Apportionment Question

A monument found, especially one found .26 from a calculated corner would be awful hard for me to ignore. Hell, for some guys that would be close enough that they'd use the record distance.
Were you going to pull up the old irons or pincushion the whole subdivision?
One would seem to be as egregious as the other.
You are setting yourself up for a long and frustrating career, I'm afraid.

I have no obligation to follow a re-tracing surveyor. My duty is to follow the original surveyor and either find his monuments or set them where he set them or would have set them. By holding the original block corners I am doing that and by apportioning the rest of the lots I am doing that. I just want to see if the rest of the board agrees.

Lex Mercatoria

Gee Lex, I don't know. You have set monuments, presumably accepted by the owners, and boundaries that are harmoniously enjoyed by the occupants for the past 30 years. Why would you pincushion the corners over a quarter of a foot?

Is the 'math' that strongly held in your area?

Dtp

O.K.

Do you agree?

Not by a country mile

>By holding the block corners and prorating the lots I have determined these capped rebars are all off from 0.17’ to 0.26’. Therefore I am not going to hold them.

There is no law that allows a "measurement test" for accepting or rejecting monuments. You haven't given any information regarding reliance, use or occupation which is the only evidence that can answer the question.
>
> Thought I would run it by you and see if you agree that I am on firm footing to reset the corners marked by the capped rebars based on a good proration. I know that will trouble some of you, but proration based on the original block corners is surely the right way to go. That’s just basic land surveying law. The capped rebars from the 1980’s are just some surveyors interpretation. I can’t be bound by that when they are as much as a quarter of a foot off. Do you agree?
>
Lex,

According to the theory you propose, the Rule of Apportionment (a rule of last resort) would control over 30+ year old monuments. There is no legal theory that holds such a proposition; therefore, the theory being proposed is not "basic surveying law," nor are you "on firm footing" relying upon such a premise. Boundaries established in reliance upon monuments (not all monuments) control over course and distance, not the other way around (that's the correct legal theory). The Rule of Apportionment is a rule of last resort (that's the proper legal theory as well). A rule of last resort cannot control over established boundaries.

It seems unfathomable that surveyors would fail to consider or give any respect to our own profession (the rebars and pipes didn't just grow on their own), to the former landowners who did everything according to the law to properly establish their boundaries (even when they had to pay good hard-earned money to hire a professional surveyor), or to expend such little effort to know, understand and properly apply the fundamental rules of real property law (which govern our professional service).

"It's just basic land surveying law." When there is intervening occupation between the found controlling block corners, the intervening occupation must be considered and given proper weight. Just because the monuments recovered (it appears that the occupation evidence which accompanies the rebar and pipes isn't being given any consideration) don't fit our impossible expectations of perfection is no reason that a Rule of Last Resort should be considered as controlling over 60 years of use, occupation and repose.

This is a boundary retracement survey, not an original survey subdividing the block without any intervening evidence. Gather the evidence of the block corners (job well done), gather the evidence of former surveys (job well done), gather the evidence of use and occupation (either ignored or given no weight for consideration in this scenario), and determine which lot corners have been established based upon all of the evidence and the appropriate rules of law. Once you know where the intervening corners have been established, you can now properly apply the Apportionment Rule to determine the non-established corners (only by involving all of the owners affected by your survey).

Measurement evidence compared with expectations of perfection have no foundation in any legal principle designed for determining the location of a boundary. They're boundaries, not first order control points.

JBS

> I have no obligation to follow a re-tracing surveyor. My duty is to follow the original surveyor and either find his monuments or set them where he set them or would have set them. By holding the original block corners I am doing that and by apportioning the rest of the lots I am doing that. I just want to see if the rest of the board agrees.
>
Lex,

You haven't stated in your profile what state you are from, so I'm not able to recite a specific law within your jurisdiction. Perhaps you would provide that, so we could be more specific. I will say, however, that the law in your jurisdiction will be the same laws we'll find in every other jurisdiction with regard to the "problem" you're confronted with.

The duty of the surveyor isn't to simply "follow the original surveyor." Yes, that's step one; but it's not the end of the day once you've recovered the footsteps. Step two requires that you determine the location of the boundaries of your client's property. That requires you to gather the evidence necessary to make the determination. You're not working with a blank sheet of paper. You've got evidence of prior surveys (not done to your unwavering expectation of perfection) and you've got evidence of use and occupation over the past 60 years which has established the boundaries within the block through the application of any number of legal doctrines.

The duty of the surveyor isn't to ignore boundaries established in accordance with the law. The duty of the surveyor is to give those boundaries their proper consideration and to honor the actions of the past which have been made in accordance with the law.

The rule of apportionment, by its very nature, redistributes natural errors, and affects boundary locations of every landowner throughout the block. The retracing surveyor has no authority to upset existing, established boundaries through the application of such a rule of last resort.

JBS

> I have no obligation to follow a re-tracing surveyor. My duty is to follow the original surveyor and either find his monuments or set them where he set them or would have set them.
>
> Lex Mercatoria

By your definition when section corners were reset in the early 1900's (don't quote me) I could come through now and using more accurate equipment I could ignore corners not set at the mile by the retracing surveyor because they weren't set by the 'original' surveyor?

As a silly newb who can't find work even I know that monuments hold over everything else, and monuments relied upon are even more important as we should not disturb the harmony for the sake of a mathematical solution to a non-existent problem. Have a great day!

curly

I'm pleased to see you added reliance. That seems to be #1 with the judge,

Come on Lex. There is a sarcasm button now. Please use it appropriately.

Oh, dang. Maybe Lex is serious??????????? 🙁

Why is this gospel sermon so frequently rejected or ignored?

Because we're "expert measurers". Surely, since we're so good at that, that must be what we need to be doing primarily.

This reminds me of a person in the Chicago area who told me her surveyor father had to reset all the corners in a 50 lot subdivision, because they were all 2' off.

Really?

Lex,

You have come to the right place for discussion of this situation.

I personally would be very hard pressed to ignore the interior monuments that you have found and located. Curly said it below, the property owners have relied upon those monuments as delineating their boundaries, and that in itself has established credibility of the monuments. The small amount that these monuments are out would hardly be cause to disregard them. Show call (record) verses measured and move forward.

JB stated very, very well, the surveyor's obligation to properly retrace a boundary. Bearings and distances yield to monuments as we all know, even uncalled for monuments at times.

There is some very good information on the replies to your original question/post. In the end, it is your call, and your license and professional reputation, however, I personally would not want to be the guy that comes in and disrupts a neighborhood over slight differences in record measurements.

This is the type of situation that separates the true professionals from the button pushers.

My humble opinion.

Apportionment Question>I'm suspicious

I don't think this is a "real" question/post....

Wikipedia says;
"Lex mercatoria (from the Latin for "merchant law") is the body of commercial law used by merchants throughout Europe during the medieval period. It evolved similar to English common law as a system of custom and best practice, which was enforced through a system of merchant courts along the main trade routes. It functioned as the international law of commerce.[1] It emphasised contractual freedom, alienability of property, while shunning legal technicalities and deciding cases ex aequo et bono. A distinct feature was the reliance by merchants on a legal system developed and administered by them. States or local authorities seldom interfered, and did not interfere a lot in internal domestic trade. Under lex mercatoria, trade flourished and states took in large amounts of taxation."

I think this is someone creating a discussion and not a real life issue....

Apportionment Question>I'm suspicious

That's what I thought when I first read the post...intended just to stir the pot...much like the GIS post last week by Ted Madson...

Around here if I find a pin "off" 0.17' on a 950' line, it is the corner.

Apportionment Question>I'm suspicious

> I don't think this is a "real" question/post....
>
> Wikipedia says;
> "Lex mercatoria (from the Latin for "merchant law") is the body of commercial law used by merchants throughout Europe during the medieval period. It evolved similar to English common law as a system of custom and best practice, which was enforced through a system of merchant courts along the main trade routes. It functioned as the international law of commerce.[1] It emphasised contractual freedom, alienability of property, while shunning legal technicalities and deciding cases ex aequo et bono. A distinct feature was the reliance by merchants on a legal system developed and administered by them. States or local authorities seldom interfered, and did not interfere a lot in internal domestic trade. Under lex mercatoria, trade flourished and states took in large amounts of taxation."
>
>
> I think this is someone creating a discussion and not a real life issue....

Yup, we've been led down this same path by the same poster in the past. I thought the previous one was funnier though.

My first reaction was to ask what universe, excuse me, what state are you in? Then I googled "Lex Mercatoria". It was the two tenths of a foot and too much irrelevant info that nudged my brain awake. Should have used closer to a foot. Try again. Think I'll go back to my oatmeal now.

Evelyn

Of course i am real! What's with all the cynicism?

I am located in mid-central Calisota.

So, no one feels like following well-established real property law, huh?

JBS, it's usually a lot more interesting if you holdoff posting until late afternoon.

Lex

> You are setting yourself up for a long and frustrating career, I'm afraid.

:good: :good: :good:

> I am located in mid-central Calisota.

So that's why you're all ducked-up 😉