-
Real World Example No. 1
Here is an example of the subject under discussion, the case where a mistaken survey had established markers in ignorance of the existing originals that define the true boundaries of the parcel.
In 1990, my clients had a topographic survey made of these three small parcels that they had purchased in 1981. In 1999, they hired me to help them answer some questions that pertained to the boundaries of the property. There was a specific question about whether a structure was on their land.
So I traced the titles of their parcels and of those adjacent back to common ownership and went out to locate their boundaries as described in the various conveyances of record.
Two of the parcels they owned were originally created in 1963 when some lots in a new (1963-vintage) subdivision were resubdivided. That resubdivision was made by the same surveyor who had laid the subdivision out and he prepared metes and bounds descriptions calling for the “iron pins” that he had placed to mark all of the corners and which were subsequently used to convey the parcels.
I had a copy of the map that the 1990 surveyor had made of his work. It indicated that he had found exactly two of the eight markers that the 1963 surveyor had reported setting and that in 1990 the “missing” six had been replaced with new markers. His map indicated no tie to any corner of any other adjoining parcel and so, by Texas standards qualified as a “quickie-dickie survey”.
After locating the original “iron pin” monuments from 1963 and the 1990 surveyor’s misadventure, the situation was found to be as shown in the sketch. The purple lines are the 1990 surveyor’s idea of where the parcel boundaries drawn in the heavy black line were.
The survey involved locating the boundaries of other parcels also established in 1963 by the same surveyor who had laid out the subject parcels and examining the private records of the 1963 surveyor (who had since retired). There was no doubt whatsoever but that the purple lines were grossly incorrect. There was no evidence that any of the interested owners had relied upon the 1990 surveyor’s work or were even aware of it, with the exception of an old pipe at the lower right corner labeled “71”. That had surveyor’s ribbon on it and had apparently been thought by some surveyor of the adjoining parcel to be the common lot corner.
However, there was an old chain link fence running basically along the original 1963 parcel boundary and Pipe 71 was well on the other side of it. I found no record of Pipe 71 and suspect that it probably had been set back in the late 1930’s on the boundary of some parcels that were later merged into common ownership prior to the 1963 subdivision. It just happened to fall near the parcel corner, but had no record relationship either to the corner or to any of the boundaries leading to it.
So, would anyone care to tell me why, in this real world situation, it is important to preserve the markers placed in gross error by the 1990 surveyor?
-
80 Replies
-
BTW the map above is a detail of a larger map showing all of the evidence that supports the boundary determination. I’ve edited some details to keep the identity of the 1990 surveyor confidential. The point of this thread isn’t to criticize him particularly, it is to describe the grossly mistaken markers that the 1990 work left behind and to discuss how to best deal with them.
-
Your answer is in your graphic you yourself provided. You called for the iron. You remove it, you have removed evidence of how you determined his survey to have been in error.
-
Did you also yank #117? Heck, it is a lot more dangerous than #71, right on fenceline and near the corner you ascertained!
-
One of the reasons that the CA Board gives for leaving the erroneous pins in place is that some other surveyor might have tied into them sometime in the last 20 years and they could be useful in retracing that surveyor’s work on some other property if his monuments go missing. In the case you are showing us, you’ve apparently proven that they’re wrong, the property owners agree they’re wrong, nobody’s relied on them, but I still wouldn’t pull them in this state.
-
” I found no record of Pipe 71 and suspect that it probably had been set back in the late 1930’s on the boundary of some parcels that were later merged into common ownership prior to the 1963 subdivision.”
That is hilarious. You have not the clue what the reason for the iron was, but are able to determine it is not historically significant. You are unsure if it was for another boundary from the 1930’s. That statement tells me that you did not research very much. Perhaps you are a “quickie dickie” surveyor too.
-
did you remove #71 or #117? You play a dangerous game when you selectively pull only some of the evidence. Did you even try to talk to the 1990 surveyor about this? Looking at his map / survey is one thing, but discussing it face-to-face with field notes & crew members present is another. If the guy was worth his salt – and in the wrong – he could have pulled them himself.
-
Open Circle
> Did you also yank #117?
The open circle symbol is a monument I set. No. 117 is a brass tablet I set in the top of a concrete retaining wall for a witness corner. The actual corner is in the lake.
-
> Your answer is in your graphic you yourself provided. You called for the iron. You remove it, you have removed evidence of how you determined his survey to have been in error.
Actually, the map explains that I found the grossly erroneous rebar, who had set it, and that I removed it.
-
> That is hilarious. You have not the clue what the reason for the iron was, but are able to determine it is not historically significant. You are unsure if it was for another boundary from the 1930’s. That statement tells me that you did not research very much. Perhaps you are a “quickie dickie” surveyor too.
Well, I traced the title back and know from that that several parcels conveyed in the lat 1930’s were merged into a larger tract in the 1950’s (as I recall), which was subdivided in 1963 without regard to the 1930’s lines. How much simpler does that get. :>
-
> One of the reasons that the CA Board gives for leaving the erroneous pins in place is that some other surveyor might have tied into them sometime in the last 20 years and they could be useful in retracing that surveyor’s work on some other property if his monuments go missing. In the case you are showing us, you’ve apparently proven that they’re wrong, the property owners agree they’re wrong, nobody’s relied on them, but I still wouldn’t pull them in this state.
Yes, the whole point is to keep surveyors from tying into them and further stirring the mess.
-
> did you remove #71 or #117? You play a dangerous game when you selectively pull only some of the evidence.
No. No. 117 is a brass tablet that I set as a WC since the actual corner is in the lake and cannot be monumented. No.71 wasn’t a quickie-dickie.
-
Perhaps surveyors need caps for the uncapped rebars and pipes they find, saying “Rejected by PLS #xxxx”
. -
Did you make a note on the face of your survey map stating that you have pulled up the irons that you called for on the survey in question?
If you did, then how can you prove your survey of the purple lines?
kinda the chicken and the egg thing…
KM – “Trust me judge, they were there before I pulled them up…honest, you gotta trust me.”
To be fair, I do see your point but I would not take on the liability, I would have shown them on my map, left them in the ground, and given the land owner a personal tour of the property corners along with a verbal explaination of the survey.
-
> Did you make a note on the face of your survey map stating that you have pulled up the irons that you called for on the survey in question?
>
> If you did, then how can you prove your survey of the purple lines?What’s to prove? The whole point is to make it go away, which removing the markers does. The reason I showed the erroneous locations on the map is to relate the topographic map to the actual boundaries. As it turned out we were retained by a subsequent purchaser of the parcels to correct the topographic mapping as well.
-
I do notice that none of your bearings match record. What’s up with that? I wonder how the other surveyors irons work with record angles. Oh wait, you yanked them, no way to figure that out now.
See what a mess you make, yanking other people’s irons up?
-
My bet is that Kent’s bearings are oriented to NAD 83 while the record bearings are more than likely true north or some variation of previous deed calls for a parent tract.
-
Did you collaborate with the previous surveyor prior to pulling up his pins, just maybe he had some research that you missed and caused him to make a different call at the time.
Did the previous surveyor agree to having you pull up his pins?
I think that if the previous surveyor believed in his survey and wanted to defend it then you could be held liable for removing his survey marks.
Regardless of who was right or wrong about the survey, you basically have removed evidence that the other surveyor would need to rely upon to defend his calls in court.
Yep, it is a liability to tear out other surveyors work…
Cowboy Kent…the most prolific yanker in the west. (just a friendly jab, I know you are a very good surveyor.)
-
Quickie Dickie Surveys
Having seen the survey chaos that runs rampant in Texas first hand I can agree with Kent.
-
> Did you collaborate with the previous surveyor prior to pulling up his pins, just maybe he had some research that you missed and caused him to make a different call at the time.
>
> Did the previous surveyor agree to having you pull up his pins?
>
> I think that if the previous surveyor believed in his survey and wanted to defend it then you could be held liable for removing his survey marks.
>
> Regardless of who was right or wrong about the survey, you basically have removed evidence that the other surveyor would need to rely upon to defend his calls in court.
>
> Yep, it is a liability to tear out other surveyors work…
>
> Cowboy Kent…the most prolific yanker in the west. (just a friendly jab, I know you are a very good surveyor.)Yes, this is what I think is most egregious about this behavior. The topo survey was only 9 yrs old when KM took up the boundary. I don’t know how or why he wouldn’t have even tried to contact the surveyor to discuss the survey! This is the arrogant part…one needs to afford a peer (so-called perhaps) the respect & decency of a discussion at the least. If the guy’s dead or working in the middle east so be it, at least F’n try! That said, it does seem the other crew must not have had a ‘bug’ / schonstedt of working order…I’d have been really curious as to how they missed those irons –
-
If you remember section 16 of the Texas Civil Procedures and Remedies Code, it only takes 5 yrs on deeded land for the occupation line to become the legal boundary that cannot be challenged. The deed holder is the only party having authority to challenge before the time limit has run and I don’t see where you qualify as a deed holder or where you have discretion to ignore Texas law.
‘Monuments’ in place, whether relied on or not, define liability if they are a problem, and they must be in place for our legal system to protect the citizen.
The surveyor has no authority regarding land ownership, we merely recover and report our findings, including designating the legal boundaries established by unchallenged occupation and control by the deed holders. When we discover a material difference between the location of the legal boundary and it’s described location, we provide the means to correct the record so that the legal boundary is not questioned or moved.
Relevance or irrelevance of existing monumentation that may or may not apply is not a surveyor’s call, we don’t own the land.
Richard Schaut
Log in to reply.