As usual, Kent can only argue his case if he changes the

Keith

I wouldn't call it bearings and distances surveying. That sounds more like you find one monument and go with record data calling everything you find off-line. Or you find two monuments and turn a record angle and do the same thing.

I always get in trouble when I try to paraphrase people, but I don't think Kent and others are advocating ignoring monuments in favor of bearings and distances. They're just honoring original monuments that were in place at the time of an original conveyance and saying that just because something that's made of iron appears somewhere near that line doesn't necessarily move the line. It's a classic case of "It depends" Not an "always" or "never" type of deal.

So Keith

If you have a deed that calls to go to the East boundary line of a Highway. You find the monument, then discover it lacked 5 feet of getting to the right-of-way, do you extend the line as is the presumption under the strips and gores doctrine, or hold the corner.

Remember, calls for senior lines are monuments as well.

Peter said it very well, in fact, I couldn't have said it better myself.

Even if you chasing a senior line, if it calls to be somewhere it isn't, the monuments don't always hold, and you're sure as hell not going to bend a right-of-way line to get to the monument.

There are times where it MAY be appropriate to bend a senior line. For instance, in the timber, where a line was marked, if the marked line bent, and a junior corner was set IN the marked line, then the senior line, regardless of whether it called to be straight or not, is not straight.

I've seen this in my neck of the woods. It probably doesn't apply in West Texas where there are little to no trees. There are specific cases that cite this. It's not a presumption of straight senior lines, as much as it is following the footsteps.

There is a time and place for everything, but it better be damn specific if you're going to bend the senior line to a junior corner.

THE LAW

I should have distinguished that in my saying lines, I was referring to the apparent occupation lines that Richard insists changes ownership so easily.

In an ideal situation monuments are at the end of each boundary.

Not to be confused with driving a rod at the end of a mere fence or at the limit of where one stops mowing their yard just because it is there.

Kent

Bearings and distances are only part of a property description.

The bounds included in a proper description should void any gaps and gores that may be created by problems with the math not exactly falling in place.

In other words, plazio,

> monuments mean nothing?

Monuments are totally sacrosanct and can never be disregarded?

This argument consists of a series of hyperbolic statements. There are very few always and nevers in surveying but this argument seems to revolve around those two words.

Peter Lazio

Keith

I don't survey where you survey.

You don't survey where I survey.

There is no "Manual" where I survey.

You can't point to "The Manual" and tell me I'm wrong, if there's no "Manual" in force where I survey.

If you guys can't agree as to the importance of junior and senior rights, who am I to chime in?

This act would draw a lot of attendees if you took it on the road to the various state conferences....why not try to work something out, kind of like that Ann Coulter/James Carville tour that's going around. Thar's gold in them thar hills.

A Harris

You are right of course and bounds are of course important.

But of course that is not the issue..........ignoring subsequent monumentation is the issue!

Keith

Steve

As I have said before, I know darn well that my 1/16 sec. corners (set during my junior survey) would not fall on an instrument straight line that Kent would run, therefore, those 1/16 sec. cors. will put a kink in the section line.

Would you expect the landowner to not accept my corner position as a matter of measurement? They may well protest my decision if in fact I overlooked evidence that they have relied on.

I really think the quoted post below answers the questions:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

""Junior monument" defined
by Keith, On the Central Coast of California, Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 07:30 (3 hours, 33 minutes ago) @ Kent McMillan
"Monument found 1.52 ft. North of true line", if it is, would be a starter. :>"

This is a good place to start from; If in fact you are a surveyor that only is involved in city lots and blocks, and your longest line is 150 ft., then this found monument that is off your line by 1.52 ft. would ordinarily be rejected without any more consideration.

But in the world of PLSS when miles of line are being retraced/resurveyed and you come upon this monument that is 1.52 ft. off the one mile line that is being resurveyed and there is a fence coming into it, you need to take a good look at it. The first fact to consider is talking to the landowners about the monument and you find out that it was set by a county surveyor 20 some years ago, both landowners have accepted it, fences built to it and it is considered their boundary line. The land is farmed up to that fence. The landowners can recall when the county surveyor was there and the father of one land owner even helped in running this "junior survey". Now, is that monument accepted as the boundary line or not?

Not in Kent's world, but is directly in line with the Manual section that I have quoted.

Keith"

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Keith

Keith

No argument from me about that. Well, except for the lot/blk survey with a found monument 1.52' off line. If it's original and the end points aren't, different story. If it's somehow gained status as the property corner, you wouldn't reject it either. And, with your scenario of the landowners accepting the monument by their words and actions, I don't see how you get much of an argument from anybody about accepting it. At least for those landowners that are directly affected by it. I don't like the idea of busting up other remote parts of a section based on an accepted monument that may have been placed incorrectly.

If we had to do section breakdowns in Sacramento County based solely on original monuments or faithful perpetuations from original evidence, we might as well hang up our plumbobs. "Accepted as" is about as good as it gets in the developed areas. Out in the woods and deserts, you've got a better chance.

A Harris

"What happens to that small sliver of land that you create with your bearings and distances only brand of surveying?"

"Keith"

What monuments were mentioned?

Metes only descriptions are for lawyers and bankers and others asking for something to fill in the empty space on their deed forms.

Steve

Do you think Kent would think for a minute and a half about that monument that is 1.52 ft. off his instrument line?

Keith

Steve

I don't know, but I'll bet he'll tell us.

Kris

I know that being from Texas, you probably don't pay any attention to our PLSS Manual, but would be curious to know if you agree with the concept in the section that I have been quoting.

"Junior-Senior Corners

The line is regarded as having been fixed in position by the senior survey and subsequent dependent resurveys or retracements. If both sets of corners are recovered, a junior survey,if it was established in the course of an obvious careful resurvey or retracement, reporting the most recent measurement of the line, will be used for alinement of the line and for control in restoring a lost senior corner of the line."

Just curious.

Keith

The bottom line to this discussion for those who do not

PRETTY MUCH A WASTE OF TIME. MEASUREMENT EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE. LINES RUN AND MARKER UPON THE GROUND ARE UNCHANGABLE..... SET AS MANY PINS AS YOU WOULD LIKE, THEY DO NOT CHANGE THE LOCATION OF A LINE AS RUN AND MARKED UPON THE GROUND..... GENERALLY BASED UPON THIS EXCHANGE NO ONE CAN REALLY CLAIM ANYTHING BECUASE THEIR IS NOT A COMPLETE FACT SET TO REVIEW..... I EVALUATE EVIDENCE IN VIEW OF APPLICABLE LAW AND THEN COME TO A CONCLUSION, THIS IS WHAT SURVEYOR'S DO IN ORDER TO ARRIVE AT A VALID PROFESSIONAL OPINION.

Kris

> I know that being from Texas, you probably don't pay any attention to our PLSS Manual, but would be curious to know if you agree with the concept in the section that I have been quoting.
>
> "Junior-Senior Corners
>
> 7-23. This situation exists where one set of corners was established for one side of the line, and a second set of corners was established for the other side of the of the same line in the course of a later resurvey or retracement (figure 7-4).
>
> The line is regarded as having been fixed in position by the senior survey and subsequent dependent resurveys or retracements. If both sets of corners are recovered, a junior survey,if it was established in the course of an obvious careful resurvey or retracement, reporting the most recent measurement of the line, will be used for alinement of the line and for control in restoring a lost senior corner of the line."
>
> Just curious.
>
> Keith

Well, it would seem to me that it would ONLY apply to those surveys having been conducted by the government, as that is what the manual is to control, the surveying of the government surveyors. That being said, I have no problem with that.

The hat trick to that critter is when you are trying to reset the senior (section) line based on a survey from lets say 1984 where one company in Section 6 set some rods to define the West 1/4 of 6 and in 1972, in the adjoining Township to the West in Section 1, some other company set some rods setting in the East 1/16 corners on the range line. While this is an extreme example, it gets to the heart of the matter, using a private survey to define the township line. I don't think the above situation is prudent, and can only be replaced by taking into account the surveys of the Township of each and it's section corners (since you can use them in the reconstruction under subdivision rules) to replace the senior line.

So, I agree with manual in part. This gives some of my Texas brethern heartburn, but there are cases where the senior can only be located by the junior, but they are rare.

The Rest of the Story

7-24
This procedure is not advisable where the junior corner was not established by an obvious careful resurvey or retracement, evidenced by its recovery far off line. That condition can only be shown by retracing enough of the line to determine its bearing. Where there has been extensive loss of corners, particularly the senior corners, the existent junior corner may constitute the best available evidence of the line itself. In such a case the junior corners will exercise control for both measurement and alinement.

7-30
A junior corner established without a retracement of the senior line ordinarily is not used as a control corner in restoring a lost senior corner. However, where an obviously careful retracement of the senior line has been made and the field notes state clearly that new monuments were set on the line, the monuments become the best available evidence of the position of the senior line.

The bottom line to this discussion for those who do not

By golly, I think you made more sense than Kent did?

Keith

The bottom line to this discussion for those who do not

Your logic is typical of your rationale...........no sense at all.

Keith

The Rest of the Story

So, in other words, the new manual directly contradicts Keith's pet idea by stating:

7-26
In some older surveys, the policy was to establish junior corners without a careful retracement of the senior line. In these cases, a recovered junior corner not actually located on the line that it was intended should not control the line for measurement or alinement. The new junior corner will be positioned in a cardinal direction, north or south on a latitudinal line, or, east or west on a meridional line, from the original junior corner onto the line intended. These new junior corners are established after a retracement of the senior line.

7-30
A junior corner established without a retracement of the senior line ordinarily is not used as a control corner in restoring a lost senior corner. However, where an obviously careful retracement of the senior line has been made and the field notes state clearly that new monuments were set on the line, the monuments become the best available evidence of the position of the senior line.

The Rest of the Story

Hey Dan,

Now that is good!!

Maybe I should repeat your quote and highlight all those "junior corners" that Kent said did not exist in the Manual.

This section (7-26) is about closing corners, where the senior line was not retraced;

"7-26
In some older surveys, the policy was to establish junior corners without a careful retracement of the senior line. In these cases, a recovered junior corner not actually located on the line that it was intended should not control the line for measurement or alinement. The new junior corner will be positioned in a cardinal direction, north or south on a latitudinal line, or, east or west on a meridional line, from the original junior corner onto the line intended. These new junior corners are established after a retracement of the senior line."

The Manual cannot be any clearer and if one does not agree with it, at least have the courtesy to provide reference material to show it............and not the Constitution!

Keith