Here is an example of how the OP would be applied.
I apologize for straying off topic.
No disrespect intended.
BTW, I agree with your basic idea. I think it's a good idea to keep a working knowledge of your local peers and the likely agreement that you might find between their platted distances and found monuments.
It's perfectly fine to stray off topic... Your issue needed addressed too. Posts on a forum are a bit like our children. Some do well. Some stay immature. Some grow up, and become something very mature, and completely different, than expected! 🙂
ScottySantaFe, post: 323351, member: 9477 wrote: I apologize for straying off topic.
No disrespect intended.
BTW, I agree with your basic idea. I think it's a good idea to keep a working knowledge of your local peers and the likely agreement that you might find between their platted distances and found monuments.
I like a good thread hijack any day.
thebionicman, post: 323288, member: 8136 wrote:
Contrary to popular belief the 'original surveyor' presumption is limited to just that, the original GLO Surveyor.
There are court cases here in Washington state that say differently. The original surveyor is the original subdividing surveyor. So, for the section, the original surveyor is the GLO. If a surveyor creates additional subdivision of the land within one of those quarters, he is the original surveyor for that subdivision of land (Say he divides it up a quarter into 12 acre tracts, more or less). Then another surveyor could divide up the 12 acre tract into 1 acre tracts...he is the original surveyor for that subdivision...and on it goes.
For some court cases regarding the nature of a surveyor's monuments, in regards to controlling the boundary lines of a subdivision of land, see: Staaf v Bilder(1966), Neeley v Maurer(1948), Olson v City of Seattle(1903).
In the context it was made my statement is true. Many attempt to quote the phrase from the manual regarding original Corners being correct and extend the title 'original surveyor' unto themselves.
I agree the courts held the found monuments in these cases over Plat and survey dimensions. Take a look at Sutter v. Campbell. I contend the Courts assign the title 'original Surveyor' as a result of who is proven to set a corner connected to a given plat first, not who signed the plat. The case of Aust v. Matson came to a different conclusion than Sutter of who to call 'original'. The same City Survey looked at by many of the same Judges. Different conclusion. Point being things are not absolute and we can't write the rule in stone and forget about it.
Don't get me wrong, undisturbed original monuments rule in nearly every case. There are times they should give way. One of those times is prior to sale when the lots are unoccupied...
While a set pin "might" be accepted as a corner even if it's a little ... or maybe a lot ... off, the "accuracy" of it's actual location is a totally different issue.
Intent and acquiescence apply to monuments set in error, in my opinion. If the stake was set 5' from the intended position, the question becomes 'does this stake adequately represent the intent of the original parties?' Other elements of the description or Plat must be evaluated to determine this. Also, as others have mentioned, reliance (acquiescence) has an effect on decisions.
Intent seems to be oft overlooked in these discussions. Original Intent, along with Junior-Senior rights, can trump monuments, calls for distance, direction and area. Acquiescence can trump intent and Jr-Sr rights, if ripened. It's what makes this job fun and it's an important reminder to always write descriptions and prepare plats that adequately express the intent.
ScottySantaFe, post: 323237, member: 9477 wrote: Plus 2! I have wondered about this.
I think both property owners would have to rely on the corner to give it any significance. For example, surveyor A busts the corner 5', and owner A builds a fence. Did owner A rely on the corner? Yes. Is the incorrect location binding on owner B? No!!
What do you mean by Owner A and Owner B? Are A & B sequential owners of the same parcel, or are A and B owners of abutting parcels?
Jim in AZ, post: 326469, member: 249 wrote: What do you mean by Owner A and Owner B? Are A & B sequential owners of the same parcel, or are A and B owners of abutting parcels?
On reading my old post, I can see that I wasn't very descriptive.
I meant owners of abutting parcels.
ScottySantaFe, post: 326481, member: 9477 wrote: On reading my old post, I can see that I wasn't very descriptive.
I meant owners of abutting parcels.
Okay - assuming A&B have common corners along one line... Are you saying that if you are surveying B's parcel and find corners of A's parcel they may not be B's corners based on B's lack of acceptance of them? You would set new corners for B's parcel only?
Jim in AZ, post: 326496, member: 249 wrote: Okay - assuming A&B have common corners along one line... Are you saying that if you are surveying B's parcel and find corners of A's parcel they may not be B's corners based on B's lack of acceptance of them? You would set new corners for B's parcel only?
Client B calls you and says: Jim in AZ, I live on lot x off road x. I've lived here for x years, and I never knew where my pins where located. My neighbor to the East and I recognized the boundary to be at the fence. X months ago my neighbor sold their lot to owner A. Owner A hired a surveyor, and the surveyor set pins x feet across the fence.
Would you tell the client that the boundary line is where owner A's surveyor set the monuments? I would tell the client that I have to survey the properties to determine the boundary between them.
The post that stated this conversation said
How long does it take a "survey point" to ripen to a boundary corner?
example: Surveyor A sets a property pin with an inherent blunder that places said pin 5' from a "proper" location. Later, surveyor B "finds" the blunder and feels it should be corrected. Did the pin (placed with a blunder) become a boundary corner the instant surveyor A tied the knot in the flagging?
If I surveyed the properties (in this hypothetical situation) and found that surveyor A had blundered the monuments by 5', I would not give much weight to the evidence that owner A or owner A's surveyor where relying on the incorrect monuments.
In a nutshell, as soon as anyone uses the incorrect monuments to determine the boundary between them.
I had a job last month where one of the local GPS wizards tried to stake the backbone line of a subdivision, in heavy canopy, with RTK. Some pins found were pretty close, some were out by a few tenths, and one was out over 4' from record alignment. Guess which one got the 6' wood privacy fence and workshop.
Our client, when made aware of the situation, did not want the problems or ill will with the neighbor over the encroachment, as his property is agricultural and frankly the wedge was not worth the effort to reclaim the land.
We amended his legal description to follow the monuments, at his request, so as to give an accurate description of what we found.
