a possibility that actions of land owners over the years have create acceptance and acquiescence to lines other than those on the original filed map. In such a case a competent surveyor may then place pins based on such evidence of those new lines.
Possibly original pins were placed incorrectly, but now may need to accepted as placed.
Without the time and a contract to survey and locate every possible scenario I can give you no advice as to what to expect.
Have a nice day.
Paul in PA
For what it is worth, I have run into a least two instances over my career where the survey was done, pins were set and then platted incorrectly. The intent of the subdivision was where the pins were set. The survey comes before the plat. Survey controls. You must do your research and try be able to confirm that the plat represents the intent of the survey.
NYLS, post: 455466, member: 1722 wrote: For what it is worth, I have run into a least two instances over my career where the survey was done, pins were set and then platted incorrectly. The intent of the subdivision was where the pins were set. The survey comes before the plat. Survey controls. You must do your research and try be able to confirm that the plat represents the intent of the survey.
I have seen a Court case where it was ruled the exact opposite. 1) the recorded plat was ruled the intent of the sub-divider, 2) Since the plat did not show the monuments on the ground in the same place as the monuments on the plat the monuments on the ground had no record standing, 3) The plat was the instrument by which the Lots were created and sold so to protect the rights of the buyers the plat was held
Bushwhacker, post: 455495, member: 10727 wrote: I have seen a Court case where it was ruled the exact opposite. 1) the recorded plat was ruled the intent of the sub-divider, 2) Since the plat did not show the monuments on the ground in the same place as the monuments on the plat the monuments on the ground had no record standing, 3) The plat was the instrument by which the Lots were created and sold so to protect the rights of the buyers the plat was held
I’m sure there are particulars, but I’ll bet this is a lower court ruling and not an appeal ruling. The plat by definition is a record of the work done on the ground. If the plat was recorded prior to the placement of monuments it is not a record of what was done on the ground, and has no standing as a “plat.” It is a “plan”, not a “plat.” The “plan” may indeed have been the sub-divider’s intent, but that does not transform it into a “plat”, a record of what was done on the ground.
Bushwhacker, post: 455495, member: 10727 wrote: I have seen a Court case where it was ruled the exact opposite. 1) the recorded plat was ruled the intent of the sub-divider, 2) Since the plat did not show the monuments on the ground in the same place as the monuments on the plat the monuments on the ground had no record standing, 3) The plat was the instrument by which the Lots were created and sold so to protect the rights of the buyers the plat was held
I’m sure there are particulars, but I’ll bet this is a lower court ruling and not an appeal court ruling. The plat by definition is a record of the work done on the ground. If the plat was recorded prior to the placement of monuments it is not a record of what was done on the ground, and has no standing as a “plat.” It is a “plan”, not a “plat.” The “plan” may indeed have been the sub-divider’s intent, but that does not transform it into a “plat”, a record of what was done on the ground.
lakedude, post: 455429, member: 12730 wrote: Hire a surveyor: I have but didn’t get a straight answer
Is there an issue?
Did the surveyor not give you the answer (pin placement) that you were hoping for?
Is the surveyor you hired competent; licensed in the Sate of Texas?
I hope everyone has a great day; I know I will!
Jim in AZ, post: 455539, member: 249 wrote: I’m sure there are particulars, but I’ll bet this is a lower court ruling and not an appeal ruling. The plat by definition is a record of the work done on the ground. If the plat was recorded prior to the placement of monuments it is not a record of what was done on the ground, and has no standing as a “plat.” It is a “plan”, not a “plat.” The “plan” may indeed have been the sub-divider’s intent, but that does not transform it into a “plat”, a record of what was done on the ground.
yeah, just the field crew here but, it seems there’s a number of hues of plat/plan/proposal … Some are nothing more than office surveys, some are plats where the irons were set first, then still another where the plat was submitted-accepted-recorded-then staked. Probably depends on the where and when of the subdivision. amirite?
R.J. Schneider, post: 455553, member: 409 wrote: Probably depends on the where and when of the subdivision. amirite?
I hope everyone has a great day; I know I will!Bushwhacker, post: 455495, member: 10727 wrote: I have seen a Court case where it was ruled the exact opposite. 1) the recorded plat was ruled the intent of the sub-divider, 2) Since the plat did not show the monuments on the ground in the same place as the monuments on the plat the monuments on the ground had no record standing, 3) The plat was the instrument by which the Lots were created and sold so to protect the rights of the buyers the plat was held
I would like to know that case number. I’ve got a very similar situation. The Plat appears genuine, but the few pins on the ground are 100s of feet from where the Plat says they should be. Another Surveyor is standing by the “Monuments Rule” doctrine. I say no way they are fraudulently set pins. We are headed to Court.
Jim in AZ, post: 455342, member: 249 wrote: Hire a surveyor…
If they called me I’d say take two pills and call me in a week.
Tom Adams, post: 455437, member: 7285 wrote: Mark Mayer gave you a good explanation. More than likely (I think) it’s doubtful that the “original pins disappeared”. If someone was going to move them then they would have pulled them out and moved them immediately, not take them out and put them in at a later date. They may have been buried or otherwise hard to find and a surveyor never found them and put in new pins at an erroneous location. We have all seen instances where a pin got dug up by a utility company or a fence company, and they stuck them back in the ground at an erroneous location. Sometimes an owner wants to do mischief and moves the pins to his benefit.
If there is not enough strong evidence that a pin has been moved, the surveyor will likely honor the original pins and set a missing one based on the ones he found. If that is what the surveyor you hired told you, I would agree with him. Hopefully he investigated well enough to come to the conclusion that those pins were in their original position.
Did the surveyor you hired prepare a survey plat or a report as to what he found and/or set as your corners?
The pin that was missing was found when the owners to the west moved their fence and this pin was now above ground and 1 foot off from the plat. The other location the pin was never found and from what I understand was removed because they were running over it with their tractors and cars and trucks when they drove over it.
The person the platted the subdivision is in Prison for multiple reasons the other surveyors had errors on their survey that the State of Texas said that should have happen. With that said should new pins be set because of this? Mind you each surveyor the past 4 in just 2 years the pins per the surveyors have moved feet in different directions. I have since placed Game Camera’s to try catch anyone in the area doing anything.
RADAR, post: 455550, member: 413 wrote: Is there an issue?
Did the surveyor not give you the answer (pin placement) that you were hoping for?
Is the surveyor you hired competent; licensed in the Sate of Texas?
He is and He said I’m going off the original corners but when I showed him the past 4 drawings he said he is coming back out. I have no clue what that means but he didn’t look happy when he seen the documentations and asking him the same questions I’m asking you guy. Because per the info I have and whats on the ground the corners have moved several times and shouldn’t have.
Jim in AZ, post: 455539, member: 249 wrote: I’m sure there are particulars, but I’ll bet this is a lower court ruling and not an appeal ruling. The plat by definition is a record of the work done on the ground. If the plat was recorded prior to the placement of monuments it is not a record of what was done on the ground, and has no standing as a “plat.” It is a “plan”, not a “plat.” The “plan” may indeed have been the sub-divider’s intent, but that does not transform it into a “plat”, a record of what was done on the ground.
But my question is what happens when someone moves something on the ground? Shouldn’t the document hold more water since this is filed and this is what is should be on the ground? A plat can only be changed if approved pins can be moved easily with ill intent.
would somebody just step up and tell this guy what he wants to hear so we can be done with this?
Log in to reply.