I am rejecting four of five monuments I found on a recent survey. The monuments are not original monuments. They are, in my opinion, set by an amateur and do not agree with the record bearings and distances within four feet in the worst case, and within one foot for the least that was set in error.
After my first day on the survey of the property, which is about one-half acre, I could not resolve the positions with the record. While the record information gives a strong implication that a survey was made, there is no mention of any monuments.
I went back to find additional evidence and found three additional marks not on the property, but, on the street line. The linear regression of these marks and one of the property corners revealed no error to speak of, meaning one or two hundredths of one foot. Then comparing the distance between the property corner and the furthest on the line (575 feet) measured within four one hundredths feet of the record distance.
Thankfully someone had done some real surveying in the neighborhood.
I pasted the text in this post three times because I could not see the words. Then I could not edit the post to condense the text to the original post. Seems like the reply function is working.
Been there...got a closet load of the t-shirts.
Seriously, it is a difficult thing for a surveyor to completely discount and reject a previous survey. But it happens. I guess I've never really been proud of the fact that I was the one that cleaned up the mess...but dammit, somebody had to. Good on you for your work.
I remember finding recent pins along a sinuous creek bank that were anywhere from 3' to 15' in contest with the recorded deed (and historical survey). Further investigation revealed all but two of the corners were actually existing. Set in the 1950's their accuracy was predictably loose, but no where near the bust of the last guy.
I was able to contact the surveyor that set the bogeys. He blamed poor gps reception. When I asked him if the high pdops affected his shovel and pin-finder also he was at a loss for words.
Four feet of discrepancy seems considerable for a half acre lot.
Poor gps is not a reason or a feasible excuse.
A rag tap and a Sear&Roebuck can do better than 4'. Sounds like a compass and pacing.
Gps costs a lot of money, but when the conditions ain't right, then it's the wrong tool.
I assume the older survey (0.04' in 575') didn't use gps.
My favorite quote is, "Correct is an identity, not a distance".
At the same time that 'distance' can be part of an evidence pattern that establishes the identity. Our duty is to understand and teach that dichotomy...
The first photograph is the property corner I held for position. It is a steel shaft that is 2-1/2 inches in diameter, approximately 1-1/2 feet long and surrounded by concrete. It is very unlikely that this corner has moved since the lot was created somewhere around 1950.
The reason I know so much about this marker is shown in the second photograph. While making observations on the pipe that is in the foreground I spied a similar steel shaft that you can see in the background.
The steel shaft in the second photograph has been disturbed and moved. There is still evidence of it being surrounded by concrete on the steel shaft. There are also shards of concrete around the location of its original position.
thebionicman, post: 431000, member: 8136 wrote: My favorite quote is, "Correct is an identity, not a distance".
And hopefully not a singular determination. I'd put that 'correct' up there with 'work smart, not hard'. It's been my experience those who abuse that phrase aren't liable to accomplish either.
I wanted to become a philosopher, but, I became a surveyor instead. However, while we are on the subject, here is my favorite quotation:
"Computing is insight, not numbers" - R. W. Hamming of Bell Labs in the epigraph of his book entitled Numerical Methods for Engineers and Scientists.
paden cash, post: 430930, member: 20 wrote: When I asked him if the high pdops affected his shovel and pin-finder also he was at a loss for words.
I'll often remind our crews, "More shovel, less hammer."
Your OP gave me some concerns about your reasons for rejecting the discrepant monuments, but reading the whole thread, you've added some info that seems that you might have very good reasons to reject them. You should be certain that you are rejecting them for the right reasons though and understand that if you apply some of the other reasoning to other circumstances, you may be doing the wrong thing even if it seems a reasonable basis for many (if not most) diligent surveyors.
not my real name, post: 430927, member: 8199 wrote: I am rejecting four of five monuments I found on a recent survey. The monuments are not original monuments. They are, in my opinion, set by an amateur and do not agree with the record bearings and distances within four feet in the worst case, and within one foot for the least that was set in error.
Two possible problems in reasoning here: 1) "...in my opinion, set by an amateur...". While your opinion of the boundary location is what you are being paid for, and the reputation of the survey who set the monuments, his diligence or lack thereof based on your experience following his work might have some weight on your boundary decisions, your opinion of his professional status is meaningless as a primary reason to reject the monuments. If he was properly licensed by the State and did not subsequently lose his license for incompetence, he is legally considered a professional regardless of your opinion.
2) "...and do not agree with the record bearings and distances within...". Magnitude of the discrepancy is among the lowest forms of evidence you should base the acceptance or rejection of a monument on. The courts, in nearly all if not all US jurisdictions have repeatedly opined that measurements reported on a map or in deeds are among the most unreliable of all evidence of boundary location.
Surveyors like dimensions as evidence because numbers are easy to understand, math has no gray areas - solutions match measurements or they don't, and knowing what quality of results should be attained using various types of equipment and methods with appropriate care, we often judge the skills, abilities, and overall professionalism of other surveyors by the quality of their measurements.
That all seems reasonable except for a couple of things we often overlook: a) in the full history of surveying in the US, there have been a great many surveyors who were habitually less careful than they should have been, all surveyors make (and monument & map) mistakes on at least rare occasions, measurements are the easiest and most common place in a surveyor's (or deed scrivener's) work where a mistake is likely to be made, and the courts have long recognized these facts in their opinions; b) people who hire licensed surveyors are themselves making a good faith attempt to establish the true locations of their boundaries, have no practical way to assess whether or not the survey is correct after it's performed, and have a right to rely on the results of surveys performed by people who have been declared competent to survey by the State in the form of licensing. The courts have long recognized these facts as well. And c) if a boundary dispute goes to court, the court has the authority to accept or reject surveys, and although a survey and the testimony of the surveyor who performed it will be given due consideration in the court's decision, if the surveyor bases his reasoning on the magnitude of discrepancies between deed and measured locations and/or his opinion of the previous surveyor, that recent survey and the surveyor's testimony are likely to be far less persuasive than if the surveyor based his decisions on the types of reasoning the court must follow.
Yes, 1 to 4 feet of discrepancy on a half acre parcel seems quite excessive, but it doesn't even come close to the legal recognition of gross error. Gross error would be a valid basis for rejecting monuments. Unfortunately, gross error is not well defined in court opinions, but generally, if the measured parcel is roughly the same shape and of the same nature as the described parcel, then there is no gross error. Examples of gross error would be along the lines of 1) the description describes and calls for a half acre parcel, but a field survey finds the parcel on the ground to encompass more than an acre or less than 1/4 acre; the deed calls for a parcel that fronts on a riverbank, or maybe a road, but your survey finds that it is quite distant from the called for natural boundary with one or more other parcels existing between the subject parcel and the called for natural boundary; the record describes a four sided parcel nearly square in shape but you find that the parcel established on the ground is a 10-sided irregularly shaped figure.
While surveyors might consider a few tenths to be excessive on a parcel of this size, the courts may consider a few feet to be insignificant if the preponderance of other evidence supports the conclusion that the monuments are more likely than not to be at or very close to their original locations, that the monuments are more likely than not to be those of an original survey, and if there was indeed, more likely than not an original survey that either the deed was based on, or was performed at or about shortly after the deed was written and intended to reflect the deed.
Its a big thinking shift for most of us from what we were originally taught, but the courts have been pretty consistent on these points for a long time and many surveyors have been utterly confused by results following those principles for a long time because they were taught the same applications of principles you were and the same that I was originally taught. The courts have often been confused because surveyors, as a broad group, haven't seemed to learn from the courts' consistency on these principles.
not my real name, post: 430927, member: 8199 wrote: After my first day on the survey of the property, which is about one-half acre, I could not resolve the positions with the record. While the record information gives a strong implication that a survey was made, there is no mention of any monuments.[/QUOTE]
This is an often misunderstood concept that tends to be bolstered by the text books most often used in college boundary classes, and on most surveyors' office book shelves over the past few decades. As a surveyor identifying existing boundaries of a parcel, it is your job to determine the location where they were intended to be placed as best evidenced by the physical evidence of an original survey (if one exists). If the deed clearly calls for a survey, then one exists and whether or not the deed also calls for specific monuments at specific corners, it is your job to find them, and if they exist and are undisturbed, they control, regardless of mathematical discrepancies between record dimensions and actual location.
Any time a deed contains specific directions and distances, that is an implication that a survey was performed, and in some jurisdictions, that is the prescribed presumption, so I don't quite know what you mean by "a strong implication", but assume that you mean that a reasonable surveyor would conclude from the terms in the description that a survey was more likely than not performed in connection with the conveyance in which the description first appeared.
We must always bear in mind that the level of proof required for boundary locations is a preponderance of the evidence, which means that 50% plus a smidge, or more likely than not by any magnitude. If the language in the description make it appear more likely than not that it was based on a survey or that a survey was a consideration of the transaction, then you should presume that there was an original survey, and if you find evidence of that survey, it controls the boundary location.
In that regard, if it's more likely than not that there was a survey, you need to evaluate the monuments in the vicinity of the corners as to probable age. Is it more likely than not that they were set about the same time as the description was written? If so, you need to give them very careful consideration, placing magnitude of discrepancies and your opinion of the surveyor who set them very low on your list of considerations. They are still considerations, just not very high when compared to other facts you should consider.
[This is getting long. Sorry]
[Part 2 - conclusion]
not my real name, post: 430927, member: 8199 wrote: I went back to find additional evidence and found three additional marks not on the property, but, on the street line. The linear regression of these marks and one of the property corners revealed no error to speak of, meaning one or two hundredths of one foot. Then comparing the distance between the property corner and the furthest on the line (575 feet) measured within four one hundredths feet of the record distance.
This brings us to one of the primary things you should be considering and basing your reasoning on: Does it appear that the monuments have been moved from their original positions? By that, I mean moved to a magnitude closer to the discrepancies you are finding between actual positions and record rather than just nudged over some. If just nudged enough to tip a bit, then the straightened up position is still better evidence of the originally intended boundary location than are dimensions from the description. If the monument appears to have been moved some distance by machinery or if there is some physical and/or corroborating documentary evidence that the monument has been moved more than simply being tipped over so that it's leaning a few tenths, then you have solid reasoning to reject it, whether or not it is an original.
Other things that need to be considered: 1) What do the landowners understand about their boundaries prior to you telling them anything about your opinion?
2) Is there any indication of reliance on the existing monuments? If so, by who and since when?
3) Was there a common grantor for lands on both sides of the line(s) in question when the boundary was created?
Your finding that the street mons and one of the parcel corner mons agree well would appear to be part of a body of evidence that supports an opinion that the others were moved from their original positions, but it's not enough without other corroborating evidence.
not my real name, post: 430927, member: 8199 wrote: Thankfully someone had done some real surveying in the neighborhood.
By this, I assume that you are making that judgment based on how well you are matching their measurements. Again, it's a natural way for a surveyor to assess the work of others, but be careful. If that surveyor measured well but established lines and corners in different locations than where they were originally intended to have been established and from where they were actually originally established, then what you really are looking at is a mathematically pleasing map with points set that match that figure well, but incorrectly identify the boundaries.
You may be making the correct decision to reject the monuments. But before finalizing, make sure that you are rejecting them for legally sufficient reasons.
eapls2708, post: 431141, member: 589 wrote: [Part 2 - conclusion]
This brings us to one of the primary things you should be considering and basing your reasoning on: Does it appear that the monuments have been moved from their original positions? By that, I mean moved to a magnitude closer to the discrepancies you are finding between actual positions and record rather than just nudged over some. If just nudged enough to tip a bit, then the straightened up position is still better evidence of the originally intended boundary location than are dimensions from the description. If the monument appears to have been moved some distance by machinery or if there is some physical and/or corroborating documentary evidence that the monument has been moved more than simply being tipped over so that it's leaning a few tenths, then you have solid reasoning to reject it, whether or not it is an original.
Other things that need to be considered: 1) What do the landowners understand about their boundaries prior to you telling them anything about your opinion?
2) Is there any indication of reliance on the existing monuments? If so, by who and since when?
3) Was there a common grantor for lands on both sides of the line(s) in question when the boundary was created?
Your finding that the street mons and one of the parcel corner mons agree well would appear to be part of a body of evidence that supports an opinion that the others were moved from their original positions, but it's not enough without other corroborating evidence.
By this, I assume that you are making that judgment based on how well you are matching their measurements. Again, it's a natural way for a surveyor to assess the work of others, but be careful. If that surveyor measured well but established lines and corners in different locations than where they were originally intended to have been established and from where they were actually originally established, then what you really are looking at is a mathematically pleasing map with points set that match that figure well, but incorrectly identify the boundaries.
You may be making the correct decision to reject the monuments. But before finalizing, make sure that you are rejecting them for legally sufficient reasons.
Thank you for you thoughtful response. I do consider that original surveys do not contain error if found monuments are original and undisturbed. However the record shows no original monuments set for the division of the grantor??s land in making parcels along this street.
When I mentioned the deed description shows a strong indication that a survey was made, what I meant was the courses are bearings to the nearest arc second and distances to the hundredth of one foot with no error of closure. Other than that there is no mention of monuments being set to establish the boundary. The monuments found are not in the record. There is no subdivision map that creates the parcels along the street. Finally, the surveyor is not named.
What I do know is that the street was created in the 1950s and the layout is in the Office of the Town Clerk. All of the parcels along the street are tied to an angle in the street line, such that the point of beginning on each parcel is said to be a precise distance from that angle. All of the parcels are created from the land of one grantor abutting a larger parcel that belonged to another owner.
I think you will agree that the monument(s) shown in the second photograph tells a story that should convince anyone that corner has been disturbed and reset. Combined with the evidence of the concrete shards found at a more accurate location for this monument a surveyor would reject the newer monument in favor of the evidence of the former location that has been disturbed.
There has been no reliance on the monuments found by other than my client. I talked with everyone in the neighborhood to see if anyone knew the story to no avail. I think it is likely that the monuments were set by someone other than a surveyor. Further, the monuments that I recovered on the second day of my survey were set by a surveyor.
The found monuments excepting the one in the second photograph would make a shape that is the general configuration of the parcel. However without the additional found monuments along the street line it would be difficult find an orientation for the shape.
My plan is to set the disturbed corner and one other front corner that is missing. I have yet to decide how to amend the rear corners that are out of position by more than one foot. I will certainly leave them where they are and show their position on my map.
I do know that surveyors of the time of the creation of this street and parcels had excellent reputations and maps were not always recorded. Surveyors worked with the attorneys to write the deed for conveyances. Whereas, in the present time subdivision maps are required with sufficient monument to enable another surveyor to find the intent of the conveyances.
I didn't have a good understanding of this part:
"I think you will agree that the monument(s) shown in the second photograph tells a story that should convince anyone that corner has been disturbed and reset. Combined with the evidence of the concrete shards found at a more accurate location for this monument a surveyor would reject the newer monument in favor of the evidence of the former location that has been disturbed."
I misunderstood that you were rejecting the monument in the background (the one similar to front corner you accepted) for the reasons in your OP, and that the newer mon in the foreground was from the surveyor you said had done a good job. My mistake.
You seem to be on the right track.
I didn't have a good understanding of this part:
"I think you will agree that the monument(s) shown in the second photograph tells a story that should convince anyone that corner has been disturbed and reset. Combined with the evidence of the concrete shards found at a more accurate location for this monument a surveyor would reject the newer monument in favor of the evidence of the former location that has been disturbed."
I misunderstood that you were rejecting the monument in the background (the one similar to front corner you accepted) for the reasons in your OP
