The law
The fact that I want to discuss this so-called settled law, for the benefit of the readers on here, is over your head is not surprising!
Your insults do little for your own credibility and if you would simply answer the questions, we could move on.
I can insult too, if that is the way you want to proceed.
Keith
From a young(er) surveyor
Yes, you pin-cushioned, and someone later will be questioning why an iron pin is so close to an existing iron pipe
This post and photo really bothers me. Earlier today I read the post and about half of the replies, but I let it go. I visited the website later and it has since brought me to the point of creating an account and responding.
The fact that a pin was set 0.14’ from an EXISTING IRON PIPE is ridiculous. The controlling monument should be the existing pipe. A very wise Surveyor once told me “the monument laid is the monument played”, granted in other situations that statement would not hold true, but here I think it is evident it should.
I wish this post didn’t bother me so much, but it does. It is disheartening to see a surveyor do this, and I hope no one is taught this is how things are done.
Technology allows us the opportunity to better show the evidence we find in the field, but does not give us the right to change it.
From a young(er) surveyor
Maybe you can learn something from Kent's settled law on this type situation?
We will see?
Keith
Moving boundaries by surveying mistake
> The fact that I want to discuss this so-called settled law, for the benefit of the readers on here, is over your head is not surprising!
Well, to return to Norm's claim. He is of the view that the fact that a surveyor places a survey marker that encroaches onto land owned by the State automatically moves the line after a period of time. The passage of time is what evidently works this miracle in his view.
You, former desk rider at the BLM, want to know why it is that just because some private surveyor places a marker on land owned by the State or USA that the State or USA isn't automatically divested of title to those parts of their holdings severed by the mistaken survey? Is that what you're really asking?
From a young(er) surveyor
I'm sorry to see a young(er) surveyor so sad. There is such a thing as a senior line in my world. If there are two monuments that mark that line, if I mark a point that I intend to be on that line and it isn't, that doesn't necessarily move the line. I think Keith is talking about property corners that get set and accepted by adjacent landowners based on monuments placed in good faith that cannot ever possibly be perfectly in alignment. In my world, if there are two monuments that are intended to define a straight right of way line and a surveyor places a monument intended to be on that line, that doesn't magically become a point on that line. If it is, it is, if it's not, it's not.
In Carl's case, if the property owner used the pipe as the right of way corner of his property and built a high-rise or parking lot, chances are there would be no problem with the 0.14' encroachment into the State property. The bigger that number gets, the more likely there would be a problem. Some of the so-called experts in our profession proclaim that "how far is too far" is a stupid question. I don't think so.
Moving boundaries by surveying mistake
Kent,
I really thought you could read English better.
Can't understand my questions?
I can understand that your 30 years of being an instrument man can leave you deficient in what constitutes settled law on defining boundaries with monuments.
But, you brought it up............settled law.
Lets see it.
Keith
Moving boundaries by surveying mistake
". . .some private surveyor places a marker on land owned by the State or USA that the State or USA . . .'
Would you happen to have an example of what you stated?
Keith
From a young(er) surveyor
> I'm sorry to see a young(er) surveyor so sad. There is such a thing as a senior line in my world. If there are two monuments that mark that line, if I mark a point that I intend to be on that line and it isn't, that doesn't necessarily move the line.
Yes, what is at issue in Carl's example is a fundamental principle that is used to resolve boundary conflicts. Once land has been conveyed to another, as presumably was the situation in the case of the highway where the State has paramount title, any attempt that the grantor makes to convey it again to another party is a nullity.
So, the conveyance based upon the pipe that encroached into the state highway was in effect an attempt to convey a sliver of land that the grantor no longer owned. The surveyor could not arbitrarily give the land back, particularly when title was vested in the State. Suppose that the pipe had been two feet into the right-of-way. Presumably the situation would be clearer, but the identical principle is at work.
So, given that the grantor could only convey that portion of the lots that was not in conflict with the land in the highway, what else is there to do but to determine what part of the lots as laid out that the grantor actually owned? Nothing? What Carl did was to mark the true boundary of the land that subdivider actually had title to, slicing off those parts of the lots that overlapped onto land owned by the State. Pretty elementary stuff, an old(er) surveyor would think.
Buy that pencerules?
Just asking?
Keith
Buy that pencerules?
Actually, the funny thing is that back when Keith was actually a licensed surveyor about forty years ago, the principle was the same. What Keith's issue seems to be is how the surveying uh-ohs that came to light with respect to the boundaries of federal lands when he was a bureaucrat were dealt with. I think that his position is that mostly the land wasn't worth very much and it was already three o'clock when it hit his desk.
Deja vu, Keith
> ". . .some private surveyor places a marker on land owned by the State or USA that the State or USA . . .'
>
> Would you happen to have an example of what you stated?
Well, how about .... this very thread that you evidently haven't been reading? That was the exact situation in the case Carl described.
🙂
Kent
I guess you missed what I was asking, but do you have an example, for instance, on Federal Land?
Keith
Buy that pencerules?
pencerules, see if you can make any sense out of Kent's post.
He does blather a lot, this time of night.
Keith
Kent
> I guess you missed what I was asking ...
No, I didn't miss what you were asking. You just forgot what this entire thread was about and I had to remind you.
🙂
Kent
Want to post some of that settled law of yours?
Or is it all secret?
Any examples on Federal Land? I don't know of any and have been around the block.
Keith
Kent
> Want to post some of that settled law of yours?
Sure, if you're in California, - and I realize that you aren't actually licensed to survey there or in any other state, but you've said that you're in California - you can dig out the statutes on conveyances that set out the implications of a conveyance in land and what rights may be transferred. Most states should have similar laws dealing with conveyances.
As for the interpretation of writings such as the descriptions of land contained within deeds, basically the burden is on you to prove that the descriptive elements of a deed don't mean anything. Otherwise, you are pretty much asking the surveyors to assure you that English words mean something when the contractual arrangements that a buyer and seller make between themselves are committed to writing.
I think that the old timer that set the pipe did a heck of a job, considering that he probably didn't go get the same R/W monuments that I did.
What happened in the last 50+ years to go from heck of a job to incorrectly located? How do you know the old timer did not go 300' one way and 800' the other? Are those marks you held newer than his perhaps?
So let's say the old timer just happened to get lucky and placed his pipe within 0.14 of today's line. He intended to place his pipe on the ROW 50 years ago and did a heck of a job in doing so. Someone please explain to me why that pipe is not the original monument marking that particular point on the ROW as it was intended? What is a logical argument?
There is no doubt in my mind that I would have held the old pipe.
I have set nails & offsets for highway R/W monument locations and know exactly how the monument installation crews set them, from what I have seen the folks installing the R/W monuments do not use the same prcision of care as a watchmaker or even a surveyor.
How do you know a few of the R/W monuments have not come and gone over the years, it happens.
You created a pin farm IMO.
I didn't take the time to read the comments posted, but have to simply ask...
Were you the original surveyor? Were you the first surveyor to have ever attempted to set this line? NO!
Then, your duty was to RETRACE the line as established on the ground by an earlier survey. As a retracing surveyor, it is not within your authority to FIX any shortcoming you might THINK you found.
YES, YOU PINCUSHIONED THE CORNER. Your monument is worthless and meaningless (other than to just further belittle the landowners' faith in their monuments and our profession).
JBS
🙁
JBS
Why don't you tell us how you really feel about it?;-) 😉
Keith