Hack, post: 413126, member: 708 wrote: First, I tend to agree with Dave K.; for two properties to be in separate ownership and possession for over 130 years without having the common boundary established on the ground is quiet remarkable and doubtful. At any point in time, after the original split, were both parcels under one ownership?
Second, I am still wondering about the found monuments at the southeast and southwest corners of the east parcel - what are the chances they were set at or near the same time? Are they of the same material, size, etc.? It is quite a coincident that a pipe was found at 100 feet and that has been the stated dimension in the descriptions for well over 100 years, and yet can be dismissed without substantial further investigation (see first thought)?
Third, what was the testimony/statements of the current and previous landowners concerning their boundaries, monuments, etc., before you expressed any opinion or presented any evidence/facts to them? Was the location of the boundary in doubt or dispute?
Fourth, have both owners agreed with and accepted your opinion on the location of the boundary (obviously, this is the most important, after all, who is going to question or challenge your opinion if all parties are in agreement and accept the boundary you marked)?
Fifth, I agree with those that have expressed the fact that we may not have all the evidence to support a well reasoned opinion.
First, What is your definition of established? Of course the properties were never in common ownership again or it would have been stated.
Second, in fact the pipes are different. Not uncommon around here especially with older surveys. I don't think it was a coincidence at all. I believe they more than likely were set at the same time. Exactly what do you mean by further substantial further investigation?
Third, the easterly owner was unsure of the boundary location hence the reason for the survey. The property was owned by his father and grandfather with neither ever expressing to him the boundary location. The westerly owner knew of the pipe and believed that was the corner.
Fourth, I don't make decisions with the goal of having all the parties agree.
Fifth, I was simply trying to stimulate a discussion based on the evidence presented.
Hack, post: 413126, member: 708 wrote: Fifth, I was simply trying to stimulate a discussion based on the evidence presented.
That you did:)
Leave it to Surveyors to complicate Sarge's simple solution.
Only one reason I read for accepting the pipe. We can't just assume the West owner didn't pull a tape and know that accepting the pipe was to his benefit.
I usually tie in all adjacent properties, and more if that raises more questions that answers. Many times you can pickup patterns in dimensions or monumentation.
Also, while you are there, conversations with neighbors that have no interest can be very useful.
Great debate fellas. In these cases I plot the surrounding deeds, as many as I can, and overlay those on older imagery. Just maybe you'll get the evidence of possession you need to make a final decision (without spending more time in the field). I know it's helped me in the past.
Yes great stuff. I am not licensed and I hope I'm not over stepping here. Considering there isn't any sign of occupation structural or otherwise and the argument is over 4'. Hold the pipe. Also repeating iwhat was sad by Brian I think, aren't we as surveyors supposed to help solve boundary problems (keep them out of court if possible ) rather then create them.
Hack didn't create the problem, it's his job to fix it. Demarcate the boundary with science and law first, and allow the client and lawyers do the rest....Keeping your clients out of court, well that's some murky water. Where does it end? 4 feet, 10 feet, 60'?
Brian Allen, post: 413143, member: 1333 wrote: First, What is your definition of established? Of course the properties were never in common ownership again or it would have been stated.
Black's Law (7th): establish, vb. 1. To settle, make, or fix firmly; to enact permanently 2. To make or form; to bring about or into existence.
Surveyors don't establish boundaries - landowners do. Once a boundary has been previously established, it is our job to find it (see Tom's post).
Second, in fact the pipes are different. Not uncommon around here especially with older surveys. I don't think it was a coincidence at all. I believe they more than likely were set at the same time. Exactly what do you mean by further substantial further investigation?Things like: Who set it? Why? When? Is or has there been reliance? If so by whom? Why or why not? You know, investigation that is designed and used to find evidence from which to make an informed professional opinion.
Third, the easterly owner was unsure of the boundary location hence the reason for the survey. The property was owned by his father and grandfather with neither ever expressing to him the boundary location. The westerly owner knew of the pipe and believed that was the corner.
Hmmm. Isn't the fact that the westerly owner knows of, and has possibly relied upon the pipe an important piece of evidence to investigate and consider??
Fourth, I don't make decisions with the goal of having all the parties agree.
I sure do. If they don't agree, I'm sure not going to try an force a solution upon them. If they wish to litigate, I make myself available to help in any way I can, and after the litigation is over, I am then available to finish whatever needs to be done. Surveyors should be seeking resolution to the landowners problems, not feeding or creating the problems.
Fifth, I was simply trying to stimulate a discussion based on the evidence presented.
I was merely participating in the discussion.
😀
Brian Brian Brian we all thank your for deep analysis. Such gems as "Who set it? Why? When? Is or has there been reliance? If so by whom? Why or why not?". I am sure like me others here never thought of that. I don't know what has been more of a revelation your words of wisdom or having another poster explain to me that legal principals are flexible.
Thank you to all who commented and were able to restrict the conversation to a simple boundary situation. Thank you also to all suffering from a narcissistic personality disorder to whom this forum is life blood.
God Bless
James Fleming, post: 413063, member: 136 wrote: This.
The other argument for the pipe that occurred to me is: is the frontage steep enough that the original deed distance, if measured on the slope, would fall in the vicinity of the pipe and the pipe is memorializing the location of a prior monument set based on the slope rather than horizontal measurement.
In some colonial states the courts have established the presumption that pre 1900 measurements were made on the slope.
Yes, and in other cases have held pipes that agree with a slope distance when the presumption is horizontal (Kentucky case I used in class).
I'm not sure about the narcissistic part but I do have a strong conversation with myself most mornings in the bathroom mirror in my gruffest "surly boss to underling" tone of voice. It frequently involves the words "sorry butt" and "time-wasting".
Here's your laugh for the day. I nearly hit the Post Reply button before discovering I had failed to insert the word "not" as my second word above. That must be one of those Fraudian Slips they talk about at Vicky's Secrets.
Hack, post: 413218, member: 708 wrote: Brian Brian Brian we all thank your for deep analysis. Such gems as "Who set it? Why? When? Is or has there been reliance? If so by whom? Why or why not?". I am sure like me others here never thought of that. I don't know what has been more of a revelation your words of wisdom or having another poster explain to me that legal principals are flexible.
Thank you to all who commented and were able to restrict the conversation to a simple boundary situation. Thank you also to all suffering from a narcissistic personality disorder to whom this forum is life blood.
God Bless
The legal principles that have been adopted by engineers are actually rebuttable presumptions; also the rules of construction are only one small part of a much larger body of law. I realize Engineers find this aspect of legal reasoning unnerving sometimes.
Hack, post: 413218, member: 708 wrote: Brian Brian Brian we all thank your for deep analysis. Such gems as "Who set it? Why? When? Is or has there been reliance? If so by whom? Why or why not?". I am sure like me others here never thought of that. I don't know what has been more of a revelation your words of wisdom or having another poster explain to me that legal principals are flexible.
Thank you to all who commented and were able to restrict the conversation to a simple boundary situation. Thank you also to all suffering from a narcissistic personality disorder to whom this forum is life blood.
God Bless
So were you expecting surveyors to come to a conclusion using the information from your first post and a sketch showing 2 pins, without asking any questions concerning ""Who set it? Why? When? Is or has there been reliance? If so by whom? Why or why not?""?
The pipes may had been there for 100 years... may had been placed by the two landowners to mark there land the best they could... may have been relied on by prior owners as there property marker... or maybe its just a goat stake...
Without trying to find out the who, why, when, where, one can only guess.
I was going to ask these same questions since they weren't addressed originally (even with an I don't know), but then... well I saw your responses.
Why do some act as if 6 rods 8 links is exactly 104.28'? It's not. It's 6 rods and 8 links. That's just a conversion. If you want to convert it, I think you have to add the 'more or less'. Hold the pipe.
Dan Patterson, post: 413244, member: 1179 wrote: Why do some act as if 6 rods 8 links is exactly 104.28'? It's not. It's 6 rods and 8 links. That's just a conversion. If you want to convert it, I think you have to add the 'more or less'. Hold the pipe.
Not specific to this example, but I've seen too many times where a prior surveyor held the exact r-l conversion distance, and there were old pipes, fencelines, stone wall, etc, in the vicinity that were ignored by holding the distances.
I am truly astounded at the number of people who like that darned pipe!
I could be persuaded, if there were some document of record verifying its provenance. Sometimes, though, a pipe is just a pipe......
I have no problem imagining some layperson with a 100' tape, sledge & piece of pipe reading the call for 100' and marking their idea of the "corner', many years, and owners, down the chain of title.
Sergeant Schultz, post: 413250, member: 315 wrote: I am truly astounded at the number of people who like that darned pipe!
I could be persuaded, if there were some document of record verifying its provenance. Sometimes, though, a pipe is just a pipe......
I have no problem imagining some layperson with a 100' tape, sledge & piece of pipe reading the call for 100' and marking their idea of the "corner', many years, and owners, down the chain of title.
In all fairness, I mis-read the original scenario, and thought the distance of the left parcel matched the deed, 110'. So thought the pipe was in harmony with both current deeds, but not the original r-l call on the right parcel. So, I'm not totally sure if I'd hold the pipe here, and would have to be there and have more information to make a decision.
Sergeant Schultz, post: 413250, member: 315 wrote: I am truly astounded at the number of people who like that darned pipe!
I could be persuaded, if there were some document of record verifying its provenance. Sometimes, though, a pipe is just a pipe......
I have no problem imagining some layperson with a 100' tape, sledge & piece of pipe reading the call for 100' and marking their idea of the "corner', many years, and owners, down the chain of title.
I just have a hard time discounting a pipe because it is not set at the exact distance called for in the deed. I'm not saying I would definitely hold it, but not going to throw it out either. It was set by someone at sometime to most likely mark the corner.
One thing that always gets me questioning it is why am I going to hold the SE corner pipe for gospel, but not this pipe at the SW corner that may had been set at the same time.
P_Bob, post: 413256, member: 1570 wrote: why am I going to hold the SE corner pipe for gospel, but not this pipe at the SW corner
If memory serves, Mr. Hack made mention of a recorded survey for his E adjoiner.
Sergeant Schultz, post: 413250, member: 315 wrote: I am truly astounded at the number of people who like that darned pipe!
I could be persuaded, if there were some document of record verifying its provenance. Sometimes, though, a pipe is just a pipe......
I have no problem imagining some layperson with a 100' tape, sledge & piece of pipe reading the call for 100' and marking their idea of the "corner', many years, and owners, down the chain of title.
I don't think too many have declared that they like the "darned pipe", what I have seen is that a few of us have said we wouldn't dismiss it just because it wasn't called for, or not of record, or merely because the math and measurements say to reject it.
I'm certainly not an attorney, nor have I read every supreme court case out there, but I have read enough court decisions concerning the location of boundaries to realize that in most cases, a "document of record" isn't the key piece of evidence. Far more often the most important evidence was found when the investigation answered the key questions of what, who, when, how and why. Just because something isn't of record does not make it irrelevant.
A sign hangs on the wall above my computer screen, just to help me break old bad habits that were taught by "mentors" and reading too many industry "treatises". It simply says:
Boundary surveying is NOT a measurement problem, it is an evidentiary problem.
Maybe I'll make another sign that says "ACAD programs are only a tool, they do not make boundary location determinations".
.
P_Bob, post: 413239, member: 1570 wrote: So were you expecting surveyors to come to a conclusion using the information from your first post and a sketch showing 2 pins, without asking any questions concerning ""Who set it? Why? When? Is or has there been reliance? If so by whom? Why or why not?""?
The pipes may had been there for 100 years... may had been placed by the two landowners to mark there land the best they could... may have been relied on by prior owners as there property marker... or maybe its just a goat stake...
Without trying to find out the who, why, when, where, one can only guess.
I was going to ask these same questions since they weren't addressed originally (even with an I don't know), but then... well I saw your responses.
.
P_Bob, post: 413256, member: 1570 wrote: I just have a hard time discounting a pipe because it is not set at the exact distance called for in the deed. I'm not saying I would definitely hold it, but not going to throw it out either. It was set by someone at sometime to most likely mark the corner.
One thing that always gets me questioning it is why am I going to hold the SE corner pipe for gospel, but not this pipe at the SW corner that may had been set at the same time.
Bob
Let me reiterate some facts.
reåáitåáeråáate
rÒèöidªèÎrt/
verb
verb: reiterate; 3rd person present: reiterates; past tense: reiterated; past participle: reiterated; gerund or present participle: reiterating
say something again or a number of times, typically for emphasis
For clarity the southwest parcel is Parcel A the southeast parcel is Parcel B.
There is a fence and long standing possession at the southwest corner of Parcel A. There is a 1956 well monumented survey east of Parcel B. The distance between these is 214'.
The IP is at a point 100' from the southeast corner of Parcel B and 114' from the southwest corner of Parcel A.
The deeded frontage of Parcel A is 110' +/-. The original deed frontage of Parcel B is 6R 8L. The current deed of Parcel B calls for 100' +/-.
There are no conveyances between owners of either property since the original deeds.
Parcel B owner didn't know IP was there and only believed the boundary to be in the general area. Parcel A thought there was an old pipe somewhere and actually dug it up for us. Neither owner has any idea who, why or when the IP was set. Both families have lived in the area for generations.
Those are all the facts I have for you buddy. Do with it what you may.
Brian Allen, post: 413268, member: 1333 wrote: I don't think too many have declared that they like the "darned pipe", what I have seen is that a few of us have said we wouldn't dismiss it just because it wasn't called for, or not of record, or merely because the math and measurements say to reject it..
Brian Allen, post: 413268, member: 1333 wrote: I don't think too many have declared that they like the "darned pipe", what I have seen is that a few of us have said we wouldn't dismiss it just because it wasn't called for, or not of record, or merely because the math and measurements say to reject it..
If you would take the time to read the entire thread you would realize that nobody was rejecting it "merely because the math and measurements".
Now run along your starting to get on my nerves.
