The discussion below has always intrigued me.
As a surveyor, the first thing I do on a survey of lots made in simultaneous transactions, is to look for the "original" monuments. In older days(before the 1960's in this area), monuments were often placed every ten(or so) lots, or maybe at right-of-way intersections. Sometimes the lots were protracted on the kitchen table by the land-owner with the only monuments being the ends of adjacent subdivisions.
Sometimes, monuments are found where no monuments are indicated.
As a surveyor, I'm always concerned with those "less than", original monuments which are themselves often very old. When I say very old, I mean very much used/accepted as corners.
I often ask property owners about these monuments to see if the property owners have their own feelings about these "old" monuments. Sometimes the information I get is very interesting.
Nonetheless, my interest is to find out if property owners have claims to the particular monuments as corners.
Sometimes I find out that they don't although they usually do.
Now in the case of a 100 year old subdivision where, what I perceive as being original monuments are found, I always have to determine how to pro-rate from one "original" monument to another. I always(at least initially), do a simple pro-ration to see how things fit. Virtually every time I do this, very old, but seemingly less than original monuments . . . just don't fit the pro-ration data.
Maybe this is a little like the case below.
Any takes on when, or even if previously non-prorated very old but non-original monuments ever effect the pro-ration of lots outside the confines of the more truly "original" monuments?
Having worked in many different states and even in various different environments in the same state, I would comment that your area has had surveys done by surveyors who did not always do the most expensive surveys whereby they had the budget to do every survey correctly. Another way to say this would be that some surveyors in your area did “cheap surveys” or “jack leg surveys” or “cut the corner surveys”. Some of my early experience was gained working for those types of surveyors. Based on that experience, I would have to say that you can’t always hold to the idea that the original monuments are the best ones to control your current survey. If each surveyor in your area had done an accurate and proper survey, everything would fit together and you could proceed as you have indicated (although you have found it does not work very well).
So after a bunch of those surveys mentioned above have been done in an area, you just have to go with what is already out there. Even knowing the survey monuments don’t really “fit together” as they should, you have to hold what is there to maintain the rights that have been established by the owners over the years they have been relying on the survey monuments that were placed there. I finally took the attitude of applying the “Best Fit” to make things work of it. That attitude does not usually use the pro-ration concept. Most of the time I don’t even consider the pro-ration idea because the “Best Fit” solution just makes sense first. Common sense.
Now when there is really a problem owner who has to push the envelope and has enough money to go to court, where am I going to stand? I maintain that my “Best Fit” solution will win almost every time. When all the past surveys and monuments come into play for the judge to make the decision, common sense will prevail. I wish it was not that way. I wish each past survey was done by the book. But it wasn’t. So we have to start from where we are today and not from some other point in history. Each survey that was done has to be given validity up to some level. Surveyors can’t move people’s property lines around because a past surveyor did a “cheap survey”. The large parcel can’t hold the straight line against the adjoiner who has four subdivisions which are monumented along that same line. So my take on when or if the pro-ration of lots should be spread between the “most original” monuments is: no it should not.
I am not sure about 'common sense' considering all of the
liberals wild opinions. Suppose we have a block one thousand feet
long and ten 100-foot lots. Proration is a principle based on
fairness.
So we conduct a political fairness poll about the ten owners to prorate
the extra one foot in the 1000-foot block. We find the original
blocks corner's original monuments. We go door to door with our polling
pad and ask 1) are you black or have any black relatives, 2) have you
ever aborted a baby, 3) do you make over $250K a year, 4) do you belong
to a union, 5) are you progressive, and 6) have you hugged a tree lately?
Then you enter the data into your politically correct computer program
to figure the correct proration of the one foot excess. It is all
common sense and politically correct.
When I retire, I will go to India and wash water buffaloes like millions
of other people there. It's the common sense thing to do.
"When I retire, I will go to India and wash water buffaloes like millions
of other people there. It's the common sense thing to do."
I don't think you should wait. You've got too many soul issues going on right now.
Clyde
I don't care who you are, that's funny. 😀
> I don't care who you are, that's funny. 😀
That might be because of the subtle line in Oklahoma between funny and ignorant.
Kit
Wow.
Was that serious?
Sucks to be a loser, eh?
Don
cute, but better hide...the perpetually angry crowd's gettin out pitchforks
No kidding.
Luke had an excellent response and analysis then it went to hell after that?
Everyone say bye-bye to the nice man.
Good post Luke, but I think this is a case where the law and common sense are actually in harmony.
First, I've noticed that most of the previous survey work that people call sub-standard is actually in compliance with the standards of the time. National standards only called for 1:200 in rural areas in the 1960's 70's. Urban environments were maybe 1:2000. PLSS had similarly low expectations of measurement. In addition, many of those performing the work were field hands who eventually became in charge of work. They probably started as part of a large support party for some governmental job where there was one or two highly educated and trained people in charge. When these projects ended the crews dispersed and began offering services in their local regions using the little knowledge they had gained on the crew. Many of them probably could not have measured to 1:30,000 with the tools available even if asked to do so. Not a big deal because speed and cost was more important than precision. It had already been accepted (for more than 100 years) that a monument placed was the controlling factor indicating the intention and represented the area to be conveyed. So, surveyors performed exactly as expected and were doing the job as required by society.
Pro-ration is based on interpretation of intention. If one makes a map showing a bunch of 50 foot lots, then it's a rebuttable presumption that they intended to convey a bunch of equal size lots. However, further actions can destroy that presumption. If a lot is monumented and sold, then it would be hard to argue the grantor intended to convey some other configuration. Any prorations have to take place outside of, and recognizing established conveyances. To do otherwise goes against the expressed intentions of the parties and relies on what they might have been thinking. This would be in direct conflict with the law of contracts, which directs us to interpret intent objectively rather than subjectively.
Wendell, What Exactly Happened Here?
I did not turn on my computer yesterday, so I am late to the parade. Are all replies present and accounted for or is something missing? It is hard to follow how the original thread went off.
Paul in PA
The thing that intrigues me the most is if the age of a found monument is important.
I think it's pretty much agreed that in an 1918 subdivision, pins placed in 1938-1942 or so will likely hold position and will have to be dealt with(not ignored). In my mind age really matters . . . especially if the monument appears to have been accepted by adjacent owners.
But, what about a more "modern" survey of 1985 or pray-tell 2008, that applied record dimensions to a lot in favor of pro-ration and to top it off . . . measured from the "other", direction?
Could it be that any pins set by a licensed surveyor, in his/her time guarantees rights to that surveyor's client as long as the survey is performed prior to the surveyor who now/finally recognizes the use of pro-ration?
Good post Duane, I agree with most of what you said.
Once again a boundary discussion and the principles thereof has devolved to include the arbitrary "surveyor standards" and expectations of precision. This is where most surveyors lose understanding the basic principle that what was actually done on the ground and accepted by the landowners is what controls over mere measurements. I've yet to read a case where the court decided the location of a boundary based on some arbitrary closure expressed in some nebuluous "surveyor standard".
One would think that nearly every boundary case is decided on the surveyors ability to measure and place the "record" on the ground based on how often these things enter nearly every discussion of boundary location. Go figure.
I understand the concept of simultaneously created lots, and apply the concept of proration myself and use a least squares program to find the best fit, blah, blah, blah.
But lately I’ve started to question the reality of the concept of simultaneously created lots. A survey plan DOES NOT create a lot, only a DEED describing the lot can actually create it. A plan does not convey land, only a deed can do this.
So, unless every lot in a subdivision has a corresponding deed that is recorded in the registry at exactly the same time, there can be no such animal as simultaneously created lots…….right?
This would mean each lot would have to be put in sequential order and not prorated……or am I suffering from a food hangover….
