CE 1/16th

Good job.

Someone here use to have a by-line that said something like, "you don't have to be a good surveyor if you find all the corners".?ÿ

Found corners are gooder than gold. ??¯?ÿ

Somebody said:

"Accepting a found corner, is always better than setting one, while rejecting one"?ÿ This is because the neighborhood has become USED to the existing one. It's not used to the new one.

The line I was following has a 0.74 foot offset at a 1/16th corner (a bolt with 2" square head set by Thorne W. Holmes in the 1940s). ?ÿThe offset surveyor accepted the bolt going west and the "true line" going east. The 1/16th west of the bolt is 2/10ths "off" and Offset Surveyor set the 1/16th corner east of the bolt. This is rough forested terrain so we had a good chuckle about. I think I will connect the boot to the "true" rebar on the east.

Finding the monuments is the goal.

?ÿ

@warrenward

And then accept it.?ÿ

I've seen the math corner set in this situation, or an offset tie shown on a plat to the "true corner".?ÿ

The first task for me is checking for imperial entanglements, cause the BLM would probably establish the math corner for any survey they did in the area.

Not that I would alter my survey, but it's always good to know around this part of the country.?ÿ

In this case the latest patent is 1890 so no issues there.?ÿ

Posted by: @mightymoe

My drawing will not show the math solution, that will be frozen.

Not sure how you do your mapping, but that I have a problem with.
Absolutely, use the Correct position... but I feel it is super important to flag/note the fact that it does not fit the classical "straight lines" from the Original monuments.
*Because in the future some dufus will not realize you Knew and chose the Correct location and use his whizzbang GPS and stake by the numbers. It protects your Client, maybe.
Typically I use faint dashed lines and Bold solid lines (noted it the legend) and/or detail sketch with notes.

@peter-ehlert

I know what you're saying.

I will have a note about the corner, in this case I will not show the math, this monument marks to many parcels to let any kind of alternative exist, even a paper one.?ÿ

If someone sets a paper monument position, they should be flogged.

?ÿ

It sounds like you are putting the property corent in the right place, but I wouldn't call it the 1/16th corner unless you are sure there are no properties that don't use that point as a corner that require that 1/16th corner to calculate their corners.?ÿ

Land owners that share a corner can "move" it by adopting a position that doesn't agree with the math, but their actions can't be allowed to affect other owners, unless those owners can be shown to have used the adopted corner to calculate their own corners.?ÿ

This isn't directed at you, but at others, it is incredibly frustrating when a previous surveyor sets a monument at a corner like this and doesn't explain why they did it. The new surveyor may be left with a choice of accepting a five year old monument with no supporting evidence or the math solution. In this case the math solution may win. By explaining yourself well you almost force the following surveyors to agree with you.?ÿ

The math solution is the solution of last resort.?ÿ It is an indication that there is NOTHING else to hang your hat on.

@holy-cow

A math solution is the last resort, but a five year old monument with no explanation isn't a resort at all it is nothing.?ÿ

A five year old monument with a questionable explanation, but not absolutely wrong is something.

A monument that is recognised by land owners and has been in the ground longer than statute of limitations is something.?ÿ

This isn't the 1930's, a boundary survey needs to provide justification when the decisions made are not patently and unmistakably obvious.?ÿ

?ÿ

To further explain, the monument is set as the 1/16th, it is the SW and SE corner of two tracts, described as the 1/16th corner in both deeds.

It controls lines to other parcels and those monumented lines are in conflict with a math solution.

Also it's at the intersection of two county roads and lies on the extension of a ancient fence.

These parcels were patented in the 1880's with the county roads established shortly after.?ÿ

Putting in a math monument could create a gap which would be totally irresponsible for a surveyor to do.?ÿ Even if the physical monument didn't exist I would have set mine there.?ÿ

A theoretical corner position may be physically established. As soon as that happens and the property owners accept it then it is legally recognized as the named corner. It was always contemplated that protracted lines and corners would eventually become established and these monuments should be recognized in law as being the corner.

@dave-karoly

Not necessarily, it only must control the property of the owners who accept it. Often others will use the accepted position to calculate their corners to save on survey expenses or because they don't know any better, but they don't need to.?ÿ

For example, if the four owners who own 10 acre aliqout parts adopt a "N1/16" as their common corner and it is not at the correct position,?ÿ the owners who share the NW1/16 can not be bound by an agreement they had no part of. They are free to use a mathematical correct N1/16 position to calculate the NW1/16.?ÿ

If the NW1/16 owner's deeds were written before the N1/16 owner's agreement ripened there really isn't a good reason to use the "N1/16" unless all the NW1/16th agree to adopt it.?ÿ

In American law people who are not a party to a contract or an agreement are rarely bound by it. An owner is legally empowered to accept an agreement that could be construed as being detrimental to their interests, but thay can not do the same for someone with no knowledge of the agreement.?ÿ

@mightymoe

Again,?ÿ it sounds like you are doing the right thing. But your good decision might amount to nothing if you don't explain on your survey why you did it.?ÿ

@mightymoe

Again,?ÿ it sounds like you are doing the right thing. But your good decision might amount to nothing if you don't explain on your survey why you did it.?ÿ

@aliquot

you are assuming there is something to agree to, a strip between a phantom corner and an actual corner. Suppose a Subdivision calls for nothing but a 1/2" untagged rebar. When you find a rebar like that do you have to get agreement from all the Lot owners in the subdivision? No, that is absurd. But how do you know, do you have a time machine? The authorities have repeatedly stated the corner called for in the Deed is the same corner physically established despite any inaccuracy in position.

The PLSS is a system which inherently depends upon interconnections between corners. Every owner impliedly agrees to the system and the volumes of common law behind it, that lines and corners become established through the actions of the owners. I agree that a remote corner not established may be established in its best theoretical location but I think it is poor practice to advocate multiple sets of lines and corners.

@dave-karoly

If you find a 1/2" rebar you use your professional judgement to determine if it is the original. If for some reason you believe it is not the the original, and is a significant distance from the plat distance tou would need agreement from the landowners to accept it as their corners.?ÿ

It is poor practice to deprive your client or their neighbours of land because of an agreement neither they nor their predecessors were a party to. I dont think many landowners care if their boundary and their neighboors don't line up and create a perfectly straight line to the 1/16th.?ÿ

There is no one answer that fits all cases.?ÿ To argue there is always one answer and one answer only is pure foolishness.?ÿ The wrong answer is more generally the perfect math solution.

@holy-cow

the trend in California common law with respect to boundaries is to a more evidentiary view and much less legal doctrines.

100 years ago the result might be the same but only after feeding the evidence through a legal doctrine such as agreed boundaries. Today the trial court is more likely to hold the physical evidence as the Deed boundary and the Appellate Court is more likely to affirm on the substantial evidence doctrine unless the physical evidence is absurdly weak.