Well Then, One Of Us Cannot Read.
"A subdivider erroneously set his exterior tract boundaries beyond a monumented senior line(shown in red)."
My eyes do not see "a subdivider's surveyor" but the opposite may be argued.
But then it could be argued that the full set of the subdividers monuments are wrong.
Paul in PA
Or, One Of Us Cannot See.
> My eyes do not see "a subdivider's surveyor" but the opposite may be argued.
My eyes see a legend that says, "O = Fd original tract boundary monuments"
I suppose the "subdivider" could have done his own survey, but he'd be pretty damn good at it for a "layman." Most "subdividers" around here hire surveyors to set monuments.
Either way, it changes nothing in the scenario whether it was a surveyor who caused the damage or a "subdivider." The test question is still crap as posed.
JBS
There are hundreds of presumptions we have to make to get the appropriate exam answer. I think the appropriate exam answer is 50' perpendicularly to the section line. If the intent were to convey the east half of the lot, then the conveying deed should have said the "east 1/2". but as it stands, the grantee should receive 50' of land based on the non-ambiguous deed description.
However, does the original plat call to the section line? I could see someone owning a large quantity of land and they subdivide based on 100' lots. The original plat could even show the section line skewing across those east-most lot lines. (Don't think that happens? Well you haven't surveyed in Denver-proper, where they ran block lines that are skewed to the original section lines and all the lots and blocks are set at even distances to the city layout and not parallel to the section lines)
How about the original lots showing the lots being 100' each and ending at the senior line. The "last" lot to the east could possibly say 100'+/-. This might imply to the surveyor that all of the error in the ending of the line be taken out of (or added to) the last 100' lot as you go east.
Another scenario might be that the only exterior block corners were set in the original survey. Maybe those interior corners were shown as not being set in the original plat and there was no +/- call on the "closing" line. Now if I remember right, if I am subdividing through a block, I would establish the east and west corners and proportion in the lot corners in between (assuming a +/- was not shown on one end). So might the survey find the senior line as called for on the subdivision plat and measure 290 from block corner to senior line, and prorate the line at 96.67' for each lot? In that scenario, I would still tend to presume 50' perpendicular from the section line.
I do see the problem, however, in that the writer says that the original lot corners were set, so the claim is that the corners were set at 300' east of the west original corners. Now it is saying that retracing the original surveyor, the intent was for 100' each lot, and the last lot loses out, since a senior line was crossed.
This problem is assuming that the original surveyor staked out land that the owner didn't own across the section line. I don't see where on earth you can say that "you can't sell what you don't own" isn't applicable. It is not a bogus theory. How can you subdivide land and sell it if you don't own it?
> There are hundreds of presumptions we have to make to get the appropriate exam answer. I think the appropriate exam answer is 50' perpendicularly to the section line. If the intent were to convey the east half of the lot, then the conveying deed should have said the "east 1/2". but as it stands, the grantee should receive 50' of land based on the non-ambiguous deed description.
>
> However, does the original plat call to the section line? I could see someone owning a large quantity of land and they subdivide based on 100' lots. The original plat could even show the section line skewing across those east-most lot lines. (Don't think that happens? Well you haven't surveyed in Denver-proper, where they ran block lines that are skewed to the original section lines and all the lots and blocks are set at even distances to the city layout and not parallel to the section lines)
>
> How about the original lots showing the lots being 100' each and ending at the senior line. The "last" lot to the east could possibly say 100'+/-. This might imply to the surveyor that all of the error in the ending of the line be taken out of (or added to) the last 100' lot as you go east.
>
> Another scenario might be that the only exterior block corners were set in the original survey. Maybe those interior corners were shown as not being set in the original plat and there was no +/- call on the "closing" line. Now if I remember right, if I am subdividing through a block, I would establish the east and west corners and proportion in the lot corners in between (assuming a +/- was not shown on one end). So might the survey find the senior line as called for on the subdivision plat and measure 290 from block corner to senior line, and prorate the line at 96.67' for each lot? In that scenario, I would still tend to presume 50' perpendicular from the section line.
>
> I do see the problem, however, in that the writer says that the original lot corners were set, so the claim is that the corners were set at 300' east of the west original corners. Now it is saying that retracing the original surveyor, the intent was for 100' each lot, and the last lot loses out, since a senior line was crossed.
>
> This problem is assuming that the original surveyor staked out land that the owner didn't own across the section line. I don't see where on earth you can say that "you can't sell what you don't own" isn't applicable. It is not a bogus theory. How can you subdivide land and sell it if you don't own it?
You exposed the problem with measuring 50' off the senior line. You can't just hold the senior line for the purpose of this lot split, but ignore it as it relates to lots 1 and 2. If you're going to "hold" the senior line as if it were the record boundary lot 3, then you also have to hold it as the record boundary of the block, and prorate the rest of the subdivision, as well. Don't you?
I'll have to confess, I'm making assumptions, too. I'm approaching this like it's an "undiscovered" historical error, and people have owned these lots and lived in harmony for decades, with the land passing hands a few times, before a good surveyor comes along and catches the deed overlap. This is why I would not favor a solution that upsets the whole block. I'm assuming that the owner of the west 1/2 of lot 3 is not the original subdivider... if that were the case, then I'd agree that more equitable options are available. It is possible that the owner of the west 1/2 of lot 3 has a deed senior to the east half's original owner, and it says "the west 50' of lot 3" ... would that change anyone's mind?
I hope it was clear that I was offering three different scenarios.
You have addressed another scenario. If they did call to the section line as the original line, and the original monuments are (therefore) called to be on the original line, and they have been historically accepted as being on the original line, are the original subdivision pins (set and accepted) on the original section line now off-line because of your bigger and better new equipment?
Actually, this is an excellent test question. In the real world, surveyors are required to make decisions based on a set of evidence.
This question presents no evidence of boundaries "established" by any means other than a deed and field surveys or markers. It does present a temptation (based on a title problem) for the unknowledgable to measure from the GLO line based on either their own idea of what is fair or on unacceptable assumptions or inferences. This is what makes it a good test question because it requires some depth of knowledge of the law and limits of surveyor authority. One can not solve a title problem by way of twisting boundary law to fit the desired problem free result.
In any real life survey there is going to come a time where a decision must be made. It is not acceptable to base that decision on evidence that might exist but has not been found. Pretty much the same with a test question.
There may be differing specific statutory or common law language in differing jurisdictions, but they are all based on the doctrine of estoppel if they refer to the situation at hand.
Doubt that the author of the problem even considered anything but where they thought the East 50 feet was to be measured from because of a rule they held near and dear. Don't believe the question is worthy of being placed in any exam as worded. I might answer that I would hold all monuments and lines as intended and measure the 50 feet from the East line as staked, but do some deed rewriting to reflect the good faith actions of the effected owners, that might cause me to have that answer marked as wrong along with a lecture. I would not place a kink in the Section line.
jud
> Typically, a legal says something like .... The East 50 feet of lot three IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT of ....
>
If the plat shows the section line being one and the same as the line at 100' from the lot corner and the original pins being on that line, there is a conflict in the document itself, don't you think? Because the monuments and the 100' are outside of the section line. If the plat has a conflict between the distance, the monuments and the senior lines (all of them being "calls" in the conveying document) don't you think the senior line would be the senior call of those three?
Well, I'm the guy saying leave the overlap where it exists, and not to upset the neighborhood by attempting to prorate, so I think I have pretty good idea of what my bigger and better measuring machines means to people in the real world.
We have a Subdivision up North that was Subdivided using SPC provided to the Surveyor by a firm with a good reputation. That line was about 60 feet West of where it should have been, based on long standing and accepted local evidence of the Section line location. The error was found after recording. There was a well maintained fence along the proper line and no occupation by lot owners beyond the existing fence, the lot owners have just accepted the proper Section line as their limit of ownership. The remaining lots to the East get all that was Platted. Last time I was in the area it looked like the East line of the Subdivision as staked was being used by the owners to the East as their West line, guess it would be wise to let sleeping dogs lie and not monument a 60' +/- strip, would need to explain in the narrative why those property's occupying that strip were about 60 feet wider East-West than the record calls for. This Subdivision was Platted about 1975, Guess some status has been established by long occupation, The GLO lines were surveyed and further divided by aliquot parts as the instructions provide for so the local error did not effect any other of the large numbers of property's now in that Section except for those occupying the 60' strip, they do cross the 1/16th line called as their West Boundary.
jud
Jeff-
This is where "It Depends" comes in.
If one would look to who was the first conveyancee of the 'half' lot there would be an answer that would go to a strength of what is the occupation intent between parties is.
If starting from scratch to fix the common boundary, obviously there are two halves.
I'd be tempted to consider setting the west half at 50 feet as it was an intent and the "east half" is what is left over.
But the difference between a cadastral surveyor and a desk surveyor is being on site to get the fourth dimension to apply the "It Depends" !
Cheers,
Derek
"O = Fd original tract boundary monuments"
Does not say set by a surveyor.
"O = Fnd Iron Pins With "Surveyor 123" Caps" tells a different story.
In problems such as this one only knows exactly what is given. A lot of different what ifs could change a lot of opinions, but that is not offered in this case.
Paul in PA
First of all......get rid of the phrase, "you can't sell what you don't own" from your thought processes!
"O = Fd original tract boundary monuments"
> "O = Fnd Iron Pins With "Surveyor 123" Caps" tells a different story.
The only change the story would take is who gets sued in the end for causing the damages. Aside from that, the point is irrelevant.
JBS
> First of all......get rid of the phrase, "you can't sell what you don't own" from your thought processes!
Comedy gold!
Well, isn't that the beauty of a test? In this case the question only has one correct answer and the taker knows pretty quickly they got it wrong. In real life it may take years to have the court tell them they were wrong.
I find it disturbing that most of the class and the teacher were arguing for the wrong answer.
But I agree a test and the questions on it can only do so much. That's why licensure is a 3 legged stool. The best place to learn sufficiency of a field and record search is in the workplace from ones employers or mentors. If it's not learned there, I doubt any test question could teach it. On the other hand, deed construction and rules of law are better treated on a test because all participants get the same information to make the decision, and we can tell why the decision was made (in a really good question). In real life a surveyor could get lucky and get it right here and there without knowing why, which eventually leads to incorrect decisions that affect the public welfare.
I have had surveyors in court testify they deed staked because that's what Cooley said to do. They don't understand but they get lucky most of the time.
Personally, I like the approach of giving a fact pattern from a court case, then answer choices with reasons. This way the taker needs more than the correct location, but also the correct reason. And the question can be defended if necessary because the facts, evidence, answers, and reasoning come directly from the court. Of course, this can be a difficult question to come up with for the national part of a surveying exam. But there are certain principles that are pretty universal.
:good: :good: Well put, Duane.
JBS
Expert measurers will never understand the concept!