Because the former represent a cadastral framework that was established in many cases prior to any private land ownership and the nature of government corners in the PLSS is that they can have an effect on the locations of subsequent boundaries far beyond the locus of the actual marker; whereas the later are the usually the result of a private contract between two individuals and their validity is determined by the intent of that contract, the actions of the parties, and how the courts in each individual state have historically interpreted contracts of this nature.
Because the LAW says that original gov't monuments are good. The law does not say that about corners I set. That's why.
If my corners were always right why would I care about doing a good job with my work? All I would have to do is grab a pin & hammer and drive it in the ground any ole' place that was convenient.
> Because the LAW says that original gov't monuments are good. The law does not say that about corners I set. That's why.
>
> If my corners were always right why would I care about doing a good job with my work? All I would have to do is grab a pin & hammer and drive it in the ground any ole' place that was convenient.
What law says that original gov't monuments are good? The same laws and principles that say the controlling monuments you set are "good".
The reason they are "good" as are yours (or at least they should be) are the same.
The original gov't monument (assuming we are talking PLSS) are "good" because they were set by the landowner to mark a corner, represented as the corner by the landowner, and accepted and relied upon by the landowner. Who was the landowner? The federal gov't. Think about it.
Therefore, the purchaser (entryman) took possession and title (after the proper fees and requirements were met) under the original controlling corners, and the law says they are bound by them. The same rules apply in the private sector. What's interesting is that surveyors recognize that controlling gov't corners cannot be rejected by mere measurements (presumably with the understnading of why), yet many cannot seem to understand the same legal principles and laws apply to private property corners that were set to mark the corner, represented as the corner by the landowners, and accepted and relied upon by the landowners.
> If I am going to reject it (or accept it for that matter) I better know what it represents.
Why? If you know it does not represent the corner and it does not represent part of any valid boundary, then who cares what it represents? Ever have a crew locate a pair of pins 40 feet apart that have nothing to do with any record property lines?
Yeah, it was a horse shoe pit.;-)
Boundaries and Adjacent Properties – Skelton - 1930
Importance of Conflicting Elements – Artificial Monuments
[§ 152.] (4) Exceptions.
Where the control of an artificial monument over a course and distance would defeat the evident intention of the deed, an exception must be made, 96 and likewise where their adoption is so manifestly wrong as to lead to an absurd result, such as embracing land of a third party, the monuments yield to course and distance, and even quantity.97 Calls for natural or artificial monuments made by mistake or upon conjecture98 or for hidden monuments to which no reference is made in the deeds or plats are subordinate to course and distance.99
It is true, that, as a general rule, monuments, natural or artificial, referred to in a deed control, on its construction, rather than courses and distances; but this rule is not inflexible. It yields whenever, taking all the particulars of the deed together, it would be absurd to apply it. For instance, if the rejection of a call for a monument would reconcile other parts of the description, and leave enough to identify and render certain the land which the sheriff intended to convey, it would certainly be absurd to retain the false call, and thus defeat the conveyance.
The reason why monuments, as a general thing, in the determination of boundaries control courses and distances, is, that they are less liable to mistakes; but the rule ceases with the reason for it. If they are inconsistent with the calls for other monuments, and it is apparent from all the other particulars in the deed that they were inadvertently inserted, the reason for retaining them no longer exists, and they will be rejected as false and repugnant.
Clark on Surveying and Boundaries, Second Edition - 1939
§ 513. Monuments may yield to courses and distances.
It is laid down that “Courses and distances which enclose the particular land may prevail over monuments, where the latter would defeat the grant.” This is an extreme case and indicates that the court disregarded the general rule only because an adherence thereto would defeat the grant. 17
Neither. Call Surveyor B and let him know he screwed it up and let him fix it.
Otherwise, hold the ORIGINAL CORNER!
If both owners feel the the pinned line is in error and they wish to have the platted line marked, get a contract from both parties stating that, and mark the platted line. It's their property and if they wish to agree to the platted line as their boundary they have that right.
If not I would contact surveyor B and try to find out why the pins are located where they are.
A lot of times we "help" the known shoddy surveyor out by driving his pin deep into the ground, and then setting the correct one. That way he can at least come back and find it if he ever needs too.
> If both owners feel the the pinned line is in error and they wish to have the platted line marked, get a contract from both parties stating that, and mark the platted line. It's their property and if they wish to agree to the platted line as their boundary they have that right.
>
> If not I would contact surveyor B and try to find out why the pins are located where they are.
:good: :good: :good: :good: :good:
Sure is nice to see that SOMEBODY has the balls to call surveyor B, inform him of the findings, and let him fix it!! A retracing surveys has no authority to FIX anything!
JBS
> To me - this is a no brainer as presented.
There sure are a lot of different views on it though.
> Finally, if B has a reputation of shoddy work then a complaint to the Board is also in order.
I haven't followed this particular surveyor where I have had anything other than a legitimate difference of a boundary determination. But from third and fourth hand accounts it's pretty bad work. I believe this most recent instance is being reported by the licensee. For some reason, clients who have been screwed over have never reported anything as far as I am aware.
:good:
> > 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?
I am just the one that my colleague bounced ideas off of as to how to approach the situation, so I do not know why the pin is where it is. From other reports I have heard, it is not unusual for this surveyor to have pins well out of position on a regular basis. He may just be an advocate of the idea that a professional land surveyor does not need to know how to measure.
>
>
> >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.
No 'trick', both the survey ran on the ground and a piece of paper in the form of a plat or property description are required in Kentucky. So at least in Kentucky, I would agree that the boundary is what is ran on the ground.
>
>
> > 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?
One land owner asked for the division line to be marked. As indicated surveyor B only set the end points and did not mark the line. Below, I will write a narrative that includes some idea of the distances involved. The line to be marked was around 1000 feet through underbrush.
>
>
> >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?"
See the two bold sections of your quoted reply.
Without having personally been at the interview, I would not assume that my colleague simply asked "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".
I should have clarified - questionable pins = mistakes surveyor B made on other projects for the same property owner on properties he owns in other areas of the county.
It is relevant because the client is not surprised the pin is not where reported and knows to expect these problems when dealing with surveyor B. He has had surveyor C correct issues like this in the past.
>
>
> >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.
What exactly precludes surveyor C from expressing an opinion (fact) that the pin is not where it was reported? And seeing how the property owners want to approach the situation.
Good point Peter.
In this area, setting a capped pin as control is pretty unusual (not saying it could not be the case).
As I understand it, the pin in question was found by my colleague marked in a manner similar to all of the other property corners - heavily flagged with a tall guard stake beside of it.
And given that the location as reported on the plat did not have a pin in the general vicinity, it has the appearance of being the corner as set.
Most (not all) of the surveyors in this area are too cheap to waste a 25 cent plastic cap on a control point.
Tommy, this one should have been marked on the ground before the paperwork was released. As you know from the 2010 standards revision, it is pretty clear that the monuments have to be in the ground before releasing the plat.
> If both owners feel the the pinned line is in error and they wish to have the platted line marked, get a contract from both parties stating that, and mark the platted line. It's their property and if they wish to agree to the platted line as their boundary they have that right.
:good: :good: :good: :good: :good: :good: :good: :good: :good: :good: :good: :good: :good: :good: :good:
Why would surveyor B have any more authority to 'fix' the issue than the retracement surveyor C?
The authority to fix the matter comes from the property owners.
Here are some additional details.
The north line is an old timber company line. Which is why it is well maintained and marked. They even have some pretty nice mapping of their properties.
The new division line was around 1000' long and the pin found missed the old marked line by just under 200'.
My colleague called me to vent about the poor work product. He had intended to go out and find the pins and check into a few points to confirm them, mark the line really well, then provide a drawing showing what he found. Turned out to be a little more involved. To confirm what was going on, he essentially had to retrace the outer boundary of the original parcel.
When he was venting, he stated his intention to just follow the paperwork and set a new corner where the reported point was supposed to be. Here is the problem - at least in Kentucky, the line as ran on the ground is supposed to be THE line. Of course there are cases where that presumption is not true, but it is generally the case. Exactly as Tommy Young stated.
When I asked what the property owners thought about the existing pin, he indicated they had seen the pin before, but he did not have any particular details other than they had seen it. I suggested he might want to speak with the property owners and make sure that everyone was aware of what he had found and was on board with 'correcting' the pin before he just made that decision for them.
Fortunately, everyone was easy to work with. They all wanted the pin to be where it was reported on paper. So he 'fixed' the matter for them by running the line out as platted.
Follow-up Question
Given the further details of the north line being a timber company line and well marked combined with the fact that the pin in question being slightly less than 200' off of the line and
Assuming that one had to honor the erroneous pin because the property owners chose not to correct the location -
Would you consider the common line to be 'bent' from the timber companies well marked, surveyed, and platted line down to the erroneously set pin
or
Is there now an essentially land-locked triangular tract of land that would have remained in title to the owner of the parent tract?
> Good point Peter.
>
> In this area, setting a capped pin as control is pretty unusual (not saying it could not be the case).
>
> As I understand it, the pin in question was found by my colleague marked in a manner similar to all of the other property corners - heavily flagged with a tall guard stake beside of it.
>
> And given that the location as reported on the plat did not have a pin in the general vicinity, it has the appearance of being the corner as set.
>
> Most (not all) of the surveyors in this area are too cheap to waste a 25 cent plastic cap on a control point.
Thanks Jon.
that fits my (unstated) assumptions. (I am also guessing that this is not a super tiny lot and the sucker monument is several feet off of either the original lot line or the new division line created on the plat)
I would give Surveyor B a call and tell him I think he has a staking error. If he agrees or does not respond then just set new monuments on the platted line, file a record (showing the sucker monument), and call the job finished.
