Hopefully the image looks okay.
I'm about to go offline for a while to connect and set-up the new PC. But to keep the lively discussion of accepting or not accepting a monument going, here is a situation that a colleague just discussed with me a few days ago and actually showed me his survey plat with his decision on what to do yesterday.
The white line is the original boundary line. It is a very well defined line as it is painted and hacked along the line. The called for monuments were in place and were used by Surveyor B during a retracement survey. Surveyor B placed a new division line on paper, as shown by the yellow line and surveyor B set a monument that was not on the original (white) line. That monument would be at the lower left end of the red line (about the "a" in "and" as the red did not chow up well. Surveyor B did not mark the line in any other manner than the pins at the two end points.
Surveyor C is asked to mark the line between the two tracts. So he goes out and measures from the front to the back and finds the monument that B set is not where B indicated it was to be set.
In discussing with the affected owners, they have all seen the pin. The owner on the right (client) has used surveyor B before and is familiar with several questionable pins. The owner on the left has seen the pin, but suspected it was not right as it was not in the hacked and painted line as indicated on the plat by surveyor B.
I intentionally left distances out of the picture, but scale wise the lines are close.
Should surveyor C:
mark the line as pinned off by surveyor B
mark the line as platted off by surveyor B
neither?
To me - this is a no brainer as presented. Mark the platted line and set proper corner.
I would think twice however if Surveyor B's pin was in the original boundary but not at the proper distance from each end of the original line. Then there would be a lot of investigation into intent, etc.
In my corner of the world and in my opinion a surveyor's mistake does not create title - whether it be on the ground or on paper. Of course I do reconize that original GLO corners are an exception.
Finally, if B has a reputation of shoddy work then a complaint to the Board is also in order.
Like Dave said, not a problem here....stake the platted line. I would go so far as to pull the bogus pin, too...
> The white line is the original boundary line. It is a very well defined line as it is painted and hacked along the line. The called for monuments were in place and were used by Surveyor B during a retracement survey.
If B performed the retracement properly, finding the marked, monumented and accepted lines, why would he have placed a monument clearly "off" the unmistakable, very well defined line? Temporary blindness, or has his "pin" been moved for nefarious purposes?
>Surveyor B placed a new division line on paper, as shown by the yellow line and surveyor B set a monument that was not on the original (white) line. That monument would be at the lower left end of the red line (about the "a" in "and" as the red did not chow up well. Surveyor B did not mark the line in any other manner than the pins at the two end points.
Oh, the old "paper" survey trick. Which controls, the paper survey or the monuments set on the ground and relied upon by the landowners? A boundary is not created by drawing a line on a piece paper.
> Surveyor C is asked to mark the line between the two tracts.
If the landowners know where the "pins" are that B set, and presumably know where the very well defined outer boundary is, why are they now asking for a resurvey of B?
>So he goes out and measures from the front to the back and finds the monument that B set is not where B indicated it was to be set.
Ok, so we have gathered a small portion of the evidence, the measurements aren't adding up, which is not surprising, we have an ambiguity. Still need more evidence.
> In discussing with the affected owners, they have all seen the pin.
We have only interviewed 2 of the minimum 3 landowners. Why wasn't the north owner interviewed? We need to ask more than "Have you seen the pin?"
> The owner on the right (client) has used surveyor B before and is familiar with several questionable pins.
What other "questionable pins" are involved? Why is this relevent? We need the Paul Harvey version, i.e. "the rest of the story".
>The owner on the left has seen the pin, but suspected it was not right as it was not in the hacked and painted line as indicated on the plat by surveyor B.
Kinda sounds like there has been little or no reliance on B's "pins", but without further information from all 3 owners (and possibly surveyor B) concerning what happened during B's survey, and especially what has happened since B left the picture, We can't and shouldn't express any opinion, especially to any of the 3 landowners. So the answer would be "neither". We need more evidence. Lets keep digging.
I go along with Dave, Donald, and Brian.
Question: the "monument set by surveyor B"... how do we know He set it? And, if he did, how do we know it is not just a work point of some sort?
Yes, I have set quite a number of tagged iron monuments for traverse points and aerial targets, but never real near a lot line or corner. (I did that so I could easily recover, and tell that it was mine and not somebody's goat stake)
"I would go so far as to pull the bogus pin, too..."
You would of course show its location on your recorded map, correct?
Along with an explanation of why you removed it?
After discussing its location with ALL landowners that might be affected...?
> You would of course show its location on your recorded map, correct?
Why? If it is rejected, it had no bearing on the decision. First, why would you leave it there to cause confusion in the future? Second, why would you show it on a map, if it is just the proverbial "goat stake"?
Brian - sometimes a surveyor or his crew just plain old screw up. Bad back site, bad fore site, set on the wrong control point, just plain old sloppy work. But sometimes we have to face the fact that a screw up is a screw up - nothing more, nothing less.
> ...We need more evidence. Lets keep digging.
:good:
Mention of pulling pins always brings up objections.
What if surveyors used tags saying "Rejected by PLS1234" and pounded down the offending iron a little further?
"Why? If it is rejected, it had no bearing on the decision. First, why would you leave it there to cause confusion in the future? Second, why would you show it on a map, if it is just the proverbial "goat stake"?"
Because I don't have the authority to remove it. I would show its location because part of my duty to the public is to perpetuate evidence. Just because I don't know what it represents does not give me the right to destroy it.
> Just because I don't know what it represents does not give me the right to destroy it.
If I am going to reject it (or accept it for that matter) I better know what it represents.
If Surveyor B staked the line prior to the creation of the deeds creating the two new tracts, and if the seller showed the pins to the new buyers, then you have to hold his line, with the exception that you would extend/trim it to respect senior rights.
This gets back to the Jeff Lucas discussion about the protracted subdivision in California. The original stakes control the location of the boundary, not some protracted position on paper.
Now, on the other hand, if the division line was only created on paper, and the parties took title prior to anything put in the ground, and if the stakes set by Surveyor B are fairly recent, I would be inclined to disregard them because the buyers were not shown the extents of their title prior to purchasing the property.
"Because I don't have the authority to remove it. I would show its location because part of my duty to the public is to perpetuate evidence. Just because I don't know what it represents does not give me the right to destroy it."
:good:
I wholeheartedly agree. Sometimes a blunder is just a blunder. But, what happens when that blunder is relied upon by all the affected landowners for a long period of time? But first we have to find enough evidence to make the proper determination of whether it was a blunder or not. Measurements alone, are not enough evidence.
Why is it that the original government corner monuments are accepted religiously where they are, no matter how far out of position, but original private survey monuments that are a foot out of position are sometimes rejected?
Keith
[sarcasm]Because the gov't is never wrong, and the guy down the street can't measure for sour owl poop.[/sarcasm]
😉
Nope, I wouldn't, nobody is affected by it... It is meaningless
:good: :good:
Any chance it's a witness corner? Is there a rock or tree where the north-south line crosses the original marked line?