Another example of not communicating enough on a survey, with a Cooley citation.?ÿ
In this case the most crucial thing missing was a full description of the "found" monument.?ÿ Our laziness costs people money.?ÿ
?ÿ
Creating a subdivision with no monuments on the ground didn't help matters much.
Licensed Land Surveyor
Finger Lakes Region, Upstate New York
It's funny how things fall in your lap at times.?ÿ A friend was having a very similar issue last week.?ÿ Gave this to her to help defend her position.?ÿ Different state, but the same principles apply.
Being somewhat familiar with Bean's work, I'm shocked I tells ya. Interesting read. Thank you for sharing Aliquot.
Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get me.
John Bennett, who testified in this case, recently wrote a paper entitled "No Boundaries, A Brief Discussion of Alaska Boundary Law."?ÿ The paper includes a discussion of this case and contrasts it with another case in which "the settled expectations of the community to hold monuments that exist in the field without regard to whether they are of record or set by the original surveyor" was upheld by the court. A good read, in my opinion.?ÿ Den
?ÿ
@dewam?ÿ
Ahhh...the "First Surveyor"...sucks to be that one.
?ÿ
Some musings and questions (if anyone that has knowledge is on the site):
One thing that I was confused about...The 1970's corners by Bean: were they intended to be set in conjunction with the subdividing plat? I mean, I have set thousands of corner monuments after the actual recording of a plat, and done so with the understanding that they are original corners. It used to be standard practice around here, as construction and final plat used to be simultaneous. (Less so now.)
The Collins appeared to have agreed to Bean's northern boundary (see garden area)...and how did they site their home? What survey other than the Bean corners could they have relied on to build the home? The buildings were there in 2012 apparently, and more or less fit Bean's marks.
Bean appears to have followed his (unrecorded (I am guessing in 1979 he would have pointed at the 1975 plat and said, "There is my recording.")) field survey from the 70's, even though he knew that there was other evidence from his 2002 survey. That is interesting. It is even more interesting that he didn't mention this (his own) conflicting evidence on his 2014 plat.
I am a bit surprised that Collins didn't consider accepting the Bean survey, as it provided more uplands for them.?ÿ
And if Bean's "First Surveyor" corners had been on record, and his WC covered in pink paint, then would it be likely for anyone to do anything but follow in his footsteps?
Once you discount Bean's 70's corners as controlling, I don't see how there could be any other conclusion, based on the facts. But, perhaps this should be corrected by legislation. Certainly, our profession cries out for some legislative guidance on such matters.
What is the culpability and liability of Bean in regards to his (unrecorded) field work in "the 70's". If the courts are going to dismiss the "First Surveyor", then amount of this liability is the fee multiplier the "First Surveyor" should apply to any such work.
?ÿ
Our laziness costs people money. ?ÿ
A paper plat of a very remote part of AK...I am guessing that this isn't the only time that happened, and I doubt it was about laziness. More likely it was about budget.
@aliquot?ÿ
He obviously never went there until someone bought a lot and there was cash flow to fund the field survey. At that time in the late 70's, if he had filed a plat(record of survey) and described his monuments on such, he would be in the same boat, except, perhaps, the later surveyor MIGHT have used the WC he found.?ÿ
I think most of us are willing to follow in the footsteps of the "first surveyor" if there is evidence enough to do so.
@dmyhill?ÿ
This isn't anywhere near "very remote" by Alaska standards.?ÿ
We can't lower our standards to meet what our clients want to pay, but more importantly while paper plats obviously are problematic, the "laziness" here is not describing the "monument" he used for the point of beginning in a recorded document.?ÿ Doing so would have added practically nothing to the cost.?ÿ
@aliquot?ÿ
Having grown up in AK, I am pretty sure I know what remote means, and perhaps the "very" doesn't count in AK, it is still remote. And if you have to take a boat, the cost of visiting doesn't go down.
It is highly likely he never set foot on the island when the plat was signed. I wish that question had been asked and included in the opinion. Maybe it did and I missed it in the opinion. I am guessing that he never did, and the court knew it, therefor his opinion as to the correct mark became irrelevant as the original govt survey controlled. It seems that he must have at least been honest about the questions he answered.
BTW, I did use this as an opportunity to discuss with my crews the importance of describing monuments, AND looking for the actual mark. It is entirely possible he sent a crew out in the late 70's to look for the X and they got tired of looking, and no cell phones...did their thing...and established local control which was perpetuated, and no one ever went back to the X for staking lots. This is further demonstrated by the next crew that did the tidelands survey, they found the actual point. BUT, it is 100% sure that Bean didnt know that the two crews used different points.?ÿ
For all the self-righteousness we might have, this should stand as a cautionary tale rather than falsely believing that something like this cannot happen to us. Vigilance is necessary.