Corner by common report...

I've heard it used in relation to the legal or original section corner vs. the "Corner of Common Report". The way I see it, if a boundary line division has been accepted and used for a lot of boundaries and essentially "acquiesced to" by the the landowners and surveyors in the area, it becomes, but some people's definition the"Corner of Common Report". If someone comes along later and finds real and compelling evidence of the original corner location that does not match the cocr....that might be the "true" corner. There could be boundaries that have ripened based on each corner, and each corner would need to be used for the appropriate boundary.

I have mainly seen this when a subdivision was based on one corner position to, for instance the subdivision to the north, and another subdivision was based on another monument for a subdivision to the south. You need to come of the "correct" section corner for the respective subdivision.

Not sure if that what you are asking about or not.

The 2009 BLM Manual goes into quite some detail on the subject (latter part of Chapter 6), although it is of course from the "Federal Surveyor" perspective. In any case, it's well worth re-reading.

Local court decisions will play a big role in the final analysis, and of course IT DEPENDS..

Loyal

You get some idiot judge who decides Plan F is the answer to the problem he is adjudicating and then you get the answer that 98 out of 100 surveyors would support. The other two never agree with anyone else .................ever...................so they don't really count.

There is also the case as described above where alternate solutions to the same situation exist. A later surveyor comes along and decides the first one was a jackleg doofus. Or a later surveyor comes along and finds something original that a previous surveyor did not find but the work of that previous surveyor impacts dozens or hundreds of properties so it had better be left to stand......................for those properties only.

I know of two places where PLSSia corners differ from one side of the road to the other. In one case, a certain monument is to be used as the correct section corner for the two sections on the south side of the road. Another one about 30 feet further east is to be used as the correct section corner for the two sections on the north side of the road. The other case is a quarter corner where the section to the east is based on one monument and the section to the west is based on a different monument...........on the same line................but 70 feet further south.

I don't know where I got this, but it sounds mostly right, and is consistent with other notes I have on the subject: "For a corner location to be accepted as a corner by common report, it must meet 3 requirements. 1) It must be in a reasonable location, where the original surveyor could have placed it. 2) It must be accepted by all parties concerned as being in the correct location. 3) It cannot be disproved by any higher forms of evidence".

BajaOR, post: 373047, member: 9139 wrote: 2) It must be accepted by all parties concerned as being in the correct location

That can be a [lurking under the bridge] "deal breaker" when you are dealing with split-estates (especially Federal Minerals).

Like just about everything in this racket, there's an exception to every rule.

That said, your synopsis is a GOOD one.

I wish that the "Pipe v. Stone" saga was easily linked...

Loyal

Right. If the location fails any test it becomes something other than a corner by common report. Its new name would often be "contested corner". Or "section corner for these properties", but not those over there, as Cow described.

Had a similar issue this week, only on ours, it actually helped everything we looked at. Always makes you happy to find a 36" blazed oak that had apparently been missed for quite a while.

If it has been accepted, relied upon and furnishes harmony of possession with all the adjacent and aliquot owners who believe it is the boundary marker then it is the corner of common report.
Original monument did not support ownership and never provided a trail of clues of where occupation should occurred.

Loyal, post: 373048, member: 228 wrote: I wish that the "Pipe v. Stone" saga was easily linked...

Loyal

When I get back to work next month, I will burn the 'saga', complete with sketches, etc., to CD(s) mail them to Wendell. Maybe he can find a place to link it...or publish hard copies.

DDSM:beer::beer::beer:

(Does anybody know of the copyright ramifications of publishing a panel authored 'cut and paste' manuscript?):stakeout:

without going into the legal background, a good rule of thumb is this:

Common report is when landowners, more than one, RELY on a monument and therefore property rights to some degree are attached to it.

This is distinctly different than the laws that come into effect when a licensed surveyor places a monument - and another licensed surveyor disagrees with that monument (usually because they used a better stake-out program). The former applies to legal property rights, the latter is almost always a technical measurement issue (pincushions usually are caused by the result of surveyors applying technical measurements, as opposed to applying legal principles of retracement).

Loyal, post: 373019, member: 228 wrote: The 2009 BLM Manual goes into quite some detail on the subject (latter part of Chapter 6), although it is of course from the "Federal Surveyor" perspective. In any case, it's well worth re-reading.

Local court decisions will play a big role in the final analysis, and of course IT DEPENDS..

Loyal

That was worth a re-read, and does give some insight to my situation, but not a total solution.
In the one instance, the previous surveyor (1995) accepts and remonuments with a brass cap- an unmarked stone in a mound of stone with timber cruiser tags on a 2 trees, no marked stone- no original bearing trees 2 P. Pines (1886)- prior usage was on a USFS rd easement exhibit from 1977- I contacted the USFS and they said that the easement was done thru the engineering division and there is no record of what they found other than their note on the ROW exhibit- "Fnd Stone - 2BT's" - This corner is approx. 1 chain short from the original section corner to the east- existing fencing is +/- 20 ft to the south, running e/w.
Ownership to the north is State, south is a timber company.

Other place - 1 mile west, he rejects a nearly identical set of facts other than no USFS involvement and the corner was "Too far out of position" and single proportions the corner... BTW- on another line of this section, there is nearly an Identical set of facts, unmarked stone in a mound of stone, no original evidence, cruiser tags on 2 trees at the position where one would expect to find the corner +/- 30 feet, but the original is 146 feet south.........
.... so it DEPENDS.....