Many Unknowns
> Haven't you figured out who linebender is?
Well, it isn't Kent, his nickname would be "linestraightener". And, of course, it isn't Keith, his would be "linecurver".
Many Unknowns
Little Deed is 7 and raising havoc. They told me it would keep me young. They lied.
He's a lot of fun though. I don't even remember what the bet was about anymore.
Accepting the monument.
This picture is very different than that posted above with timber lands abundant.
I was trying (in my mind) to make a case for the timber folks setting a point to make sure they didn't harvest from the state lands.
Obviously, there are no trees so that's out.
In Oklahoma many of the state lands are leased out as they derive much of their funds from leasing. Cattle grazing, timber, or just crops.
So maybe a point to make sure a well was within the corporation spacing required.
But why set anything? And especially one 0.3' down where no one but a surveyor with a pin finder would find. I could see a tall stake or painted trees to notify people of a boundary line to avoid but why a point (much like anyone sets) in the ground.
With three sides owned by one and the other by the state then this point baffles me. Not just the point but WHY the point. That seems to be what we need to find out. Why would this 1/16 corner be set or why would someone set a close corner to avoid the state lands.
Water rights? Oil/Gas rights? Farming rights? Grazing rights?
Thanks for posting this Mighty...
OK, I got so frustrated with this whole affair, over 1.5 feet, that I called my aunt, (that lives 1/2 mile down the way from this), and had her pull it out.
OK, now what you gonna do? You have the old coordinate of the bridge pin!
🙂
Nate
Many Unknowns
> Jon, you have mis-read my post. What I'm saying is that an object that appears to be a monument, possibly occupying a corner, found in the vicinity CANNOT be presumed to NOT be the corner. You need to presume it is the corner until you find evidence that it IS NOT the corner. In other words, generally the object is the corner until you find enough evidence to reject it. The law does not presume an object is NOT the corner until you prove it is.
Brian,
I appreciate the detailed reply.
I may have taken your post to be saying more than what you intended it to say. In this entire thread, the sticking point for me comes from this portion of your reply -
"You need to presume it is the corner until you find evidence that it IS NOT the corner. In other words, generally the object is the corner until you find enough evidence to reject it."
What do you believe constitutes satisfactory evidence that the object found is not the corner?
From the original post and subsequent additional details, it appears that the iron rod as found was never called for in any written document as a monument, was not relied upon by the current owners, has an unknown origin after pretty extensive searching, and does not fit the mathematical location.
About the only thing it appears to have going for it is that it is metal and in the vicinity of the calculated corner location.
Many Unknowns
:good:
Many Unknowns
> I may have taken your post to be saying more than what you intended it to say. In this entire thread, the sticking point for me comes from this portion of your reply -
> "You need to presume it is the corner until you find evidence that it IS NOT the corner. In other words, generally the object is the corner until you find enough evidence to reject it."
>
> What do you believe constitutes satisfactory evidence that the object found is not the corner?
>
From the start, all I have been saying is that the law presumes it is the corner (and so should the surveyor) until there is enough evidence to prove it is not. Now what constitutes "enough evidence"? Good question, that is going to vary depending on the local area, habits of landowners, adequacy and accuracy of records, etc, and it will probably vary depending on the surveyor and ultimately the court involved.
The 2009 Manual has some very good sections on direct evidence and collateral evidence, and accepting monuments of unknown origin.
The position taken by some that "it is only a chunk of metal or a goat stake until it proven beyond all doubt (presumably by measurements) to be a survey monument" is the wrong direction to look at such a problem.
Many Unknowns
About the only thing going for it is "it is metal,normal for a set monument' and in the vicinity 'just about correct based on some math'of where someone else would set one.
Hmmm...
I think it quacks.
Many Unknowns
> Good question, that is going to vary depending on the local area, habits of landowners, adequacy and accuracy of records, etc, and it will probably vary depending on the surveyor and ultimately the court involved.
That is very true. Which is the reason I would not claim the original poster was in the wrong for deciding either way as to accept or reject it. He would be in a much better position to make a local decision on the matter.
I especially agree with the "adequacy and accuracy of records". We (Kentucky) are finally looking into a plat law. While several local surveyors disagree with the idea, I can see just about nothing but positive results for surveyors, landowners, the local community, and the state.
> The position taken by some that "it is only a chunk of metal or a goat stake until it proven beyond all doubt (presumably by measurements) to be a survey monument" is the wrong direction to look at such a problem.
Several folks pointed out reasons of reliance, written evidence, and history as possible reasons to not accept it. None of those items have anything to do with the math/measurements.
That always seems to be the disconnect in these accept/reject it discussions. Each 'side' of the discussion tends to think the other is going into the discussion with one train of thought - as I did with your post earlier (apologize) and as the presumably by measurements statement does.
At least this incarnation of the discussion has been a reasonably civil one.
Thanks for posting this Mighty...
good discussion indeed, thank you all for posting your thoughts. without knowing exactly all the research, I think I'd leave the found "item" as is, and set a monument where I believe it should be, and record the survey and show everything found + set. describe what you did in the general notes section.
Many Unknowns
> About the only thing going for it is "it is metal,normal for a set monument' and in the vicinity 'just about correct based on some math'of where someone else would set one.
>
> Hmmm...
>
> I think it quacks.
It seems the original poster indicated it was inconsistent with the usual object used for a monument for the area. As well as indicated that there was a handy supply of the same object not far from the location. I would need to review the whole thread to confirm that.
I have actually found a survey that showed the corner as being the piece of metal the field crew found. It was metal, normal for a set monument and it was just about correct based on some math. Unfortunately, after digging down about a foot, I found the wire wrapped on it as a ground rod. Then found the actual corner just a short distance away. Accepting a piece of metal in the vicinity of the corner can sometimes bite you in the behind like a duck on America's Funniest Home Videos.
Just this morning, I had to reject a piece of rebar that was within about a foot of the corner location and is very consistent with monument material used in this area. Instead, I called the corner monument to be the tree (uncalled for in any deed or plat) that actually occupied the same position as the corner based solely on the math and measurements.
I FOUND IT!
I'm with Dave. Ask around and see if you can find some information on this thing. Local surveyors who have been around several decades may know who used that sort of monument. Local landowners may recall when it was set and who set it. Is there any chance that a local government or utility company surveyor set it?
Are any of the local landowners aware there is a monument in that vicinity? is there any indication that it has been relied upon?
Too many unanswered questions to make a call as to acceptance or rejection.
Rankin
Mighty- I guess my drawing gives you plausible deniabilty... not a timber co and a different state... 😛
Many Unknowns
> Unfortunately, after digging down about a foot, I found the wire wrapped on it as a ground rod. Then found the actual corner just a short distance away. Accepting a piece of metal in the vicinity of the corner can sometimes bite you in the behind like a duck on America's Funniest Home Videos.
>
This matches my experience with random pieces of metal around the corner.
Did a survey this year where everyone held this 5/8" rebar sitting up about a tenth. The fence even pointed towards it. All good, except it is off about a foot and a half. And, all the other bars in the plat I found were 1/2" with caps.
The real, original, controlling corner (set 5 years before when platted) was sitting inside the water meter box. 1/2" bar with the right cap.
The 5/8" bar was likely set as a tie down for a landscaper supporting a tree planted in the area.
Now, a bunch of people here want to tell me that some how at some point this 5/8" bar would mature or something into the actual factual real corner representing the intention of the deed? I really need someone to spell that out for me, and how it would work in real practice.
-David
Many Unknowns
> Now, a bunch of people here want to tell me that some how at some point this 5/8" bar would mature or something into the actual factual real corner representing the intention of the deed? I really need someone to spell that out for me, and how it would work in real practice.
The 5/8" bar would not "mature or something" and would not "represent the intention of the deed." You've provided an example where you have direct evidence of the "factual real(??) corner".
In "real practice" there are two ways that the "intent of the deed" can be superseded: 1) senior rights, and 2) possessory rights. Both will trump the "intent of the deed."
Just because you've determined the boundary as "intended by the deed" doesn't mean that you've determined the boundary. Once that fence was constructed in reliance upon the 5/8" bar, you've got conflicting evidence between the "intent of the deed" and the "possession" which was presumptively made in good faith.
There are basically 5 different legal principles which may come into play. The surveyor must gather the evidence to make a determination which (if any) of the principles has been fulfilled. If one of them have, then the "intent of the deed" has been superseded by the actions of the parties making the original intent irrelevant. If none of them have been fulfilled, then the "intent of the deed" will stand as the corner.
JBS
Rankin
You had it right on.
Guessing it was a timber co. was kind of funny knowing the desert it sits in.
One thing I didn't mention is that the corner is right on the section line-but a bit east, which moves it into state land.
Not that 1.5' bothers me, just is it a corner with enough pedigree to use.
Was it set in the late 70's or early 80's by what is basically my client's partner?
Accept the Monument
Okay, so we now have a point (goat stake or monument) that is online between two GLO reset corners. You said you could easily see between the two points so my guess is that it was set in the same manner by visually sighting between the controlling corners.
That it is 1.5' east of the actual mathematical line brings up several other questions.
What is the measurement (current) between the S 1/4 and the SW Corner. What was the plat measurement (record)?
I'd want to compare and see if this 1.5' could be attributed to someone 'not' doing the proportionment correctly (IE...1320' from one of the corners). A common problem in our PLSS state where often the true measurement is overlooked because the record shows 40 chains (in a perfect world).
You could sight between the corners and shoot 1320' from one or the other to set this point. Or they could have proportioned it backwards or just plain wrong.
I'm still having trouble with this buried point that quacks like a monument, even if it's in the wrong place.
That said, if no one has relied on it and no one fesses up on setting it then pull the darned thing and set your point. Sign the plat and move on down the road. I see no significant danger in doing that at all based on all the evidence.
Or set a nice above ground monument (like the BLM does) to clearly show that you set a corner and show this other point on your plat. Much like a reference tie. I just don't like to leave anything that can be mistaken for a corner so my preference would be the former. Someone may plow out the above ground marker and this one could show up again in 20 years for someone else to ponder , as you have done.
I suppose a third option might be to pull this marker and reset it in the correct position. Not my choice at all.
I'm still curious as to why this was set in the first place. It's on line so perhaps it was a line point by the BLM during their retracement. Maybe they set it here (close to the corner) and their crews used it to look and see if there was a corner set for the 1/16th. But my experience would say no to that. The BLM doesn't leave odd markers near corners but someone could tell me if that has changed. I've left 60d's near calculated points for easy searches later, but never a pin driven below surface with a 'almost' cap.
I'm leaning to ignoring this ferrous bit of metal and setting a new point. Pulling it and putting it in the bin of 'pins found yet not proven'. I do not say that lightly but it appears to have no provenance. It may to someone but not apparently to any of the parties involved.
Deral
I'd want to compare and see if this 1.5' could be attributed to someone 'not' doing the proportionment correctly (IE...1320' from one of the corners). A common problem in our PLSS state where often the true measurement is overlooked because the record shows 40 chains (in a perfect world).
record 2632
measured east 1314
measured west 1317
I'm leaning to ignoring this ferrous bit of metal and setting a new point. Pulling it and putting it in the bin of 'pins found yet not proven'. I do not say that lightly but it appears to have no provenance. It may to someone but not apparently to any of the parties involved.
Well, one thing is for sure; when I'm done there will only be one monument left, and the funny looking one probably won't survive. My party chief said he isn't stamping the thing, so I'm thinking keeping him happy is a good idea.....;-)
I repeat
> "I think that a lot of us have actually found goat stakes near property corners.
> It's not uncommon.
> You have to be on your toes .
>
> Don
>
> --
> CA PLS 5253"
>
> Your experience may be limited, but it is important to not take yourself too seriously, and
>
> BE ON YOUR TOES
>
> and then take a deep breath.
> Aside from me, nobody here is the smartest surveyor in the world.
> Got it?
>
> Good,
>
> Don:-)
:good::good:
Mighty
I am usually one of the first persons to argue in favor of accepting a monument. In this case though, from the evidence you have provided to us, it seems to lack the pedigree of a monument (no record of origin, no reliance, etc). Yank the SOB, throw it in the pile, set a new one, make record of what you did and be on your way. :beer:
Great discussion.
