Okay....I guess. But I have seen a lot of deeds that didn't call to monuments. And I have seen deeds that call to monuments that are no longer there. In fact, when a monument is called to, I think I, more often than not, find something other than the called-to monument.
Those deeds have bearing and distance calls. they are part of the evidence, and part of the four corners of the deed. If you read my complete post, I didn't imply that you hold bearings and distances paramount over any other calls or field evidence. In fact I am clearly stating that there is not a one-size-fits-all solution. But I don't know how you can possibly say they are not part of the body of evidence. How did you find those monuments in the ground anyway, if you did not use the calls in the deed? What they are important one minute and worthless the next?
I don't understand the part where you have evidence that "this point" was set after the BLM survey? How can you be so sure?
Could it not have been set based on the pipes or pins that the BLM rejected and before the BLM did their survey? I'm sure you shot all those as well but I'd be curious how it fit with long standing occupation (pipes, pins, whatever) versus the shiny new BLM caps from their recent survey.
It certainly looks like it was set to mark a corner, presumably the 1/16 corner. I don't see any way to tether a goat to this marker.
The only evidence I see is that it is not marked as prescribed by your laws so that makes it either, older or not set by your standards. I see no evidence, at least from reading, that it is newer than the BLM survey.
All that said, then reliance is a huge factor when holding or rejecting a monument. If you feel that the BLM caps should hold (likely) and that this pin has never been used in reliance (no fences or verbal evidence)and that the corner should be set 1.5' over then I would consider removing the stake and placing your own in the 'mathematically' correct position and filing with the state. (said somewhat tounge in cheek).
And I've found that even pins that don't fit some evidence often do have a legitimate claim to being a boundary marker based on other evidence. And sometimes that evidence is long gone by the time we show up to recover field evidence.
Best of luck but I trust the math less than I trust what was found in the ground.
Could it not have been set based on the pipes or pins that the BLM rejected and before the BLM did their survey?
There's a large shift between the old pipes and the new BLM corners. The pipe just to the south is 98' north of the BLM cap. Then there are a number of old pipes and fence corners that are "off" the BLM positions. I don't see this monument being set until after the BLM survey.
But like I say, I lean strongly towards accepting the cap. But, every other monument in the area has a record that I can find; just not this one.
A new low in Lowballing!
will work for smilies.... 😛
Keith...
Not a goat herder here, but it would only make sense to drive a stake in the ground where the goat could graze on the entire circle, not be restricted in a corner.
This goat stake business is only an excuse anyway to not accept any iron not at the exact measured point for the corner.
Keith
Does Keith accept the original stone one year, then Pablo's monument the next?
Is this supposed to mean something?
Keith
Keith...
If it was set by a surveyor, his drawings and records would show it MOL? So whats the harm in moving it to the position he says it is already at?
Does this mean to move monuments to where they should have been set?
Keith
A question for Keith
It seems that there is this disconnect here between two different worlds. One side wants to reject this (whatever it is) and the other wants to hold it.
For the record, if it quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and smells like a duck, etc, it is a duck to me. If this "goat stake" or "timber screw" or whatever looks like a monument, but has not been relied on, nor recorded it doesn't seem like much of a survey monument to me.
Where I get confused is where people like Keith, who know a lot better than I do, seem to want to hold this thing as the monumented corner. I read opinions like this one, and here the BLM has rejected what appears to be a monument, but because there is no chain of evidence, they have rejected it. (Their field notes provide a better chain of evidence for the true location of the corner, if I understand correctly.)
Keith, I appreciate your expertise, but an actual opinion as opposed to commentary might be more educational to me. Could you provide one? I know your information is limited, but your perspective is unique.
My (hopefully respectful) question is this:
In view of the above mentioned and linked article, how can you rely on something with no evidence as the corner? (It would seem that any BLM retracement or resurvey would reject your corner and that you could do real harm to your client.)
-David
I feel your pain, but
I guess from everything you've mentioned. I'd still be more inclined to place a real monument at the correct position.
Neither land owner has knowledge of it.
No surveys of record - which is apparently out of
character for the adjoining landowners.
No occupation-
No reliance-
no other use of that monument at any other appurtanant corners
No one else proud enough of it to claim it.
Why would you want to put YOUR number on it? 😐
If it encroached 15 feet into the state parcel would you still be feel the same way about accepting it?
I feel your pain, but
If it encroached 15 feet into the state parcel would you still be feel the same way about accepting it?
Funny you should ask that question. I have another monument that isn't 15 feet off on the west line of this property. It's 15.01 feet off and that is just too far. 😉
I haven't counted how many monuments there are for this job, but there are only two that I'm rejecting. Closing corners and I'll move the monument "online". There are probably two dozen other closing corners and those I'm accepting because they are very tight to the closing lines. But this one's a bit far.
Excellent questions and post, David
First off, it seems to me that surveyors have/are using any kind of scrap metal including 2 bit rebar with no caps for corner monument and have not/are not recording these corner monuments.
Second, it seems to me that measuring the dimensions of a deed is becoming paramount and if the piece of iron does not fit exactly, it is ignored and simply referred to as a goat stake.
So, there is misconceptions or misunderstandings in both the above statements and errors in both concepts.
The land survey world would be much improved if in fact legitimate corner monuments with caps were filed in the official records and that land surveyors would in fact give more thought and understanding to a found piece of unrecorded iron and accept it, if it has been used, been there for many years, etc. etc.
And that is easy to say, but my opinion has been and remains that measurement only, does not make it in the real world and I have repeatedly made negative statements about technicians and their measurement abilities.
If in fact land surveying was only about measurements, it would be a technical exercise and would not require a license to do it.
Does it not seem probable that when a piece of iron is found at or near the exact measured record distance, that it should be looked at with a serious thought in mind?
Obviously, some will jump on this as requiring all pieces of metal should be accepted and that is not what I am saying or believe.
Further, I have come to think that the measuring technicians are depending on their sole use of measurements to lessen their liability and I believe this is really an erroneous concept because of the fact that if their survey/resurvey ends up on court; the court will come down on the side of acceptable monuments being used, rather then only measurements. This is more than just an opinion as the courts do not hold with measurements only. (A court case could be cited if this is not a fact)
Land surveying should be a professional concept to preserve accepted boundaries that have been in place for many years and may well have been established by the land owners, AND NOT BY A SURVEYOR!
It has been posted many times that only a land surveyor can establish boundaries and I have yet to see any acknowledged treatise or court case that states that.
And that is my opinion.
Keith
Sounds like you have a plan.
I just want to argue one more small, but not insignificant point. The fact of a monument being of record.
I've surveyed in several states and most of them have only recently begun requiring any filing for a corner, and even in these cases only section corners and not lot/parcel corners.
You have states that only recently began requiring a cap with number attached to any corner set, including lot/parcel corners.
So, in my experience you have decades of work performed that used various means of marking a corner. Two bit rebars, axles, gin spikes and almost anything at hand. Sometimes it might have been a shortage (during WWII for instance) of materials and sometimes it might have just been local practice.
And you had land owners, that by law in Oklahoma, that can divide their land and survey their own property. So maybe they used a bail of wire that should have been 1320' long or maybe they stubbed in some corners to subdivide for a son or a sale of part of their lands for taxes. And this is why a corner, to me, is pretty important and which sometimes far exceeds the weight of a deed. Farmer X stakes out, shows you and sells you a tract of land. Then during the process of exchanging funds to seal the deal you sit down and hash out some sort of description. So sometimes, not always, the description is and after thought by someone not versed in measurements or legal writings. But they did mark the spots and based a sale on the ground.
So we often have a ton of valid corners that do not conform to our idea of what a corner should look like.
This is the question that always comes up to me in my determination of whether to honor a found point, especially ones not of record. Why did I find this point? Obviously it must have been in the generally area where I might expect to find one. So my question to you Mighty is...Just why did you look for this 1/16 corner?
Not thrashing or bashing but just tossing out food for thought.
A question for Keith
I did not specifically answer your question having to do with your linked IBLA decision. I read it again, hastily and seems like if the BLM dismissal letter were also published, the decision would have made much more sense.
This article did not seem to tell the whole story, in other words.
Keith
Deral
Excellent post and is right on point to my post on another thread about accepting pieces of iron that have not been recorded or set by a surveyor.
This bogus premise that a surveyor has to set boundary monuments is just that......bogus.
Keith
Deral
Thanks Keith. I've been reading that one as well. Just working up a response and think you are spot on.
I feel your pain, but
Mighty:
Where is this located, Twp, Rge, etc?
Deral
So my question to you Mighty is...Just why did you look for this 1/16 corner?
Anytime I'm setting an alquoit corner I first search to see if anything is there.
And I'll accept monuments most everytime. I don't expect them to be recorded or at the perfect position. This one is not required to be recorded, but the controlling corners are.
I suspect it was set by a company tech to "see" where the corner for the state land is and to stay off it for something. There was a water pipe placed in the ground in the 80's (+-400' west of the corner) and that may have been why-but I'm guessing. They don't show a record for it, but a supervisor in the main office asks the guys that lay out shot holes to go out and set the point with a spike and a lath so the construction can avoid the state land, and there you have the fastner in the ground and the lath long gone, kicked out by cattle. Sounds good anyway;-)
A visit with the owners and making them a part of the decision will be the best and least risky way to chose what to do when two possible options could be argued.
jud
Deral
Well, if no one claims it I guess it fell out of the sky and landed near the mathematical location. That being the case, if God set it I'd think twice about setting another one.
Deral
I'm not buying someone setting this to see if they stayed off state lands. Setting a stake or such, then yes, but not actually driving in a monument. It just doesn't stand the test of Occam's razor to me.
This was set for a reason, a specific reason. They might have used a staff and compass or made a bust on an angle but it seems that it was set for the 1/16 corner.
I'm just saying that sometimes we find evidence of a corner, but not the entire evidence of what was used to set it. We have conflicting evidence, such as the recent BLM survey, but that does not in itself render this point invalid.
Yes, I have on my pointy horns today. Starting to get back interested in surveying topics on BL, now that it is again, a surveying board.