What a mess, and this should be interesting. A family owned the south half of the north half of the section, and had it surveyed into sixteen roughly ten-acre sites. The surveyor did not follow the usual rules for breaking it down into quarter-quarter-quarters, but then he didnÛªt have to. One family owned it ÛÒ they can divide it up any way they want. Each parcel was monumented and the monuments are still there after decades. The survey was filed as a record of survey, not as a subdivision plat (fairly common in the sticks).
Other surveyors, not grasping that those are original monuments and must be held, did a section breakdown for some of the parcels, so their monuments are up to twelve feet away from the originals.
On top of that, the site IÛªm doing has in part this description: 8 feet of the (description). And which 8 feet would that be? Sheesh.
What were the descriptions of the parcels deeded out? Mete's and bounds or aliquot?
Every time I see the word "aliquot", I think it must be some type of exotic fruit.
That was my Uncle Al. He grafted a loquat and a kumquat.
I hate to announce this publicly but........................some surveyors are dumber than a box of rocks.
How difficult is it to follow the leader? The leader did it this way. So do it that way.
Geez! We somehow let too many knuckledraggers into the fraternity.
"Somebody always shows up with a seemingly better brain and tries to fix something that was never broken"
Bruce Small, post: 399148, member: 1201 wrote: Other surveyors, not grasping that those are original monuments and must be held, did a section breakdown for some of the parcels, so their monuments are up to twelve feet away from the originals.
Sarcasm on (big time)
We found several old looking monuments, but our calculations suggested they be ignored as they were placed incorrectly by the original surveyor.
(Judge Cooley, please forgive me)
All kidding aside, Don's question about the parcel descriptions is pretty big. Were the parcels described as "quarter-quarter-quarter" sections? Were the pipes referenced in the deed as having been set at the corners? Part of the definition of an original monument is that it be referred to in the deed or on the plan that established the new boundary line. This is not a hard and fast rule, but it strengthens the judgement call when the monument is referenced. Lacking such a reference, might another surveyor legitimately consider these pipes goat stakes - especially if he only searched for corners on "his" parcel of interest, together with the section corners?
Peter Lothian - MA ME, post: 399241, member: 4512 wrote: All kidding aside, Don's question about the parcel descriptions is pretty big. Were the parcels described as "quarter-quarter-quarter" sections? Were the pipes referenced in the deed as having been set at the corners? Part of the definition of an original monument is that it be referred to in the deed or on the plan that established the new boundary line. This is not a hard and fast rule, but it strengthens the judgement call when the monument is referenced. Lacking such a reference, might another surveyor legitimately consider these pipes goat stakes - especially if he only searched for corners on "his" parcel of interest, together with the section corners?
The parcels are described as quarter-quarter-quarters, but there is a record of survey filed at the time showing all 16 parcels and the monuments. I strongly suspect someone didn't bother to look for a record of survey.
and I assume that the record of survey showed the lots to be NOT the 'quarter quarter quarters'?
Oooooh, how I hate it when the scrivener labels a tract improperly. The survey shows the intent but the words don't match the intent.
Almost as bad is when two different descriptors are used for what is intended to be the same line. A local battle involves the line between: The north one-quarter of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of the section and what is described as being: The south 30 acres of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of the section. The sheriff and his deputies have spent far too much time dealing with both parties and lawyers are going to be the big winners.
What makes a monument original is the acts, conduct, and agreements of the original parties to the original Deed contract, whether expressed, parol, or implied. Calling for monuments in the Deed is certainly helpful but not required.
Often in the case of monuments not called for in the description the Courts will call it an agreed boundary or recognition and acquiescence but it really is an original boundary if the original parties did it.
It was a fun survey, tromping up and down hills finding monuments that have not been seen in 19 years. The realtor had his favorite surveyor stake the lines since the client wanted an idea of where the boundary is. I was told he (the surveyor) did half the site then left and never came back, which is why I had been hired. Actually, he didn't come close to what he should have done. He did not find any of the exterior boundary monuments of the ten-acre site (my client just has a part of that). I know that because they were not easily found under rocks and brush, with no flagging. He did find some monuments on my client's site, but wasn't sure if they were good, so every stake he set was labeled "Possible boundary line." I kid you not.
