I??ve observed this phenomenon more than once.
Say the position of a section corner must be determined for the survey. The corner is visited and the original wooden post is definitely long gone. The BTs are also gone. Say there is a pipe that the property owners interviewed state is the corner. No one knows who set the pipe, how or why. Some local surveys tie to the ??no record? pipe as the section corner.
GREAT IT??S THE CORNER!
So then the next corner on the list is visited. There is a tagged iron pipe here. Get the Record of Survey from the Recorder and it has a note on the procedure used to set the corner.
NOT ACCEPTABLE??the procedure stated on the map is IMPROPER! If there was no information how it got there then we could call it a FAITHFUL PERPETUATION of the original monument.
WELCOME BACK!!!
WELCOME BACK!!!
WELCOME BACK!!!!!!
Who is this ??Dave Karoly? person you speak of? ?????ÿ
Yeah this has always bothered me too. Sometimes we just have to assume a monument represents a bona fide attempt at locating the corner, but of course if we have a record we can't just assume that.?ÿ
Another question that comes up, is if the no record corner was obviously set by a surveyor after the enactment of a recording law, is the lack of record on its own enough to destroy the bona fide attempt assumption?
One thing to be careful about in your example, is that there may be a different (lower)?ÿ standard of evidence for the corner to be a property corner than the section corner. The land owners who's corner is in question have the ability to jointly recognize a monument as the corner through various legal principles, but their ability to affect remote owners who depend on the section corner to control their corners is significantly lower.?ÿ
The corollary is the four non-original pieces of scrap iron at the section corners or subdivision block corners are held while the identical pieces of scrap iron on the interior aliquot points or lot corners are ??off? some non-zero amount.
