MightyMoe, post: 414695, member: 700 wrote: you expect a poster to write in description language?
Well, maybe a poster could specify that "the description was 200' to the left and 230' to the right of centerline". :>
Kent McMillan, post: 414698, member: 3 wrote: Well, maybe a poster could specify that "the description was 200' to the left and 230' to the right of centerline". :>
Actually I did, and the little piece of the drawing also shows it, you seem to be under the impression that there is a legal being written, that's not the case, it was done in the early 60's and even though I'm old, I'm not that old.
All I'm doing is surveying existing deeds, and for your info the DOT filed a ROS and showed the existing monuments then (early 2000's), they had no problems with them and accepted them so I figure I'm good to go.;)
Have a great weekend Kent :):)
aliquot, post: 414652, member: 2486 wrote: It is also well established by the courts that original monuments hold even if the deed does not mention them.
SellmanA, post: 414659, member: 8564 wrote: I have seen instances where they fit very well, and other times they appeared to have been set with a rubber chain and kaleidoscope.
BAM!
So; the monument holds?!
What fails here; the state and the private land owner are adjoiners; where's my f'ing line? As a surveyor, working for the private land owner, how much is it going to (should it ) cost?
Dougie...
Monuments hold except when they don't.
MightyMoe, post: 414701, member: 700 wrote: Actually I did, and the little piece of the drawing also shows it,
Uh, yes, I'm thinking that was why I posted the droll suggestion. :>
What I have grown to detest greatly is the situation where a Government corner (section corner or quarter section corner) has been completely obliterated by the construction process and the reference information provided on the highway/bridge plans is based on the preliminary design survey with all reference ties being to things completely obliterated by the construction process. This leaves you primarily with only the aftermath of the project to show you how to reestablish the corner that disappeared 40-50-60-70-80 years ago. So, you begin to tie in everything within reason such as any R-O-W markers, center lines of culverts, bridge ends & center lines, noted stationing of found fences, etc. You now have 20 pieces of evidence and no two of them are consistent with each other let alone the other 18. Add to that the fact that no matter where YOU decide the corner must have been, someone working directly for the DOT, contractor or DOT employee, will arrive at a different location at some date in the future. Then THEY notify YOU that YOU are a moron.
For those who never look past the Deed, one of the major exceptions to the Parol Evidence Rule (includes extrinsic evidence) is for applying the Deed contract to the subject matter. The engineering boundary books miss this important idea.
Dave Karoly, post: 414718, member: 94 wrote: For those who never look past the Deed, one of the major exceptions to the Parol Evidence Rule (includes extrinsic evidence) is for applying the Deed contract to the subject matter. The engineering boundary books miss this important idea.
In the case of highway rights-of-way, described in relation to a centerline that was surveyed there are two things to keep in mind:
1) any line that was traversed by a survey, such as a centerline, will be subject to errors in the measurements made along the traverse (which means irregularities in the stationing and angular relationships between lines of stated bearings consistent with survey methods of the time) and
2) where a call is definite and not the result of a survey, (such as "50 ft. to both sides of the centerline") there really is no room to claim that 49 ft. or 51 ft. was intended.
Kent McMillan, post: 414720, member: 3 wrote: In the case of highway rights-of-way, described in relation to a centerline that was surveyed there are two things to keep in mind:
1) any line that was traversed by a survey, such as a centerline, will be subject to errors in the measurements made along the traverse (which means irregularities in the stationing and angular relationships between lines of stated bearings consistent with survey methods of the time) and
2) where a call is definite and not the result of a survey, (such as "50 ft. to both sides of the centerline") there really is no room to claim that 49 ft. or 51 ft. was intended.
You are correct if you are making a Deed interpretation based argument. For example, most of the time the grantee will not be allowed to claim the Deed conveys something different from that described as a matter of law.
However, when applying the Deed to the subject matter it may be found that the location is at some variance from the description as a matter of fact.
Note: Texas has over 3,000 cases under boundaries alone which I haven't begun to read. California has somewhere in the neighborhood of 1200. Wyoming has 22.
Dave Karoly, post: 414721, member: 94 wrote: You are correct if you are making a Deed interpretation based argument. For example, most of the time the grantee will not be allowed to claim the Deed conveys something different from that described as a matter of law.
However, when applying the Deed to the subject matter it may be found that the location is at some variance from the description as a matter of fact.
Note: Texas has over 3,000 cases under boundaries alone which I haven't begun to read. California has somewhere in the neighborhood of 1200. Wyoming has 22.
The reality, though, is that when you have two concrete right-of-way markers 99.00 apart on both sides of a strip of land sold to the State in fee simple as being 50.00 ft. distant to both sides of centerline, it is impossible to reconcile where the markers are (markers that can be shown to have been subsequently placed by a road contractor) with the clear language of the deed. Given that the State is one of the parties, where is the room for any equitable argument at all?
Kent McMillan, post: 414722, member: 3 wrote: The reality, though, is that when you have two concrete right-of-way markers 99.00 apart on both sides of a strip of land sold to the State in fee simple as being 50.00 ft. distant to both sides of centerline, it is impossible to reconcile where the markers are (markers that can be shown to have been subsequently placed by a road contractor) with the clear language of the deed. Given that the State is one of the parties, where is the room for any equitable argument at all?
I'm not making an equitable argument.
I only have my left hand available for typing right now, the boy wonder is lying on my right arm passed out.
Dave Karoly, post: 414727, member: 94 wrote: I'm not making an equitable argument.
Well, if the boundary is located somewhere other than the language of the deed would place it, what is the basis other than equity to argue in favor of the alternate position? The typical deed to a strip of land conveyed to the State of Texas for a highway would refer to a centerline that had been located upon the ground (or some similar language) and describe the boundaries of the strip by stations and offsets from that centerline, with possibly some other subordinate calls for bearing and distance between particular points offset from the centerline at given stations.
In other words, to locate the boundary of the strip requires determining the location of the centerline as surveyed, but everything else is protracted from that centerline. Absent any express agreement, the supposed correctness of a monument that was subsequently placed would seem to depend entirely upon equity in Texas since there is no principle of statute I'm aware of that would apply.
BTW, the phrase "the language of the deed" should be understood as including such matters as the expressed intentions of the parties. The language of the deed is the key that opens the door to giving the deed proper effect.
BajaOR, post: 414628, member: 9139 wrote: So the R/W moves every time the centerline gets painted, every time a shoulder grows during an overlay or shoulder widening, and every time the DOT flattens a curve? The Georgia King really does get his!
Yes Andy is correct that this is the position of GDOT. I have asked GDOT numerous times for a copy of this written position by the Attorney General and have never received it. Having been involved in several GDOT projects, I have used the R/W monuments at times to help determine the original centerline. Often, we can not make an accurate determination of the R/W by shooting the centerline of the road and a few R/W Monuments on a just the parcel we are surveying. To just simply use the monuments or the road centerline as we determine it today, may not be the most accurate representation of the original intent. How much data a Surveyor needs to collect is a matter of professional judgement based on the specific situation. Right of Way is just another line for Quicky Dicky Surveyor to screw up.
I was asked to do a survey along a section of Texas FM 14 in Wood County that was taken by documents dated from 1949 thru 1952.
I've ridden every foot of it on bicycle as it is that close to my grandfather's house.
This pdf file represents the only r/w information available. There were many different recordings to gain the signatures of all the landowners for record and all the descriptions were identical to this, no bearings, curve data and this road looks like a river snaking thru area.
Of course, the property is about in the middle of this section of highway.
A Harris, post: 414751, member: 81 wrote: I was asked to do a survey along a section of Texas FM 14 in Wood County that was taken by documents dated from 1949 thru 1952.
I've ridden every foot of it on bicycle as it is that close to my grandfather's house.
This pdf file represents the only r/w information available. There were many different recordings to gain the signatures of all the landowners for record and all the descriptions were identical to this, no bearings, curve data and this road looks like a river snaking thru area.
Of course, the property is about in the middle of this section of highway.
I just took a look at the TexDOT hit-and-miss on-line right-of-way map viewer and didn't find a link to the right-of-way map from that period, but is there any reason to think that it doesn't exist? By the use of stationing, the instrument you posted would appear to make reference to a survey that someone had made that one would think also appears upon the plans prepared by the Tyler Division of the Texas Highway Department, right?
Kent McMillan, post: 414729, member: 3 wrote: BTW, the phrase "the language of the deed" should be understood as including such matters as the expressed intentions of the parties. The language of the deed is the key that opens the door to giving the deed proper effect.
Yes, I agree with this.
I have read the comments above and have yet to see anyone comment on the reference pins set by DOT forces during staking of the project centerline prior to construction. Reference pins were generally set at PC's, PT's, and breaks in the R/W. The location of these reference pins can be found in what is referred as the staking notes and can only be obtained at DOT head quarters. District offices may also have access to the notes. Generally the reference pin was set 3-5 feet inside the R/W. A hub was usually set on the R/W at this same time. In some cases the as built plans may show this information.
Tie all found reference pins and reconstruct the centerline from them. From there the limits of the R/W can be determined. In other words the R/W monuments (concrete monument) are ignored unless they fit the reconstructed centerline,. Keep in mind the concrete monument was typically set by the contractor at the location of the hub or by measuring the offset to the reference pin. These reference pins were used during construction to reestablish the centerline as required not the R/W monument. You will be surprised how well the reference pins fit.
Think it over-which came first the reference pin or the R/W monument?
BillRoberts, post: 414788, member: 1759 wrote: I have read the comments above and have yet to see anyone comment on the reference pins set by DOT forces during staking of the project centerline prior to construction. Reference pins were generally set at PC's, PT's, and breaks in the R/W. The location of these reference pins can be found in what is referred as the staking notes and can only be obtained at DOT head quarters. District offices may also have access to the notes.
Which State DOT do you have in mind? It would be helpful to know.
[USER=3]@Kent McMillan[/USER]
Tyler TxDot sent me that and informed there was no more on that section of FM14.
There may have been more available when the Quitman Office and Winsboro Office were open.
At that time the local office personnel wore many hats and were more than just a maintenance crew.
The r/w data for this highway is probably among the 1%å± of information that never made its way to the District office and on to Austin.
