Coner / Monument By Common Report

Not knowing what state you are in, I may not have ever been registered there.

I would say Option 1 is negative.
Option 2 is negative.
I would run with Option 3, which is to hold the corner monuments and hold the 1/4 corner and revise the tie between them.

Surveyors can't disregard corner monuments that have been there for many years and match up with occupation. Just because there is no record, does not mean that they were not placed there to be the corners. Just because there is no record does not mean that they have not been honored as the corners for these many years.

It may be worth noting that I have worked in many areas that most of the surveys over the years had not been recorded so there was no record of them. I submit that we can't keep revising the boundary lines each time a new surveyor comes out to the Section and does a new breakdown!

951 erroneously written (at some time in the past) as 957 ?

Hold the monuments - they are the best evidence and will prevail in the event of a conflict between paper and "lines actually run on the ground". Report accurate measurements between the monuments, as measured on the ground.

The paper is likely wrong.

If you can, put a statement on your plat or legal descripton that landowners recognize the 1/4 corner by county surveyor.

NO

Remote ties to section corners often vary quite a bit, R v. M.

All of the physical items you found are correct. Do not mess with them. Either the original measuring was done poorly or, far more likely, is that the surveyor made the easy error of misreading a 7 for a 1 or vice versa. Show measured versus record on your plat and roll on to paydirt.

Corner / Monument By Common Report

> My question is, Should I reject the existing pins and call the fences off by 6 feet or reject the county surveyor's monument and state the the 1/4 corner monument is off 6 feet?
I have made the argument here several times that you sometimes have to reject fence lines and go with the deed dimensions. That you can't just play judge and jury and award land that isn't described in the deeds.

But I think that here we have pretty clear evidence that there is a scrivener's error in your deed that should be corrected. We have evidence of a survey, if not done at the time of the division then at least a long while back. We have evidence that the adjoining owners have acted in reliance on that survey.

Trace back the chain of title, you may find a transfer some few steps back that calls the correct distance. You mention that the adjoiner is 250' wide, you didn't mention how it is tied to the 1/4 corner. Some clue there?

For your own protection you should record a survey map on this.

My question is, Should I reject the existing pins and call the fences off by 6 feet or reject the county surveyor's monument and state the the 1/4 corner monument is off 6 feet?

Or.....it may be that you accept all the monuments, however, I've seen this exact thing before, all the old evidence leads the 1/4 to be in one location but it was remonumented from different evidence-the road fences, parole. I would see how the line is monumented to your parcel and you may find out that the last guy loses 6'. That might be your answer.

From what you describe, I wouldn't move your pins because of a remote tie; they are often "off", if you want to use that word. I would lean to accepting everything, but...........not enough info for me from your post on the 1/4.

I'm assuming that the pins and the fences coincide. Seems like your tie line is off by 6'. You don't have to call the county surveyor wrong nor the pins and fences. The tie line distance is wrong. Right?

Corner / Monument By Common Report

I suppose somebody will come along and break the chain of this thread, but so far it seems to be setting a record for near unanimous responses to a survey question. Highly unusual.

Monuments over measurements. Acquiescence. Repose.

Has anyone actually searched for the 1/4 corner 957 feet from the parcel corner?

Corner / Monument By Common Report

I tend to agree with most of the responses. I'd be darn sure to check a bunch of other parcels in all directions, not just the current parcel before moving a long held 1/4 corner position.
The current position of the 1/4 corner MAY not be in the original position as set by the GLO, but it takes more than a mere measurement, especially from only 1 parcel to prove it.

I don't know if I missed it, but does the '957' "jive" with the mathematical ¼-cor? It could be that there are properties set in reliance of the mathematical or original ¼-cor prior to the county surveyor's corner being set. You could have an example of where there are two ¼-corners, the original and the reset which has been relied on by different properties.

Just some thoughts.

I considered the 7 for 1 typo - I don't think that's the case.
After pulling additional deeds further north and south, all the ties to the 1/4 corner checks mathematically with each other. All of which date back before the new county surveyor's monument.

I checked the descriptions for the parcels across the road (adjoining section) - Each M&B description jibes with the existing monument set by the CS.

Note - Each of those descriptions were written by the CS shortly after he set his new monument.

I'm beginning to believe that the county surveyor my have incorrectly monumented the 1/4 corner by 6 feet

After 42 years the term acquiescence seems to come to mind. Especially if the monument has been held for the adjoiners. Too bad the PIQ wasn't recorded. Might have shed some light.

Has there been improvements based on the ¼ corner?