In a perfect world a surveyor should be able take all the time in the field or office he or she needs to satisfy all the mysteries that exist in the PLSS.?ÿ There's head scratchin' stuff out there that could take longer to solve than I've got time left.?ÿ?ÿ
One hiccup that I run into frequently involves multiple monuments at a quarter corner on an east-west line.?ÿ Both corners have been there for years about a rod apart in a n-s direction.?ÿ One is a foot or so further east than the other.?ÿ The one in which I put the most faith is the farthest north.?ÿ I say this because the oldest corner reference (1978) was filed by an old county surveyor that kept a continuum of his predecessors' notes and whose work is generally accepted as legitimate.
The other didn't appear in any corner record documents until about 1982 by the highway boys.?ÿ It appears to me to be a failed attempt to place a point midway between the opposing section corners; which are themselves questionable.
Anyway,?ÿ over the last 25 years the area has developed somewhat into mostly rural residential tracts in the 5 to 20 acre size.?ÿ Each surveyor that has worked in the area creating these tracts has used different corners.?ÿ This has created a hodge-podge of boundary locations.?ÿ Some fit one quarter corner, some fit the other.?ÿ Both corners are filed as "certified corner records".
The nature of my work in the area involves documenting easements for the REC.?ÿ When I prepare an easement upon a property I tie it to the boundary of that property.?ÿ Some may argue this approach but I feel it's important to maintain a continuity between the boundary and any dominant rights others may have within that boundary.?ÿ So basically there are dozens of documents I've filed that reference different quarter corners depending on which corner was used when the parcel was first created.?ÿ Some are right next to each other.?ÿ I can truly see how one reviewing them all at once might be confused.
Another surveyor recently called me and was basically asking "which one was the real corner?".?ÿ ?ÿI told him it depended on which parcel in which one was working.?ÿ He felt my answer was a "cop out" to avoid 'straightening things out'.?ÿ I attempted to explain I didn't feel the least bit responsible to set anything 'straight' out there.?ÿ My responsibility is focused on specifically describing granted rights upon a piece of property.?ÿ To me, that property boundary lays where I found harmony between the deeded description and the monuments.?ÿ
It was actually a friendly conversation and I guess we both agreed to disagree.?ÿ But it left me wondering.?ÿ Am I so old and set in my ways that things such as this don't bother me when maybe they should??ÿ ?ÿAnd then there's the busine$$ end of things.?ÿ Although I am able to charge for whatever time is needed to perform my client's work, there probably exists a finite limit.?ÿ Charging my client for a re-survey of half a township for a 300' long easement on a 10ac. parcel wouldn't be accepted very well.
Am I wrong in my practice theory??ÿ Just thought others might have experience in similar situations.?ÿ
?ÿ
I remember talking to RADU, and he said; when ever they run into a cock up (his words, not mine) all of the properties were assessed an equal share of the expense, and it was resolved, equitably.
That would go over like a big turd in a punch bowl, state side; but it's a good thought...
As to your dilemma; would your counterpart be willing to take on the arduous task, if he were in your boots?
The best we can do is satisfy the needs of our clients, too the best of our ability, you're not wrong...
As to your dilemma; would your counterpart be willing to take on the arduous task, if he were in your boots?
The best we can do is satisfy the needs of our clients, too the best of our ability, you're not wrong...
Thanks for the encouragement.
As for my counterpart...I couldn't tell you what he's up to.?ÿ It sounded like he was working in the area.?ÿ?ÿMy gut tells me he will come up with a third corner to show everybody they're wrong and his corner is the only one that's correct.?ÿ 😉
If you have used one of the corners for an easement tie, I would file a corner record, note both monuments, explain why you used the one. Beyond that, maybe contact the DOT, I've had them jerk a corner or two when this type of situation is explained to them, but it's hardly your responsibility to solve issues only tangential to your survey.?ÿ
I've got similar monument conflicts, you notify the surveyor or organization that set it the offending one and move along.?ÿ
or:
?ÿ
Usually it?ÿ isn't your job to clear up these double corners, but in some cases it could be. When your easment is close enough to the boundary, it probably is prudent to make a clear call on how much of the easment burdens each owner's land.?ÿ
Often, the substance of the corner records are more important than the dates. Given two corner records, barring acquired unwritten rights, the one that actually explains itself in a reasonable way based on legal principles (and sometimes math) is the one that will carry more weight. Of course, more often than not, neither do. Without universal acceptance, "becasue I said so", corners are close to worthless.?ÿ?ÿ
?ÿ
If I were to encapsulate your position would it be this?
"Two corners? I only see one."
?ÿ
Point of order:
Monuments don't always = Corners
Corners can be somewhat dynamic (as aliquot?ÿ stated above), and may or may NOT be monumented.
Multiple monuments are always a PITA, and sometimes both monuments (or all three, or whatever), may control various entitlements. What's worse, sometimes NONE of extant monuments mark a Corner of anything!!!
Just by two-bits,
Loyal
It isn't Paden's job to fix it. He has no issues in each of his individual descriptions. Since he is clear as to the basis of the position and bearings, the location of the easement is unambiguous. Therefore, he is writing a legal description that fulfills the needs of the client and protects the public. Nothing he is doing requires fixing the underlying and known issues.
?ÿ
This issue is pretty common...
Smaller scale (but smaller lots as well) in a case right out front of my office. The monument was set 50 years by surveyor #1 about 50 years ago, intending to mark the location of the quarter corner as calculated between the section corner locations. He and his offspring have used that location ever since.
Not long after the monument was set, surveyor #2 (he started the company that I now work) for rejected the set monuments location by about a foot.
And through the twists and turns of history, I now sit in an office on a parcel surveyed by Surveyor #1, the parcel to my south was surveyed using the notes of Surveyor #2 (my predecessor), and my company owns both parcels...and iron pipes purported to mark some of the corners are still there from both surveys.
Ambiguity in the location of the lines was created by the two yahoos (both probably better surveyors than I am). Each wanted to believe they could measure better than the other. (I understand they were friendly, but competitive.)?ÿ
I don't think Paden needs to fix it, but we all need to learn from it.
?ÿ
When monuments do not equal corners...the monuments should be removed (IMHO).
And at some point we go back to what it means to be the original surveyor. Is the first guy to set the center of section the original surveyor? Do we need to revisit the original location of the quarter corners (which is impossible in my area) every time we need to determine the location of the center of section??ÿ
The federal government was right to say the original monuments, set by their surveyors were without error. That means that the monument always equals the corners.?ÿ
If a monument does not equal a corner, (which we have to recognize it does not always do so) then everythign we set is an opinion. The location of the corner will always be subject to the next measurement (for better or worse).
This seems to be the fact in many areas. I wish it was not so.
The federal government was right to say the original monuments, set by their surveyors were without error. That means that the monument always equals the corners.?ÿ
I agree with your comments, but would stipulate that the statement above should be qualified with the phrase;
In situ original (monument) = the Corner.
I have seen too many examples of Original Monuments that have MOVED or have BEEN MOVED out of their Original Position.
Just another 2-bits.
Loyal
"rejected the set monument location by about a foot",
Really? a foot on a quarter corner proration?
Set in the late 60's
That's a rigid position.?ÿ
And at some point we go back to what it means to be the original surveyor. Is the first guy to set the center of section the original surveyor?
You bet your bippy! (IMHO)
I think we're all just dancing around the elephant in the room:
- Surveyor A uses THIS corner to survey THAT property.
- Surveyor B Uses THAT corner to survey THIS property.
And now Dougie comes along and needs to find harmony somewhere in between. It's not easy; if it was everyone would be doing it. Sometimes you need to follow the recipe in the cookbook and sometimes you need to modify it to please the crowd you're cooking for.
If you can defend your work, in front of a judge, you can't go wrong; just make sure you follow this rule, for every survey you do.
?ÿ
I agree with your comments, but would stipulate that the statement above should be qualified with the phrase;
In situ original (monument) = the Corner.
I have seen too many examples of Original Monuments that have MOVED or have BEEN MOVED out of their Original Position.
So boundaries are subject to the whim of the surveyor...or the BLM, if you are so unlucky as to have a border with them. There has to be a better way.
If you can defend your work, in front of a judge, you can't go wrong; just make sure you follow this rule, for every survey you do.
I agree, but...perhaps we cannot go "wrong", but if that corner is subject to later rejection...the public is not served.
I agree with your comments, but would stipulate that the statement above should be qualified with the phrase;
In situ original (monument) = the Corner.
I have seen too many examples of Original Monuments that have MOVED or have BEEN MOVED out of their Original Position.
So boundaries are subject to the whim of the surveyor...or the BLM, if you are so unlucky as to have a border with them. There has to be a better way.
NO...I don't think that I'm saying or implying that at all. Determining the origin, history (provenance), status and authority of a given Monument is part and parcel of what we as Land Surveyors DO. Legal principles, precedents, and context should be our guiding light, but we must be careful not to blindly follow that light down a rabbit hole.
Loyal
This is one of the reasons why centerline descriptions were invented.?ÿ Create a cl and a width and preamble it with all that property described in document x that the following described strip crosses. The surveyor needs to know enough about the property to come up with an area that the burdened will be compensated for and the strip lives in perpetuity.?ÿ It may not be the best solution for the property owner but it works well for the utility company or the DOT and the surveyor does not have to deal with all the garbage left by others.?ÿ Jp
There was one of those locally, the theory used to reject a double prorated section corner was that the first surveyor used the wrong procedure. Now there is a Section corner and three 1/4's with double monuments, all within 1.5 feet of each other...........
When I first had it explained to me I just got a glazed look and lost interest. Simply glad I haven't worked in that area.?ÿ
