Another Real World Example

I never pull corners, or things that purport to be corners, ever.

Even if you can prove that the original is still there, you don't need the grief, and possible litigation from pulling corners. Some landowner sees you pull a corner that is arguably wrong in every sense of the word, they still call the cops and sue you for pulling what they perceive to be their landmark. It's not worth it. If you don't like it, drive it out of sight and leave yours sticking up.

Also, not in the same vein as Kent below, but depending on the length of time, the erroneous corner could have ripened into more than a goat stake. Just as I WILL NOT say whether adverse possession has passed, I won't pull a corner that may have perfected the statute.

If it goes to court, I don't want to have to look the judge in the eye and say I pulled the bad rod out of the ground. That's his job to determine what the suit says is the bad corner. If I don't like it, I'll set another, I'm not scared to do that. I ain't pullin it though, unless it's mine. 🙂

I'm with Kris

I ain't pullin it though, unless it's mine. 🙂

If I was in your predicament, I'd leave them in, show them on my survey, record it and leave it at that.

There is only so much you can do to protect the public and putting yourself in Jeopardy isn't one of them.

Radar

Holding the pin would create a tract below the minimum lot size. Doubtful that was the intent, nor holding it now, without good reason, would do nothing but create problems where there should be none. If a fence or other evidence of relying on that out of position monument over time was not in place, I would set a new monument, showing both and explaining in the narrative what and why, especially since the other evidence found does not support the location of the found monument.
I was asked to locate monuments set for a Partition Plat for the second time in 3 years. The first time all but one was in place and all had a very good fit with the record. The next time about half were missing and all the missing ones were on the South half of the whole. Yes, a family pis-sen match going on. I was asked to replace the missing monuments, so I tied all the remaining monuments. They all fit well but one. Using the found monuments that fit and the record I set the missing corners. The one questionable monument which had been in the proper location the first time I was there no longer was, it was closer to the monument to the south end of that line than it should have been and that shortage matched the distance between next boundary angle point further South. The out of position monument was directly under a new E-W fence line. That pin was in good condition, it had a cap that the original surveyor used for all monuments that he set and that cap was in perfect condition. One of the owners was there when I set a pin at the correct location and his reaction was, "I wonder how I could have measured that so bad". My reaction was, "You measured from the wrong place". Point being, you cannot depend on the appearance of any monument that it is in the original position, some will go to great effort to hide the fact of movement. In this instance, pins were removed, "wife saw them stored under the porch", one was needed so the owners set it themselves, thinking none would ever know. I believe they took care to measure the proper distance, attempted to stay on line but did it all from the wrong place with good and honest intent with the measurement, the rest was not a shining example.
jud

> This is kind of in the same vein as the recent threads about pulling monuments, but with a different twist. I was hired by a realtor to find the four corners of a mapped, recorded parcel that was created on a California Parcel Map 8 years ago. "How hard can that be?" I asked myself. The surveyor had held existing monuments for 4 of the 6 corners on his map. Well, we found 3 of those 4 old monuments and they fit the map dimensions by 0.04'. (Note to Kent: that's what we call perfect around here). Of the two that the surveyor set we found one. It doesn't fit the map dimensions by 7.5 feet.
>

Hard to get a good idea of whats going on without a pic. You're talking 4 corners of a parcel...then a surveyor (the recording one I presume) holding "existing" mons for 4 of 6 corners on his map (same parcel? parent parcel?)...but yeah, def. wouldn't pull the wayward monument, you don't know where (or if) the error lies - its not always on the ground.

> The parcel I'm surveying is bank-owned so they don't care, except holding the pin would make this parcel smaller than minimum size for the zone it's in. Ideas?

Heck, this sounds like one of those win win situations. Or could be. An adjoiner 'holding' to the pin? If setting a corner you 'believe' in proves your lot to be legal then what is the question? Is it, in your opinion, a 'good corner' or not? That's all that's going to matter in the end.

I don't think there's ever been a question in this long drawn out discussion as to what the surveyor holds or doesn't hold, but rather should he/she alter or destroy what he/she doesn't hold. Hell, just do what you would 'stand for' and be done with it.

I would never pull a pin either. That is legally the job of the party who feels that he is being encroached upon. In fact, if he doesn't pull the pin or stop the encroachment, he could lose his legal right to the land. I have seen a law court case where the fact that the party didn't pull the pin was cited by the court.

The Parcel Map is a two-way split of a parent parcel that was about 5 acres. Now the subject parcel is mapped as 2.3 acres which is minimum size. The surveyor held existing monuments at the SW, NE and SE of the parent parcel and also the south end of the new split line. I haven't found the one at the south end of the new split line yet and the one at the north end of the new split line is the one that doesn't match the map dimensions by 7.5 feet although it's only 0.35' North of the north line.

I have various theories on how that could have happened, but I guess I'll never know if the surveyor is deceased. The County Surveyor was going to ask around whether anybody remembers who might have been doing the surveyor's field work 8 years ago. Either they blew the angle when they were setting it or they had mis-calced the 2.3 acres, revised the map and never moved the pipe, or something like that. Or, the neighbor might have moved it, but the funny thing is he just built a rinky-dink hogwire fence a few weeks ago and placed that another 15 feet into the subject parcel, not to the pipe.

"The best idea I've had so far is to talk to the neighbor and see if he'd be OK with setting a new one where the map says it should be...."

Is landowner permission needed for a correct survey in California?

I know you're not suggesting that we not only can't pull erroneous pins, but also can't set them in the correct place.

This argument is getting a bit crazy. Sometimes the evidence is conclusive. When that is the case, the other "stuff" is nothing. There is nothing to "preserve".

When you find a Trout in the milk, how did it get there? Should we preserve this as evidence that Trout live in glasses of milk? Or should we throw it on the grill and be done with it.

Sometimes the evidence is conclusive.

Duane

Still doesn't mean that you shouldn't leave the trout in the milk as no one would believe you about the trout otherwise.

I don't think the neighbor even knows the pipe is there. I know he didn't use it to build his fence. Before I set the new shiny pin 20 feet into what looks like his yard, I'd like to know if he's going to make some sort of case that the original pipe that's been there for 8 years means something.

> The Parcel Map is a two-way split of a parent parcel that was about 5 acres. Now the subject parcel is mapped as 2.3 acres which is minimum size. The surveyor held existing monuments at the SW, NE and SE of the parent parcel and also the south end of the new split line. I haven't found the one at the south end of the new split line yet and the one at the north end of the new split line is the one that doesn't match the map dimensions by 7.5 feet although it's only 0.35' North of the north line.
>
what did he set then? Just the NW and the one on N. end of split line? Did he have to set the NW (i.e., original of parent parcel not in)? What was the significance of the existing mon on S. end of split line (i.e. existing corner of parent parcel)? sorry for all the quests...

Duane

> Still doesn't mean that you shouldn't leave the trout in the milk as no one would believe you about the trout otherwise.

Ditto. Hearsay evidence has always been, and always will be, a hard row to hoe.

Duane

Kris,

I know, that's what I'm afraid of. Those that do good work are reduced to the same level as those that don't. I've struggled with this issue and I keep coming back to exactly what you posted. We don't remove them because people might think we are lying about something. It looks like we are trying to hide something maybe. When in fact we are showing a measurement to it and could replace it if necessary.

I've been faced with this argument on other issues. Maybe if we did remove obviously erroneous monuments it would actually be taking the high ground.

So it seems we let the lowest common denominator rule common practice. Why? Because we're afraid the jackleg, quickie dickie surveyor will remove the good monuments in self defense. And because we're afraid to defend our honesty against the quickie dickie outfit.

I don't know, just talking about a known problem. I don't claim to have all the answers.

Duane

> Kris,
>
> I know, that's what I'm afraid of. Those that do good work are reduced to the same level as those that don't. I've struggled with this issue and I keep coming back to exactly what you posted. We don't remove them because people might think we are lying about something. It looks like we are trying to hide something maybe. When in fact we are showing a measurement to it and could replace it if necessary.
>
> I've been faced with this argument on other issues. Maybe if we did remove obviously erroneous monuments it would actually be taking the high ground.
>
> So it seems we let the lowest common denominator rule common practice. Why? Because we're afraid the jackleg, quickie dickie surveyor will remove the good monuments in self defense. And because we're afraid to defend our honesty against the quickie dickie outfit.
>
> I don't know, just talking about a known problem. I don't claim to have all the answers.

I know how to fix it, and most folks DON'T do it anymore, but we still do.

Every stinkin corner you set, cut an "X" on a tree and record the data on the map and the field notes. The corner may go missing, but that tree tells no lies.

We don't mark "X"'s at every corner, and we're more lax about it the longer time goes on, but you can bet if I'm way away from the truck, the tree's get marked. I've done it in populated areas where I wanted there to be some permanent evidence that I did what I said I did.

My take was, I set the corner if I cut the "X".

As far as being relegated to the lowest common denominator, in a court of law, and you know better than most, that if the opposing attorney gets wind that you pulled something and show it on the plat, he/she will have a field day with that one. It's not worth the problems for me.

I have driven them down with another 3' rod and left mine sticking up a foot just to make it easier for the next ones to find it and blow by the wrong rod.

20 feet into what looks like his yard, I'd like to know if he's going to make some sort of case

Looks like there is a case whether he wants one or not. He could sell the property tomorrow and the new owner might not be so compliant.

It might be a good idea to advise the client(even if they don't care) that there may be some conflict.

If his survey says one thing and you find a 7.5' discrepancy in the field, 2 things could have happened;
1. He made an error in his measurement.

or

b. Somebody else moved it.

You said it looked undisturbed so it was a sloppy measurement.

I'd be more worried about the 20' of occupation.

Doug

His building the new fence shows that he is knowingly trying to steal land or he has no knowledge of the pipe. You said that holding the pipe would create a non-conforming lot. That is the greater danger you need to be wary of. From what I have seen, I would set a new pin with the full knowledge of both owners, not remove anything or hiding any evidence from anyone and write a very wordy narrative about how and why you reached the conclusions you did. You will need confidence in your choice before talking to both owners and you need to talk to both at the same time. Don't be arrogant, listen equally and courteously to both and tell them the options they have along with the winners and losers and probable cost of each choice. Stress that you are not an attorney but speaking from your observations of the results of the choices made by others in similar circumstances. Recommend their consulting with an attorney for legal advice. If the job is done properly you will be going on to your next project with a favorable impression being left behind and no attorneys being called.
jud

It's hard to get all the details into an original post, and I'm sorry I left this out, but the rinky-dink hogwire has only been there a few weeks and it looks like he just put it wherever it was convenient to keep his dogs in his yard. It's got an obvious major angle in it and the property line is straight so he wasn't really trying to say it was his property line. I just don't think he knew about the pipe.

You can't disprove it is not the original location.
Sounds like the original position.
Code of Civil Procedure 2077 states that monuments hold over measurement.
I believe the courts have affirmed that belief.
Monuments get moved all the time by the unscrupulous land owner, proving it is sometimes easy, sometimes not. However, don't lower your professional standard. Original monuments hold unless you can prove they've been moved.

butch

Sorry I missed your post earlier. Yeah, all he set was the NW of the parent parcel and the north end of the split line. The parent parcel hadn't really been surveyed before. He just held the north line of the map to his South which was also a lot split and the pin in the middle of that line was as good a place as any to put the split on the subject parcel. Then he found a rebar that he accepted as his NE corner of the parent parcel. I've looked for hours for his NW corner. That's supposed to be within a foot of an old fence intx that had to have been there when he did his survey and there was old flagging on one of the posts and a rotten lath with the same color flagging laying there in the weeds, but no pipe, not yet anyway.