> 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.
>
I can't see any difference between these two corners and the 1/16 corner set in 1971, except it doesn't seem to be located where you might expect it to be. Unless of course they are existing corners.
It sounds like you have a record of the 1/16 corner's pedigree; and it apparently has been accepted by adjoiners for some 42 years.
While it's location may smell of a blunder, I would probably accept it and note its proximity to the geometry found by your survey. There's simply no need at all to "correct" the previous survey because of an assumption of poor equipment or rough terrain.
The only criteria I could see that might put things in a different light would be to find a copy of the 1971 survey that plainly shows that the 1/16 corner was set proportionately and on a line between the 1/4 corner and the SE sec corner. That might be a game changer.
I wouldn't use either in the sense of filing a Record of Survey or flagging the line as long as there is an active dispute between the neighbors.
They have to resolve that either by agreement or Judgment first.
I would provide an Expert Report to my client stating my opinion of which solution is correct and the reasons why.
> 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.
Minimum standars have nothing to do with whether to accept or not.
You know what the correct answer probably is, so maybe you ought to be contacting the other surveyor and start comparing evidence and principles of law before turning a disagreement between surveyors into starting/escalating a landowner dispute.
What about the owner(s)to the west, SW/4 SE/4 Section 10 and NW/4 NE/4 Section 15
I would hold the pin set in 1971 as a good faith effort to establish the corner. Sure, it's off based on today's measurements. Big deal. I can show you dozens, if not hundreds, of section corners and quarter corners that are 10 times further from record that your example.
You have a property corner set in 1971. You also have an ideal solution based on today's technology. Let there be peace on Earth, let this be the moment now.
> QUESTION: Would you use the iron rod or would you put a new corner midway betweent the section corner and the quarter corner?
After reading all the posts, I have come to the conclusion that you are not seeking advice on what you should do. You already know that.
You are looking to see if anybody here would do what the neighbor surveyor did by setting a new pin.
Just because there are no fences or tree stumps up to the line means nothing if both owners knew the corner was there as stated in the other posts. It sounds to me like they both knew that was the corner but the south neighbor got a bad survey to change his opinion.
> There were no minimum standards in LA in 1971....
What you mean is that there where no written and codified minimum standards in LA at that time.
Sounds (reads) an awful lot like my question on accepting my 1/16 sec. cors. that may be off as much as you describe?
Hold the 1971 pin; land surveying is not about how accurate you can measure.
Keith
And back home now.
I would approach it from an established or not established viewpoint. Have the landowners used this bar to finish the establishment process or not. Any boundaries that have been accepted and relied upon the bar and become established rely on the bar. For any boundaries yet to be established by the landowners I don't think they can be forced to used the bar with an error in its location. I would neither rely upon or reject the bar based upon it being there and set by a surveyor. I'd look into the circumstances of the landowners treatment and knowledge of the bar. Since you have one landowner wanting to hold the bar and one not then you need to get all the facts and apply the law. Has the boundary line according to your states boundary law been established by the landowners based upon the the bar or not?
It sounds like the boundary has not been established from what is given in the post but there is just not enough information and all the facts here to go on plus I'm not familiar with your states law.
> Corners set, within the minimum standards of the era, are acceptable. With no minimum standards, then the field is wide open.
>
Not having read more than a few dozen court cases from WA, has this been stated by the courts or is it in the statutory law, if so, when was it first enacted?
I'm betting
I'm betting the current landowners weren't yet born or in diapers in 1971.
I'm betting
I think said the one to the north had the survey done in 1971 but maybe he did it from the womb? 😉
For the sake of argument..
let's rely on the Manual of Instructions (from an earlier version more appropriate to the 1971 survey) to attempt some resolution:
Bona Fide Rights of Claimants
6-18. Cases will arise where lands have been occupied in good faith, but whose boundaries as occupied disagree with the position of the legal subdivision called for in the description. Obviously the rule of good faith as to location cannot apply; relief must be sought through the process of amended entry under R.S. 2372, as amended (43 U.S.C. 697), to cover the legal subdivisions actually earned, rather than through an alteration of the position of established lines. This is a process of adjudication rather than one of resurvey. A case of this character should be regarded as erroneous location in precisely the same manner as if the question of resurvey were not involved.
(the bold is mine)
From what I glean, if the 1971 monument is to be disregarded, this is not a case of "properly" resurveying the SE 1/16 cor. The Manual uses the term Adjudication.
Proceed carefully.
Do you have a copy of Jerry Broadus's book: WASHINGTON STATE COMMON LAW of SURVEYS AND PROPERTY BOUNDARIES? Chapter VI covers this topic; I would quote some of his remarks but don't have a lot of time. If you are still interested, I'll try to find some time later...
This book came out in 2009 and I've used it A LOT since then. Lots of good information there....
Doug
For the sake of argument..
That seems to apply to a case where there is a conflict between the occupied land and the established or record boundaries. There is a transfer not in compliance with the Statute of Frauds therefore it has to be settled with a writing, either a Deed, Patent or Judgment.
In this case the more likely thing is an established boundary where no transfer has taken place in the eyes of the law therefore no writing or judgment is absolutely necessary although it would be good practice to do so if it can be achieved.
For the sake of argument..
The cited section 6-18 does not pertain to the problem and discussion in this thread.
The purpose of that section, is for those who have settled, in good faith on land, that is not described in their patent.
For instance, they have settled on the SE1/4 SE1/4 and their patent is for the SW1/4 SE 1/4 and when this is discovered, the case can be adjudicated by proper administrative people in the BLM and is NOT a survey/resurvey issue.
Secs. 6-12 through 6-17 would be proper guidelines for this problem. Also pay close attention to sec. 6-28. These are sections in the 1973 Manual.
Keith
I'm betting
OK. I see where Frank says the client to the north has relied on the bar since 1971.
But, is the owner to the south the same as in 1971?
The instant something is changed from the 1971 iron rod, more problems could arise.
For the sake of argument..
The landowners are already disputing the line. I am simply going to survey the location of the midpoint that another surveyor marked, and also survey the location of the 1971 rod. I will tell both sides that the use of the 1971 rod is what I propose, since it has been there so long and has not been challenged as far as I know. This is not a case of adverse possession, so there is no need to prove (or disprove) a line of possession. If they agree, then the rod will probably serve as the boundary from now on. If they wish to fight, they can go to court, and when called, I will simply state what I believe, and the court will decide.
My belief is that corner misplacement off the true line is probably about as accurate as many or most others in this rural section, and moving an old survey corner could cause a chain reaction. It is matter of judgment as to the threshold where something reaches gross error. In this case, because its theoretical mis-position is probably close to others in the section, I can't classify it as gross error. If a judge moves the corner to the theoretical corner he will have set a precedent that will de-stabilize boundaries everywhere in the state unless he uses gross error as the basis for using the theoretical midpoint.
Taking it a step further, if someone comes along and spends a fortune and proves that the quarter corner that has been used by others for a long time is not right, and he proves that the true GLO quarter corner is 10 feet south, I would still not suggest moving old rods that were thought to be on the section line.
One survey that sticks in my mind is one that I did not long after I got registered, back around 1980. I set the center of a section using BLM technique, and I set a rod for POB of a tract tied to the center of the section. It varied from an old point set by a reputable surveyor by 9.6 feet. I never heard of any problem my new corner caused with other surveyors in the area. About 10 years later I was asked to survey an adjacent tract. I looked at the mess I made, and decided that I should use the center of section by the earlier surveyor and I did not use my corner that I had set 10 years earlier. To use my corner would have caused a huge mess.
In my opinion, stability of title is important.
I'm betting
HC,
They are both about 85. 🙂
