But that's just the thing, I am not bending any lines.
I am simply recognizing the imperfect reality that already exists.
WA-ID
> If the rebars were not set as part of the original conveyance, thus losing all connection to what was actually sold on the ground between the grantor and grantee then the surveyor that set the pins has set them in error.
>
Please post a court case or statute (Washington, Idaho, or any other state) that has held that monuments set after the conveyance cannot control the location of the boundary after acceptance and reliance by the landowners and the "error" of the surveyor must be corrected. Also, please define the amount of measurement that defines an error that must be corrected.
WA-ID
If the rebars were not set as part of the original conveyance, thus losing all connection to what was actually sold on the ground between the grantor and grantee then the surveyor that set the pins has set them in error. I am not going to put an angle point in the section line just because someone can't set a pin online between a section corner and 1/16 corner.
Brian,...I too read this and shook my head and wondered Say What?
I would be interested in knowing where that came from?
Keith
WA-ID
In other words, the distances and bearings stated in the deed are KING and no amount of error is acceptable. Well maybe 0.04'
I'm not sure where these ficticious rules came from, but my best guess is Robillard, Brown, and Wilson, etc.
WA-ID
No survey is valid unless done at the time of sale of the property?
Ya right!
WA-ID
Where do you begin? I don't know. there is no use repeating what's already been posted. Not tht it matters but as far as this particular survey goes I made the judgement that the survey goes with the deed. The deed looks like a surveyor wrote it because of the way the fractional section is mentioned. Also the corner record (reference) for the sixteenth 400 ft away was created the same time as the deed. (rerod and stone set in 1907) I'm also of the opinion that the fences preceed the rerod. It would be impossible to set the back corner posts without disturbing the re rod and yet the deed distances between the rerod are dead on. Just so you know the section line is along a 66 ft road so there is no fence on the north line of the box. The fences start at the ROW. There are rerod on the ROW line as well. This work was done by a surveyor. I don't know who or exactly when but it's the orignal survey in my judgement.
So You Are Saying Linebender
That this original accurate surveyor could not prolong a straight line down an open right of way?
Would you say he is "balls on" the prescriptive centerline of the road?
Paul in PA
So You Are Saying Linebender
Here we go getting hung up on measurements again. The road was established on section line 66 ft wide. You can't tell for half a foot where the middle of the road is. I can hear it now. If the road was established on section line it has to be straight.
A picture of PLSSia as it really exists
A picture of PLSSia as it really exists
Looks to me like all those section lines are straight! 😛
> ...I am not going to put an angle point in the section line just because someone can't set a pin online between a section corner and 1/16 corner.
>
The 1/16th corner?! Isn't the 1/16th corner subordinate to the original section and 1/4-section corners? It sounds to me as though you should only locate the original corners and go the called-for math on that line.....And of course you are taking the latitudinal curve into account as well I hope. I mean if you are calling bs on marks within a few tenths, then you better take other factors into account.
This is a problem that went on for years around here. Everyone always set their pins where the deed called for them to be. As a rod-man, I was asked to knock another rebar over once so we could get our pin in the right place. This problem has caused havoc for years since then. We have multiple 1/16th corners in the middle of streets, multiple property corners. Even multiple section & 1/4 section corners where the originals are lost, and everyone has their own opinion of where it should be.
I think you are causing havoc when you start doing this kind of "mines-better-than-yours" scenario.
I agree with being cautious, and not accepting every mark you trip over, but there is some judgment and legal understanding you have to apply as well.
A picture of PLSSia as it really exists
They aren't straight they are based on the ORIGNAL surveys. What did they do when they abutted an existing homesteaded ownership or Indian land? They monumented up to the line, not over it.
WA-ID
Using your logic as long as a surveyor set pins based on the intent of a deed no matter whose property lines they cross and no matter how bad their measurement skills are the pins are in the correct spot and adjacent owners gain or lose land because of this? How far is too far? What if he set the rebar 50’ north of the actual section line?
I’m not saying my way is the 100% correct as the OP obviously has much more background on this so I am not stating with 100% accuracy that I wouldn't accept the pins. With that said, I did a quick search of the 200 surveys I recently printed out for project I am working on and out of the first 50 I checked there were at least 5 instances of monuments being over or under the section line that were NOT held.
Being a relatively new poster on these forums I do appreciate everyone's feedback and knowledge sharing.
A picture of PLSSia as it really exists
> ... What did they do when they abutted an existing homesteaded ownership or Indian land? They monumented up to the line, not over it.
Well....yeah...they monumented up to the line within reason and hopefully within tolerance.
In that aerial, you can't see the 1/16th and the property corners that are 1' off line because of the scale of the picture. But I assure you they're there. You got yourself a lot of pullin' and resettin' to do.
WA-ID
> No survey is valid unless done at the time of sale of the property?
>
> Ya right!
I never stated that, so please don't put words (or text in this case) in my mouth. You're completely missing my point. Property has been sold by deeds only around here for decades without any surveys. Typically we get involved much later than the actual conveyance of property and we are tasked with documenting a deed(usually prepared either by the owner themselves, a title company or lawyer) that has never been surveyed. At that point in time the intent between the original grantor and the current owner of the proeprty is gone and we're left with a piece of paper. Meaning there was no original survey of this parcel.
WA-ID
> ...I did a quick search of the 200 surveys I recently printed out for project I am working on and out of the first 50 I checked there were at least 5 instances of monuments being over or under the section line that were NOT held.
>
Just out of my idle curiosity, what area are you working in?
Accept or reject?>Keith
over> If you know there's a question on a line and a potential for dispute would you deliberately run tight to the line or play it safe?
>
>
> We all know that there are differing standards for different properties, some places 1.5' would be nothing, other places it could be critical...
You mean like the time I was working on a building layout in Boston (0' setback) and found a proposed AC unit extended 4" over the PL.
WA-ID
> Property has been sold by deeds only around here for decades without any surveys. Typically we get involved much later than the actual conveyance of property and we are tasked with documenting a deed(usually prepared either by the owner themselves, a title company or lawyer) that has never been surveyed. At that point in time the intent between the original grantor and the current owner of the proeprty is gone and we're left with a piece of paper. Meaning there was no original survey of this parcel.
You are not alone in this, however, there is more evidence of intent than just the numbers in the deeds. What you have described is by far more the norm here than the ideal situation of having descriptins based on surveys performed by licensed surveyors and filed in the official records.
WA-ID
I can't tell what the problem is that you are attempting to explain and how it is different from any problem that a surveyor comes across when requested to identify the boundaries for a landowner.
Usually there are signs of occupation, plow lines, houses built, fences put up, etc. etc that will help in establishing the boundaries, along with that piece of paper that the deed is written on.
And of course if that piece of paper describes an aliquot part of the PLSS section, then a subdivision of section is required and the judgement is: first time that requires the Manual Chapter 3 procedures or is a resurvey that requires other chapters procedures.
And usually an existing monument is not rejected solely for measurement purposes.
Unless the piece of paper is the only evidence that is used? And we know that happens.
Keith
WA-ID
I’m not saying my way is the 100% correct as the OP obviously has much more background on this so I am not stating with 100% accuracy that I wouldn't accept the pins. With that said, I did a quick search of the 200 surveys I recently printed out for project I am working on and out of the first 50 I checked there were at least 5 instances of monuments being over or under the section line that were NOT held.
It should be obvious that every existing monument is not accepted every time and if you were to look at those 5 instances and see the rationale for rejecting the monument; it may make sense.
But if you are saying the monuments were rejected purely for measurement reasons; then there are problems there that you are not mentioning.......like gaps and overlaps that were created when existing boundary markers were rejected.
And of course landowners who shake their head at surveyors who can't agree on finger length measurements.
Keith
