I am going to share a story, but I am curious what you might tell this client, given the few details I can fit here:
I am sent out to a property survey. There have been two other surveys. (and a short plat adjoining, which we agree with, and matched monuments). All three northings are close, but #1 and #2 were different by 1.5' in the eastings.
I hit in the middle. #1 and #2 set Rebars and caps, I declined to add evidence of my profession's ineptitude.
Truth is, the one of the surveyors made an interpretation that we disagree with, but see as reasonable. The other guy (I think) set up on a PK nail and didn't find the lead and tack.
But, none of us were right any way. The landowners insist that the line of ownership for the last 30 years is 5' off my line.
The last guys apparently wrote her off as stupid or crazy. I had a half hour conversation, which led to the client knowing that we are there to help her resolve this, not just stake the deed line and run. She wasn't dumb, she knew they staked the deed and ran, she just didn't know what she really needed. Not really another survey, just a surveyor.
And, at the end of my half hour conversation, she mentioned the bit of fence left in the thicket, that I hadn't seen, had missed (yes, shame on me). But at least I asked her 10 times if she had any evidence of occupation on that line. She told me on #10...
BTW in her view, the fact that I had advanced warning signs out that said surveyor ahead put me up on the other two guys right off the bat.
> I am sent out to a property survey. There have been two other surveys. (and a short plat adjoining, which we agree with, and matched monuments). All three northings are close, but #1 and #2 were different by 1.5' in the eastings.
> I hit in the middle. #1 and #2 set Rebars and caps, I declined to add evidence of my profession's ineptitude.
>
> Truth is, the one of the surveyors made an interpretation that we disagree with, but see as reasonable. The other guy (I think) set up on a PK nail and didn't find the lead and tack.
{...}
> And, at the end of my half hour conversation, she mentioned the bit of fence left in the thicket, that I hadn't seen, had missed (yes, shame on me). But at least I asked her 10 times if she had any evidence of occupation on that line. She told me on #10...
Yes, I have often thought that there was no need for land surveying to be a licensed profession in the State of Wherever-You-Are. Based upon the facts presented, why wouldn't the first three respondents to this thread have a better idea of where the 'ell the boundary really was. No reason? Why the 'ell would anyone bother to consider facts and logic? No reason?
I don't follow your post entirely, perhaps some graphics would help, but I do understand that three surveyors arrived at three different conclusions for a corner position.
The discipline of surveying should have an element of predictability to it, whereby several surveyors who confront the same problem should arrive at similar conclusions. By no means can this ever be absolute and there will be some problems that engender more variability than others, still the trend of predictability should be prevalent. Without it, surveying is no profession at all, merely a... I know now what, exactly, an avocation perhaps such as fitness trainer or life coach or personal shopper.
The element of predictability certainly doesn't come from measurement anymore, if it ever did, now it's sole source lies in the application of the legal principles of real property law. The correct principle must be selected and it must be applied correctly, in the right place and to the right degree.
Of course, this mandates the surveyor having an understanding of the principles in the first place. In aggregate, are we there? Sadly, we are not.
Stephen
Sounds like a good anecdote relating to the ultimate mission of the boundary surveyor. There are three boundaries we should always be concerned with: title (deed), occupational (fences), and ownership (most probable adjudicated location). When all three of these are coincident (lie in the same place) it's a good day for surveying. When one and two don't match, opinions about three will vary. sounds like you did a great job by collecting valuable parole evidence others missed that led you to physical evidence others missed.
>There are three boundaries we should always be concerned with: title (deed), occupational (fences), and ownership (most probable adjudicated location). When all three of these are coincident (lie in the same place) it's a good day for surveying. When one and two don't match...
Actual quote: "We hired 3 surveyors, and none of you are correct, don't you know that is expensive?" In the end, the unprofessional feeling that the client got from the other guys made her doubt them.
Maybe the old fence is better evidence of the original boundary than a precise measurement, could be.
That essence of a profession is persuasion. Most land surveyors operate more like a trade, like a cabinet maker uses skill to build a cabinet. Now you have a cabinet, there is no need to convince anyone of that. The surveyor makes the survey, sets the rebars with great skill, regards the property owners as ignorant, and walks away. They should take my word for it, I'm licensed.
Whenever a Judge makes a ruling he states the facts and cites what he thinks the principle of law applies is then if the parties appeal the appellate court either affirms or reverses. If they reverse usually they are disagreeing with the court below on the principle of law applied, they will explain why it does not apply so try again Mr. Trier of Fact.
OK, so you just keep hiring surveyors, until you get the answer you want? Ok, so now lets say that the client manufacturers some evidence....., and gets a "Leadable" surveyor the first time?
O, that's how it already is, in some cases!!
N
> Sounds like a good anecdote relating to the ultimate mission of the boundary surveyor. There are three boundaries we should always be concerned with: title (deed), occupational (fences), and ownership (most probable adjudicated location). When all three of these are coincident (lie in the same place) it's a good day for surveying. When one and two don't match, opinions about three will vary. sounds like you did a great job by collecting valuable parole evidence others missed that led you to physical evidence others missed.
I think I understand what you are trying to say, but how you said it can be misleading to some. There is only one boundary, not three. Title does not equal the "deed" nor the boundary. A deed is only evidence of title, it is not conclusive, similarly, occupation is evidence of title, it is not conclusive. "What is the boundary is a question of law, where is the boundary is a question of fact."
The deed, occupation, measurements, monuments, history, senior/junior, fences, maps, plats, etc, etc, are forms of evidence. A surveyor should gather all the relevant evidence and properly apply the applicable law(s) to issue a professional opinion as to the location of the one and only boundary.
The problem is that far too many surveyors think that the distances/bearings recited in a description are conclusive "proof" of the location of title. This erroneous understanding and a substantial lack of effort to gather ALL the appropriate evidence, coupled with a lack of understanding of the law are why "no two surveyors can agree" on the location of the boundary.
Well...had you not asked her a TENTH time about other possible physical evidence, you'd be the third in a line of three that did not know about that old post.
A surveyor does not have the right to tear through every inch of someone's property(or evidently, in this case the neighbor's property to find evidence that has no reasonable purpose for being there.
I see where you are coming from (or what you are coming from 🙂 ). However I did mean what I wrote.
A line between two monuments found on the ground described in a deed with observed measurements that substantially conform to the measurements recited in the description represent a defensible boundary however not necessarily the boundary. If this line is a senior line, is in agreement with an adjacent senior line, or is in agreement with a simultaneously created tract, it represents the title boundary. A fence recognized by adjoining property owners is a defensible boundary however not necessarily the boundary. By acquiescence, or the ripening of time, this line represents an occupied boundary. Clearly, there are instances in which both of these could exist at the same time in two different locations (ie: old monuments described in old deeds, 10 feet from the recognized fence line).
THE BOUNDARY could best be described as that one line that would be properly adjudicated in a court of law - that of ownership. Lots of variables in that determination and until adjudicated are merely opinion by the surveyor.
Generally we have rules that deal with working a title boundary out. Junior/Senior rights, intent, monuments (natural and artificial), calls for bearing, calls for distance (or vice versa), etc. Prudent surveyors retracing/reestablishing a title line should generally wind up in the same location, because the flow chart is pretty simple. Not always, but generally.
Rules for occupational boundaries ripening to ownership are not so cut and dry, although they do exist in the form of adverse possession laws.
What should the surveyor's responsibility be in the event that a discrepancy is discovered, in the course of his survey, between the occupied boundary and the title boundary?
> A line between two monuments found on the ground described in a deed with observed measurements that substantially conform to the measurements recited in the description represent a defensible boundary however not necessarily the boundary.
No, it is merely evidence of the location of the one boundary between two contiguous estates. It may be the best evidence, or it may not be.
>If this line is a senior line, is in agreement with an adjacent senior line, or is in agreement with a simultaneously created tract, it represents the title boundary.
Again, you are saying there is more than one boundary. There is "title" (who owns the property?) and there is the "boundary" (where is the extent of ownership?). They are TWO seperate and distinct principles. There is only ONE boundary.
>A fence recognized by adjoining property owners is a defensible boundary however not necessarily the boundary. By acquiescence, or the ripening of time, this line represents an occupied boundary.
No, occupation is merely evidence of the location of the ONE boundary. It may be the best evidence, or it may not be.
>Clearly, there are instances in which both of these could exist at the same time in two different locations (ie: old monuments described in old deeds, 10 feet from the recognized fence line).
>
If that is "clear" I've never seen a court decision is which the two boundaries co-exist.
> THE BOUNDARY could best be described as that one line that would be properly adjudicated in a court of law - that of ownership. Lots of variables in that determination and until adjudicated are merely opinion by the surveyor.
>
Very true. However, the duty of a surveyor is to gather evidence, interpret evidence, apply the appropriate law(s) correctly, and issue an opinion (hopefully the same steps and the same decision that a court would use and issue). The expert opinion of a surveyor is usually the only "day in court" most land owners ever have, therefore it is very important (our sacred trust) that we perform our duties correctly and appropriately.
> Generally we have rules that deal with working a title boundary out. Junior/Senior rights, intent, monuments (natural and artificial), calls for bearing, calls for distance (or vice versa), etc. Prudent surveyors retracing/reestablishing a title line should generally wind up in the same location, because the flow chart is pretty simple. Not always, but generally.
>
Those are not rules for "working a title boundary out", those are forms of evidence; evidence that should, with the appropriate application of the correct principles of law, lead us to the location of one boundary. However, there are rules that should be followed when gathering, evaluating, and weighing evidence.
> Rules for occupational boundaries ripening to ownership are not so cut and dry, although they do exist in the form of adverse possession laws.
>
On the contrary, in most jurisdictions they are as cut and dried as "rules" can get, just how well they are understood and correctly applied is a whole 'nuther story. Adverse possesion is a title doctrine, not a boundary location doctrine.
> What should the surveyor's responsibility be in the event that a discrepancy is discovered, in the course of his survey, between the occupied boundary and the title boundary?
I'm not buying into the erroneous premise of the question. I've yet to find a court case in which the court said "here is the 'occupied boundary', and over here is the 'title boundary'". If you have an authoritative source defining these two boundaries, or a case in which a court decided there were these two boundaries, I'd love to see them.
Our responsibility, as stated above, is to gather the relevant evidence, correctly interpret the evidence, apply the appropriate law(s) correctly, and issue a professional, well thought out opinion of the one and only boundary.
Law is always indeterminate. That's how they tailor each verdict to the facts at hand.
Case law is the history of that tailoring. It serves to obfuscate the real issues.
Generally one side of the case is less honorable than the other, and that is what decides the issue. Judges love case law, it makes their jobs easier. Why decide anything when each side of the conflict has already waived defects in procedure (by hiring an attorney) and given you a plausible decision based on the past? More time for golf that way.
Surveyors should always agree. Simple as that. I don't mean that in a conspiratorial way as is so common with medical doctors; I mean that given the same research, evidence, and methods, you and I ideally wind up WITHIN the same 95% confidence error ellipse and have the grace to accept each others monuments. If not, somebody didn't use their shovel, their listening skills, or their math.
Anything else just makes surveyors look like a bunch of con men, selling a "solution".
I like your post.
What I have noticed is the requirements to meet a given rule or doctrine are fairly static, what varies are the evidence required to prove each requirement or the things that can or cannot be inferred change.
For example, a requirement might be that there is an agreement. Can the Judge infer that there was an agreement or is direct evidence required?
Nate
Just because you listen doesn't mean you have to agree. If you don't agree then it helps to have a persuasive explanation.
:good:
> I like your post.
>
> What I have noticed is the requirements to meet a given rule or doctrine are fairly static, what varies are the evidence required to prove each requirement or the things that can or cannot be inferred change.
>
> For example, a requirement might be that there is an agreement. Can the Judge infer that there was an agreement or is direct evidence required?
Judges can infer. Silent judicial notice is the fabric of society and keeps commerce flowing.
Long history here. After WWII, Korea, & Vietnam, many artillery surveyors and army engineer surveyors mustered out around these parts. Some worked on crews, some got licenses, some ran things with an iron fist for the larger companies. They created a certain trade/apprenticeship culture in local surveying. Managed to kill the Bachelor's program and continue to this day to resist getting anything past an AAS re-established. Even the AAS is a handicap if you try to leave the state, because you'd need another 2 semesters of general ed to transfer to one of the ABET accredited survey schools.
This has resulted in a situation where most LS applicants have gotten their LSIT out of state,
More and more of the LSs are coming in from out of state via comity. They are bringing modern surveying with them. Not a moment too soon.
Supposedly, during those years, Western Washington had twice as many surveyors per-capita than any other area in the US. This lead to cut-throat competition, low rates, and spending about half the time on the job that surveyors do in other places. The fundamental assumption is that doing the job "right" will take too long -- there is no time for anything more than staking the deed, no time for redundant fieldwork, no time for talking to the neighbors, drive on we've got two more today. Doing it right is for college boys and eggheads. From what I've seen this is true -- most of the small boundary surveys you can rely on here are done by MOONLIGHTERS WHO DO SOMETHING ELSE FOR A LIVING. And the lowballers say the moonlighters ruin the market "because they are subsidized by a paycheck."
I'm here all weekend, try the buffet!
:good:
They can infer until a published Appelate opinion says they can't.