Tract is SE quarter of SE quarter of Section 10, a rectangular section originally surveyed by GLO. Tract is rural. There are about 20 landowners in the section. Owner wanted south boundary of SE of SE surveyed, which is theoretically on the section line.
Found provable corners at the south quarter corner and the southeast corner of section. These corners are accepted by everyone and have been for many years.
Found iron rod set by a PLS in 1971 at the southwest corner of the 40 I am surveying. (SW cor of SE of SE). The corner has a metal tag on it that bears the name of the 1971 surveyor, who is now deceased. No line of possession is visible anywhere. The 1971 corner is 5.8 feet south and 7 feet west of the midpoint of a straight line between the quarter corner and the section corner. No other surveyed corner monuments were found at this location.
Neighbor to south does not want to use the corner since it is south of the theoretical section line. Neighbor to north wants to use it. Both deeds came out of different chains of title. No senior rights.
There is no physical evidence along the line other than the quarter corner, the section corner and the iron rod set in 1971.
QUESTION: Would you use the iron rod or would you put a new corner midway betweent the section corner and the quarter corner?
First Thing I'd Want To Know
The first thing I would want to know is why that bar was set in 1971. It must be just one part of a full survey that was conducted for some connected parcel in one of the two adjoining sections. Find that survey and any other monuments set at that time to tell you what you have gotten yourself into. Despite 1971 being my year of high school graduation, I am forced to recognize that is nearly a half-century ago. The local surveyor was most likely operating with a 100-foot steel tape and chaining pins. His instrument may have been a level commonly used for construction purposes with a less than ideal method of determining the angle rotated. Or it might have been a 90 year-old theodolite that had been dropped a time or two but still "looked" fine. Is this section line down the center of a nice county road or does it merely run off cross country over hill and dale, across ponds and briar patches? Are you absolutely positive your starting points agree with what the 1971 surveyor may have used. I can well recall the days of chaining down an offset line, then returning to the line by using the old 3-4-5 method to form a right angle with the steel tape.
I'm waiting for all the young bucks to jump in with a simple suggestion to ignore the bar found and nail the corner down within a termite's pecker of precision.
Do you have a map or notes from the 1971 surveyor?
More Info Required
You say the section has 20 owners, yet the area you are surveying is undeveloped and has 2 owners. You say you are in Section 10 and have an alledged capped iron on line? You say you have an owner or neighbors North and South of this line.
Who exactly are you working for?
Would not the owner South of the line be in Section 15?
I believe a sketch is required before you ask for any outside input.
What have you located on the North line of your 40?
What have you located elsewhere on the North and South 40s?
Also there are 2 other 40s that could also be tied to that iron, the Sect 10 SW 1/4 SE 1/4 and the Sect 15 NW 1/4 NE 14.
In my opinion you have 320 acres to actually survey.
Paul in non PLSS PA
More Info Required
Thanks for the input. The 1971 survey was a survey of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of the section. It was done shortly after the landowner bought the SE of the SE, and it was not attached to his deed.
Paul, I don't necessarily agree that I would have to survey 320 acres to survey the south line of the 40. If it were an original survey of the section I would have to do it, but it isn't. I am pretty sure that if I did survey 320 and mapped all the points I would find that the majority of them are off by about as much as the one I reference in this post.
I am working for the guy in Section 10. I am doing nothing but trying to establish his south property line. I am positive that I have found the same exact two corners that were used in the 1971 survey--the se cor of section and the iron rod at the approximate mid point between the quarter corner and section corner.
Jeff,
Yes I do. I have the 1971 certificate of survey of the 40. There is absolutely no question that the iron rod out of place was his original rod set in 1971. He used the same section corner and the same quarter corner. He simply got the mid point between the quarter corner and the section corner in the wrong place theoretically. The terrain is pretty rough in the area, with a big creek meandering all through it.
First Thing I'd Want To Know
HC,
There is no road nearby. The line is a simple woods line. There is not timber line visible and there is absolutely no evidence of the the line--no blazes, no fence--nothing but the three corners in the ground that I referenced. Deep woods of Louisiana.
More Info Required
"I am pretty sure that if I did survey 320 and mapped all the points I would find that the majority of them are off by about as much as the one I reference in this post."
"Jeff,
Yes I do. I have the 1971 certificate of survey of the 40. There is absolutely no question that the iron rod out of place was his original rod set in 1971. He used the same section corner and the same quarter corner. He simply got the mid point between the quarter corner and the section corner in the wrong place theoretically. The terrain is pretty rough in the area, with a big creek meandering all through it."
HMMM?
You already knew this pin was set as the corner of the tract you are surveying, yet you formed your original question as if you did not know that.
I would say you were being dishonest to get support for a possibly wrong opinion.
Sorry I got involved at all.
Paul in PA
More Info Required
Paul, sorry I guess I did a poor job describing it. I tried to say that I found the 1971 corner surveyed at the sw corner of the SE of the SE, which is the corner I am referring to as the old corner that doesn't line up between the quarter corner and the section corner. I wasn't trying to be dishonest or misleading.
There no way I'd be dishonest about something to try to get a consensus on my opinion off of a website.
More Info Required
I apologize, that language was too strong.
Explain who wants to accept the pin, your client and/or an adjoiner to the North.
Explain what the adjoiner to the South may have done to acquiese to the pin.
In 1971 I did some stadia traverse with a transit for a greater distance with better accuracy, as shown by a retraverse after line clearing. Give a general location to get a better idea of the terrain.
Paul in PA
To paraphrase, I think the question is whether to accept or replace an iron that was inaccurately placed in good faith over 40 years ago, when there has been no reliance on it.
I didn't see anything else relevant in the tale.
There is a school of thought that says reliance is what makes an iron a monument.
Do you have accessories (bearing trees) that you can check at the 1/16 cor? How does his measurement of the 1/2 mile agree with yours?
Bill,
That is exactly how I feel about it as well. Setting a new point on true position might possibly even be considered pincushion.
I am not of this opinion because it favors my client.
One thing that I like to consider is sort of a "Theory of Continuity." If it was out of place 0.01 feet would I use it. Sure. What about 0.1 feet, sure. What about a foot, yes. What about 1.5 feet, yes, etc. When does it get too far to be acceptable? Where is the break in continuum?
There were no minimum standards in LA in 1971. My client insists that he has used that corner since 1971, and the person to the south really doesn't even know where the line is. And the person to the south has never proposed anything different than the 1971 corner until recently surveyed by another surveyor who set a new rod at the midpoint and called it the property corner.
>My client insists that he has used that corner since 1971
I missed that. Does he have anything to show this, like stumps cut up to the line?
If it makes you feel any better about it, I'm accepting some BLM 1/16's set as prorates in the 1970's that are almost as far "off" as you describe. And these are in open country.
If you accept the monument I would stop thinking of it as in error. And I wouldn't mention it to my client or the neighbor that it is "off" (after all every monument like this that you find will be "off" by some amount)and get into a discussion about the math with them. Finding out the history and such is important and it sounds like you have done that.
They will see on your plat the ties to controlling corners and if they wish to challenge it, then I would discuss my reasons for accepting it. I would lean towards accepting it, it's in deep woods, it's never been challenged, it's been relied on. And frankly, I imagine that if you file a drawing with your reasons for accepting the monument (even quote the BLM manual) no other surveyor will have a problem.
Your client can testify that he harvested tImber up to the straight line between the section corner and the 1971 east 1/16th corner?
How many times?
It may be a problem that the south adjoiner didn't know where the Line is located, didn't positively acquiesce.
The fact that the monument has been in use since 1971 shows plenty of good faith uncertainty and no objection from the neighbor could infer an agreement depending on how your State's Court opinions see this.
Obviously the best thing that could happen is the neighbor's either agree to a solution or your expert report persuades the other side to agree to the previously monumented line. I was actually able to do that recently.
My client insists that he has used that corner since 1971, and the person to the south really doesn't even know where the line is. And the person to the south has never proposed anything different than the 1971 corner until recently surveyed by another surveyor who set a new rod at the midpoint and called it the property corner.
I have the 1971 certificate of survey of the 40. There is absolutely no question that the iron rod out of place was his original rod set in 1971
The original rod tips the scale to my thinking. I am not a big fan of the incorrect location theory. At any time since 1971 your client could have defended their line by pointing to the corner and the survey. The recent survey created a conflict but didn't change the right of your client to depend on the 1971 corner.
Corners set, by the original subdivider, always hold. The difference between what you measure and what is of record should be noted, but should not sway your judgement.
Having said that; if somebody does something wrong and you accept what they did, you are just as wrong as they are.
> There were no minimum standards in LA in 1971. My client insists that he has used that corner since 1971, and the person to the south really doesn't even know where the line is. And the person to the south has never proposed anything different than the 1971 corner until recently surveyed by another surveyor who set a new rod at the midpoint and called it the property corner.
Corners set, within the minimum standards of the era, are acceptable. With no minimum standards, then the field is wide open.
> QUESTION: Would you use the iron rod or would you put a new corner midway betweent the section corner and the quarter corner?
In your original post, you didn't mention another surveyor setting a new corner at the mid point. I smell a lawsuit brewing.....
>... There is no physical evidence along the line other than the quarter corner, the section corner and the iron rod set in 1971....
>..... my client insists that he has used the corner since 1971 .....
In other words, he has known about it, but not actually done anything in reliance on it.
>QUESTION: Would you use the iron rod or would you put a new corner midway betweent the section corner and the quarter corner?
I would not hold the iron rod.
In order to be a point of local control, in the sense intended by the Manual, it has to be placed "by proper methods and without gross error" (section 6-48, 2009 Manual). An error of over 6 feet is, in my mind, a gross error which disqualifies it. If we where talking about 0.6' that might be different.
In order to qualify as an adverse possession or agreed boundary the adjoiner would have had to actually done something in reliance on it. There doesn't seem to have been any physical thing done, which pretty much disqualifies AP. There may have been some conversation with neighbors about it over the years, which, if proven to have occurred, may be enough to support a claim of agreed boundary. But that is going to be very difficult to prove at this point.
Disregard the found iron.
More Info Required
"I don't necessarily agree that I would have to survey 320 acres to survey the south line of the 40"
In Florida we would be required to survey the whole section.:-/