-
What to do with calls for off line monuments along a senior line?
-
I hope the surveyor feels obligated to solve the common boundary between the client and the adjoiners. The OP seems to have this feeling thus the question. The notation of off line monuments show that the surveyor knew of their existence and that their opinion is they aren’t on the boundary. It also shows the surveyor did not address the conflict missing an opportunity to add value to the outcome.
-
This reply was modified 2 weeks ago by Norm.
-
This reply was modified 2 weeks ago by
-
“I hope the surveyor feels obligated to solve the common boundary between the client and the adjoiners.”
I agree. If you take protecting the public seriously, before concluding your survey you should ask yourself if you’ve generally made things better or worse for all the parties involved. I view clouding numerous titles as the latter, even if technically defensible.
-
The surveyor can identify issues with title, in many cases it’s possible to clean up those issues with the survey. However, ultimately boundaries are the purview of the landowners.
If it can’t be cleaned up by the surveyor the landowners need to participate in that effort, if they refuse the surveyor can’t force it to be accomplished.
However, by explaining how title problems can damage the value of the property often will push the landowners along to a solution.
-
For those who think that this surveyor should have done something other than what he did – can you show us an example of what you are thinking of?
-
For those who think that this surveyor should have done something other than what he did – can you show us an example of what you are thinking of?
Well, I wouldn’t show the pipes on the line like he did; I might do details. Obviously CAD makes that easier to do and that survey looks older so maybe it wasn’t really possible for him. I’d also write a narrative where I explicitly say I’m not accepting the pipes. There’s a chance the pipes are simply so far off the line that I wouldn’t show them at all, but that would depend on what my research turned up and what a basic topo of the area showed as far as occupation.
-
In argument of no particular position, I give this example and how this practice can play out:
Image 1 is a portion of a retracement survey of a group of very old contiguous parcels. The line shown here was in total 3,500′ long, and had four adjoining parcels in common. This surveyor held that line from end-to-end, (more specifically from a found old stone, to a found 1/2″ iron rod), calling out the offsets of every other monument along the way. The newly described contiguous parcel was conveyed using this survey as description. (note that the text ‘West od line’ I believe is just a typo, should say ‘West of line’)
Image 2 is a portion of a later retracement one of those adjoining parcels. The description of this parcel called for gun barrel’s as its corners, which from record had been present for at least 80 years. The barrels were found to fit record, between themselves and the other corners, had many wraps of old flagging, and occupation showed multiple installations of fencing, ancient to modern, in harmony with the monuments.
I don’t know that the larger parcel retracement was incorrect, I believe that his holding of the senior line was ‘technically’ the ‘correct’ resolution. However, I also don’t disagree with the adjoiner resurvey. (notwithstanding the fact, if it wasn’t obvious, it’s my work). In my retracement, the 70+ year old land owner led me to the gun barrels, told me how his grandfather showed them to him as a boy, how he and his neighbors always knew of them and honored them.
Would anybody seriously discard those barrels? Declare them wrong and set a shiny new rebar some 12.5 feet away, even if it was to my owners benefit? I certainly wouldn’t do it. However, I felt my survey had to reflect what the record showed, that from the adjoining parcels deed description, there now existed an area with ‘no claim’ and an area of conflict. I recognize those are legal fictions, but if a purpose of a survey is to reconcile the record with the evidence, I feel no authority to brush this patent discrepancy aside.
My client, being made aware of it, shrugged his shoulders, put his map in the file cabinet and said “Well, we’ve always just known those shotgun barrels are the corners”. Regrettably, the (new) owner of the large parcel is likely unaware of this ‘issue’ (and the many more around it, on this line and others), because their surveyor chose to just draw the line, labels the offset monuments, and move on.
Roast me, roast him, or both, what would you have done?
-
This reply was modified 2 weeks ago by tfdoubleyou.
-
This reply was modified 2 weeks ago by
-
Roast me, roast him, or both, what would you have done?
I go monument to monument (measured) on almost all of my surveys, so that’s probably what I would have done here and then shown the record span of the 3500′ line.
-
The gun barrels have been there for 80 years, occupied to by the fencing and never disputed? They have become the corners. I don’t see how this is even a question.
-
Well if an owner showed me a gun barrel I might be more inclined to hold his corners. But seriously this testimony is golden and there should be no question of location. It troubles me that so many believe that because the record indicates a line with no bends that somehow monuments that appear to be off line are not on it in a legal sense. Of course every intermediate monument must pass the legal test based on the facts of the situation but if it passes the test the original line passes through it. The areas of gap or conflict exist only in the mind of the surveyor. Good example here, No roasting intended. Just a discussion.
-
Speaking of gun barrels, When we used to run straight record lines there was a bend in the line of some sort every time the gun barrel was flopped. I’d hate to think how many monuments we set off line. Or did we?
-
The areas of gap or conflict exist only in the mind of the surveyor.
I don’t know about that. I think if the line was meant to have bends in it then it would have been drawn that way in the first place. But at the end of the day keeping the peace in the neighborhood is what ends up mattering the most.
-
I treat them as closing corners…until it’s time for them to not be closing corners
-
I think if the line was meant to have bends in it then it would have been drawn that way in the first place.
The adjoining properties will have monuments set at their corners which are on the “straight line” of the senior property. They will have error in them and they will be offline. There will be no longer a straight line for the senior property. It is only a matter of how much of an angle point will be established by the monumenting of the adjoiners. Whether it be 0.02′ or more. The straight line passes through the monuments and is straight in theory only. In this case after 80 years this straight line now has angle points that are 12′ and 4′ larger than how the line was defined on paper.
Every present day subdivision in a typical city block that shows the rear line being straight between the adjoiners is in the same situation. The adjoiners pins at their rear corners are the actual corners not some theoretical straight line from one end of the block to the other.
-
at the end of the day keeping the peace in the neighborhood is what ends up mattering the most.
Agreed. Any way to avoid areas of question left behind. Finish with the owners at peace with a straight line or a bent line if possible. If not possible finish with a boundary exhibit instead of a finished survey.
-
The straight line passes through the monuments and is straight in theory only.
Ha! Then why even have maps at all?
I don’t disagree with the general idea of what you’re saying, but I think at some point you have to decide that the maps we make actually matter.
-
I feel that the adjoining out parcel corners that are over the longer line monument there respective side lines but in no way define the larger tract line or their true rear line. I get the feeling that back title to the adjoining out parcels is harmonious with the existing larger tract. Therefore, you can’t convey what you don’t own. Just my two cents after a bourbon.
-
Agreed!
-
After 80 years of monumentation and occupation you don’t think they own it?
-
Since when were we licensed to determine ownership?
-
Since when did I say we were?
Log in to reply.