I did simplify this for the sake of discussion on the base question of how the C-1/4 affects other owners.
The background of the case is not unlike many surveys we do, in that the surveyor who set the C-1/4 was only concerned with providing his client with a location without doing a full and complete survey of the entire area affected by his actions. The result is, well, a not so black and white boundary solution for us who try to put the whole story together.
I thank you all for your input and do appreciate the varying perspectives. They certainly all have merit.
I love these discussions. They are the meat of surveying. I have great respect for what Mr. Stahl says on these matters, and would advise paying attention to his precise words.
I think throwing out some of the other facts in the case would help for a clearer evaluation.
I have a few questions that you may or may not wish to address. (It does sound like you have kind of put an end to your discussion.)
In the setting of the 1/4 corner in 1970, is there evidence to believe it was set to favor the client in the specific case? (Did it give him more land than he would have had?) That wouldn't be a final answer, but it might be considered in evidence.
Was there always adjoiners, but no one ever got a survey done?
Did someone own the whole section and then sell to the one owner and it stayed that way for many years? If that is the case, that is a good sign that the "adjoiner" accepted and/or acquiesced to the position of the monument. Not only that, at that point all of the affected parties have held and used it as the true and correct corner.
I have known of surveyors who see these situations and show the existing monument as the "corner of common report". Personally, I like that. I don't know how, but if you accept the monument as the 1/4 corner, make it clear that you are aware that it is not in the same position as where the intersection of lines would put it. I think surveyors following your work need to see that you aren't "making a mistake" by just accepting whatever you see without having done the work it takes to know where the corner 'should' be. I would also possibly show that no evidence was found to support the mathematical center of section. (Or maybe there was but you chose to accept the "historical" corner.
I can't address what is right or wrong, but I would highly advise that you show all evidence, both conflicting and supporting of what you found. Make it clear that you aren't "missing" anything that might make someone else think you didn't do a thorough job. If you are also basing your decision off of oral or other extraneous facts, I would explain those as well. I have met a lot of surveyors who disagree with me, and say "what, should I have a whole dissertation on every corner I use"? I say yes, that dissertation might not have to be all words, but your plat should show another surveyor what you have done.
Sorry, I may be saying things you already do, and just be spewing "surveying 101" theory that you don't need. But I do think it relates even if it's off on a bit of a "tangent".
Tom
Tom, whatsamatterwithyouareyoutryingtobeaprofessional?
I like your post. Good thinking.
Nate
Nate,
Sorry, I should have followed the rule that you need to post to 6 political posts and cussed out at least 4 people before you post to a real survey thread.;-)
I mean thanks,
Tom
But Keith my copy of the Manual only has a Chapter 3.
The real problem is the GLO did not Survey every Patent that was issued. So like a lot of things Surveyors came along with varying methodologies and quality of work to attempt to mark out those Patent corners so the entrymen could occupy and use their property.
The Government saved money in the 19th century so now some of our clients get stuck with a big bill trying to resolve these issues.
I would say if your client doesn't actually touch the center quarter then the existing monument is less likely to apply to him but that is not to say there isn't a possibly that it does apply to him. Ha, easy isn't it.
If use of the manual is mandated by statute, then the whole manual is mandated including the statement of it's intended use by the private sector is advisory. In the above noted question, my preference would be to reject the first C 1/4 with the full knowledge and approval of the effected owner and adjust the occupation to the proper location. If unwilling to move occupation because of improvements, I would probably still do another correct breakdown and treat the existing occupation like a Donation Land Claim. Depends on the record and the owners how to treat the existing occupation, rights were established but for the good of all, boundaries and occupation could be corrected.
jud
The background of the case is not unlike many surveys we do, in that the surveyor who set the C-1/4 was only concerned with providing his client with a location without doing a full and complete survey of the entire area affected by his actions. The result is, well, a not so black and white boundary solution for us who try to put the whole story together.
I would think seriously about ignoring it and tell the landowner why!
Keith
Lots of good ideas in the posts. I had a couple of items you should address in your plat narrative or surveyor's report. Is there evidence that the center 1/4 was set as an approximate or temporary corner and not intended to control the other quarters of the section? In your opinion was the methodology used to set the C 1/4 a gross error or possibly fraud as per law or customs in 1970? In the Dykes v. Arnold case the the methodology used was not the method sanctioned by the Manual, but it was a method in common use at the time and had been used in previous GLO instructions (It was set midpoint east-west). The Dykes Court decided there was no gross error in the setting of the C 1/4. Of course if there is a California case on the subject, it should be reviewed.
There are enough gray areas addressed in the Manual with guidelines, that you would not have to dismiss the use of the Manual. You just have to find the correct section of the Manual to apply to your situation. The guidelines in the Manual for acceptance or rejection of an existing monuments complements existing state law.
> Depends on what the State Statutes say. Lot of States make following the Manual Mandatory for executing and performing surveys in the rectangular system in their particular state. Not one way fits all ways. This is a need to know item for the professional.
Those statutes speak to establishing new lines, not to whether the surveyor should recognize an already established line. With established points and lines, it is a well established legal principle that it is not within the surveyor's authority to presume to correct the errors of the survey which established those points and lines.
Your question, based upon the information given is unanswerable. As Dan showed by posting 3 cases with different sets of circumstances, the answer with the info given is "it depends" (the only valid canned answer applicable to all boundary survey questions).
When you say that no other properties have relied on the monument for the C 1/4 which is 50' from your calculated intersection, do you mean that there are no other visible indications of property lines (fences or other lines of occupation) or that they have no apparent relationship to the previously established C 1/4, or do you simply mean that there are no other survey records showing reliance upon that corner position? Have you located and analyzed other lines of occupation? If they differ or appear to have no relationship to this corner position, do different lines seem to have a different C 1/4 position in common reliance?
Come to think of it, you didn't mention whether the 1970s C 1/4 was monumented or merely represented as a calculated point on a map. Is it monumented? [EDIT: I went back and reread your OP, and it seems it was monumented, but all other questions are still applicable) You also state that properties adjacent to that one 1/4-1/4 rely on it. Are all of those properties in the NW 1/4? Do any of them have boundaries in common with the other 1/4s or have the C 1/4 as its SE corner? If so, is there some dispute between properties within the NW 1/4 and adjacent properties in other 1/4s?
Where I'm going with these questions is that you need to evaluate the C 1/4 by the same application of law that a court would. Whichever position a court of competent jurisdiction would recognize is the one which would ultimately control the boundaries if it were to be litigated. Courts find it more abhorrent to reject an established monument from which lines had been established and long recognized because it was originally incorrectly established than they do to allow lines to stand which are obviously not in keeping with a carefully measured and calculated corner location.
For this reason, I almost always start in the default position of accepting a found monument, and then evaluate whether there is sufficient cause to reject it rather than finding a monument and then determining whether there is sufficient reason to convince me to accept it. That may seem like a fine distinction, but in the marginal cases, it favors repose over controversy. That is in keeping with the overall attitude of the courts with respect to boundaries.
I do the same, give the presumption of acceptance to the monument then try to prove it unacceptable.
Bear in mind also that the property owners are not necessarily required to fence from monument to monument for the monuments to control as was shown in the Buddhist Temple case a few years ago. Although that case is unpublished it does give an insight to Judicial thinking. There were monuments on a 1/16th line set by a Parcel Map 30 years ago on a line several degrees off of cardinal in a regular Section. Although there were no fences the Court nonetheless said the fact of the monuments was enough to show occupation up to that line.
Ya mean that junior corner off line was accepted???
It was more like a line of monuments that went from a 1/16th corner to another 1/16th corner which was an angle iron that no one knows how it got there. The line is several degrees off of cardinal in a regular section. Part of the confusion is the section is in two counties and the Parcel Map Surveyor is a Civil Engineer notorious around here for bad work and he actually signed the Parcel Map after his PE was revoked because he kept Surveying after the board told to stop doing Surveying. Naturally all of this would lead the average Surveyor to just toss everything he did but the Court essentially said its been like that for 30 years so leave it alone.
This is why I think Evan is right; the monument is acceptable until you prove otherwise. We are too quick to reject monuments that don't meet our high standards.
>
> For this reason, I almost always start in the default position of accepting a found monument, and then evaluate whether there is sufficient cause to reject it rather than finding a monument and then determining whether there is sufficient reason to convince me to accept it. That may seem like a fine distinction, but in the marginal cases, it favors repose over controversy. That is in keeping with the overall attitude of the courts with respect to boundaries.
Very good point and I agree. The assumption for me is also that the existing monument is correct unless I find enough evidence to disprove it.
Good post Brian. Apparently clearcut knows that the center/quarter was set by erroneous methods.
But many times you might be missing a C-1/4 by a large distance, and you might want to go back to some of the controling quarter-corner locations and see if there is another "external" quarter-corner that would possibly be closer relative to the center-quarter you found. Who knows if a found center-of-section is evidence as to the location of an original section-corner monument location.
