forgot to ask
What does "Fd." mean?
"found" ?
forgot to ask
> What does "Fd." mean?
> "found" ?
Sure does..
Lot line probably controls
> Now...if the street control is displaced +/- 6" from record, whats the golden egg of control to use? Is Silverwood control the gold nugget? Is Phillips Way?
>
> This is one reason to accept the old monuments because no one can be sure that the control they are working with is the best control to use.
Well, you have the 1982 surveyor's map of Tract No. 40968 that shows he recovered a 1 in. iron pipe where the 1924 surveyors reported finding a 1 in. iron pipe marking the common corner of Lots 57 and 58 of the 1887 subdivision of the Northern portion of THE MONTEZUMA TRACT. Those same 1924 surveyors also reported finding a 2 x 2 redwood hub at the East corner of Lot 21. They used both to locate the common boundary of the tracts subdivided by them that year.
While you don't provide the details, it appears that at some time the 30 ft. strip adjoining the common line of the 1924 subdivisions was sold off. The 1982 subdivision omits the 30 ft. strip which was apparently under separate ownership.
While it depends upon how the 30 ft. strip was described in the original severing conveyance, if it was described simply as a strip of definite width off the North side of a part of Lot 21, then isn't the proper control the common lot line as shown upon the 1924 plats?
forgot to ask
OK - never saw that.
I always coded either:
IPF - iron pin/pipe found
or
IPS - iron pin/pipe set
NO biggee.
Lot line probably controls
> Well, you have the 1982 surveyor's map of Tract No. 40968 that shows he recovered a 1 in. iron pipe where the 1924 surveyors reported finding a 1 in. iron pipe marking the common corner of Lots 57 and 58 of the 1887 subdivision of the Northern portion of THE MONTEZUMA TRACT. Those same 1924 surveyors also reported finding a 2 x 2 redwood hub at the East corner of Lot 21. They used both to locate the common boundary of the tracts subdivided by them that year.
> While you don't provide the details, it appears that at some time the 30 ft. strip adjoining the common line of the 1924 subdivisions was sold off. The 1982 subdivision omits the 30 ft. strip which was apparently under separate ownership.
I do not have all the details. Unfortunately the one item we cannot search for online are the deeds. It's safe to say though that the 30 foot strip was under a seperate ownership since the deed reference is quite old.
>...... then isn't the proper control the common lot line as shown upon the 1924 plats?
Yes, as that control exists today. The 1982 civil did however find a 2" x 2" hub at the S'ly corner of Pcl A of the PM and replaced it with a 2" pipe. That monument, along with the 1" pipe and the other 2" pipe he found that lies N'ly of the disputed 2" pipe he set seems to me that it was sufficient to re establish the N'ly line of the 30 foot strip.
I personally feel that the lath author shorted his client by 4". He says the pipe is 0.34' South, so his 'true boundary' lies North. I am pretty sure that if his map was available for review it would show record values coming down from Silverwood.
Lot line probably controls
> >...... then isn't the proper control the common lot line as shown upon the 1924 plats?
>
> Yes, as that control exists today. The 1982 civil did however find a 2" x 2" hub at the S'ly corner of Pcl A of the PM and replaced it with a 2" pipe. That monument, along with the 1" pipe and the other 2" pipe he found that lies N'ly of the disputed 2" pipe he set seems to me that it was sufficient to re establish the N'ly line of the 30 foot strip.
Yes, but if the question is whether the present location of the 2 in. iron pipe supposedly set to mark a corner of the 30 ft. strip is correct or not, isn't best practice to reconstruct the South line of the 30 ft. strip from the best evidence of the original common line of Lots 57 and 21 that is North line of the strip (assuming that the North line is in fact that line)?
In other words, the map of the 1982 survey may not actually be the best evidence of the location of the boundaries of the tract subdivided. The aerial photos indicate that the location in which the 1 in. iron pipe would fall is undisturbed. So it may well still be in place, a monument from before 1924 that would readily show whether the 2 in. iron pipe at the North common corner of Lots 4 and 5 is South of the true corner of the 30 ft. strip or not.
Lot line probably controls _ Kent
> In other words, the map of the 1982 survey may not actually be the best evidence of the location of the boundaries of the tract subdivided. The aerial photos indicate that the location in which the 1 in. iron pipe would fall is undisturbed. So it may well still be in place, a monument from before 1924 that would readily show whether the 2 in. iron pipe at the North common corner of Lots 4 and 5 is South of the true corner of the 30 ft. strip or not.
The 1" pipe may very well be in place. The other 2" pipe that lies N'ly of the 1982
2" pipe may also be in place. If the recovery of those two monuments was done what would be the gain? It seems to me that it would just be to verify the field dimensions of those two monuments to the 1982 pipes record values. Even if the dimensions were correct, that just gives one position. The survey would then have to extend E'ly to the other 2" pipe that was set to replace the 2" x 2" hub that was found in 1982 for the PM corner to prove the common line of the 82 subdivision and the 30 foot strip...where does it end?
I think the best approach is to terminate the survey at the best available evidence shown on the 1982 map, which in this case is the original 2" pipe, with the assumption that the 82 civil did what he said he did.
You have to draw the line somewhere Kent.
I might add Kent that the 0.34' south on the lath was written by a surveyor who has too much fear to tell the truth on a survey. Remember the Judges and Reporters thread or the one about the Frightened Fudgers 😉
Kent
> .... I can understand why you guys feel as if you have to take short cuts out there.
Uncalled for Kent..
>Time is, after all, money. But isn't there some danger in turning boundary surveying into a quickie exercise that doesn't really answer the relevant questions?
Well Kent, there are not a lot of $90,000 lot surveys out here in La La Land. Maybe you should head to California and get licensed through comity then show us all how it's done.
PS and BTW Kent...you never did answer the question, just side stepped it..
>.... do you stay within the limits of the subdivision the lot is in, monument wise, or do you survey to such a point that you recreate the subdivisions exterior limits the lot is in by recovering monuments all the way back to sovereign?
Well?
Lot line probably controls _ Kent
> The 1" pipe may very well be in place. The other 2" pipe that lies N'ly of the 1982
> 2" pipe may also be in place. If the recovery of those two monuments was done what would be the gain?
Well, you've already conceded, I thought, that (contingent upon the description by which the 30 ft. strip was originally severed) the best control for the South line of the 30 ft. strip would appear to be the S'ly line of the 1924 map of Tract No. 7895 that the South line of the 30 ft. strip presumably is to be located parallel and 30 ft. distant from.
So, the 1 in. iron pipe shown upon the 1924 map of Tract No. 7895 is both the primary control for the North line of the 30 ft. strip and probably for its South line as well. If the 2 in. iron pipe that the 1982 surveyor set for the NW common corner of Lots 4 and 5 is found to be offset from the South line of the 30 ft. strip, the true corner would be fixed by treating that 1982 pipe as a witness corner and prolonging or shortening the lot line to intersect the true boundary of the tract subdivided as Tract No. 40968.
Lot line probably controls _ Kent
> .... If the 2 in. iron pipe that the 1982 surveyor set for the NW common corner of Lots 4 and 5 is found to be offset from the South line of the 30 ft. strip......
So what you are saying is that you rely more on your measuring ability than you do on monuments of age. An offset as you call it would be a difference between record and measured, so if a monument does not hit your math, then it's discarded.
I guess that's one way to survey. I would rather just fumble around and do sub standard work by finding an original tract monument and accepting it. You on the other hand seem to want to prove that an original 28 year old undisturbed monument is in the wrong place by a few inches.
Kent
> PS and BTW Kent...you never did answer the question, just side stepped it..
>
> >.... do you stay within the limits of the subdivision the lot is in, monument wise, or do you survey to such a point that you recreate the subdivisions exterior limits the lot is in by recovering monuments all the way back to sovereign?
I'm a bit surprised to hear a surveyor wondering whether the boundaries of a subdivision are to be proven soley by resort to the plat of record for the subdivision. I would have thought it was obvious that the boundaries depend upon the conveyances by which the subdivider acquired the land that he subdivided and that one may need to examine much more than just the subdivision plat.
Whenever there is a question about the correct location of the boundary of a tract subdivided, such as the question about whether the pipe that the 1982 surveyor set to mark the common corner of 4 and 5 was on the true boundary of the tract subdivided or not, obviously that is a question that cannot be answered just with the record subdivision plat in hand.
Kent
> I'm a bit surprised to hear a surveyor wondering whether the boundaries of a subdivision are proven entirely from the plat of record.
No, not from record Kent, but proven by the monuments of the record...Big difference
Kent
> No, not from record Kent, but proven by the monuments of the record...Big difference
Uh, no. If you go back and review the example that you posted, for example, you'll see that you already recognized that the location of the S'ly line of the 30 ft. strip is most likely fixed in relation to a line that was surveyed and marked upon the ground in 1924, so the 1982 plat of record is basically just the 1982 surveyor's opinion about the location of that line. If the pipe he set to mark the North common corner of Lots 4 and 5 isn't on the subdivision boundary, the fact that it's shown on a record plat as being so doesn't necessarily make it so.
Lot line probably controls _ Kent
> So what you are saying is that you rely more on your measuring ability than you do on monuments of age.
Actually, no. This one really isn't that complicated. If a boundary is defined by the monumented line of a lot to which it is to be parallel and 30 ft. offset and Paul Plutae sets a pipe that is 30.3. ft offset from the line line, then he hasn't correctly marked the boundary. If he records a map showing his incorrect pipe as if it were correct, the fact that the map is recorded doesn't make it other than a mistake.
I'm sure that there's a part of you that knows that you didn't do a very thorough job on what you were grumbling about at Lot 5. I'll bet that if you were to think about it, you could actually list various other things that a careful surveyor would do that you didn't feel that you had time to do. Happily, that's between you and the California BOR.
Kent
The conversation with you suddenly became very boring. Have a good rest of the day
Are you people even trying to help me? Just kind of kidding, but the recent posts about monuments being the corner without question is exactly what has been occupying my mind for the last month and I can't seem to get a consensus of surveyor opinion about standard practice or case law that would indicate a likely outcome of a court action in the situation Jim Frame posted from CLSA.
> Are you people even trying to help me? Just kind of kidding, but the recent posts about monuments being the corner without question is exactly what has been occupying my mind for the last month and I can't seem to get a consensus of surveyor opinion about standard practice or case law that would indicate a likely outcome of a court action in the situation Jim Frame posted from CLSA.
Okay, Cousin Steven, I'll help. The way that I'd tackle the situation you described is to begin by asking these questions:
1) What evidence is there that the marker found about 7.5 ft. out of the position of the corner as reportedly marked by the original surveyor HAS NOT been moved? The fact that the marker is now 7.5 ft. away from the position in which it was supposedly placed and in the situation of a small parcel such as you describe, is ordinarily a sufficient demonstration to present to a judge or jury that the marker had been moved.
2) Are you prevented by law or the rules adopted by your regulatory board from removing or causing the removal of the misplaced marker even if both landowners agree that it doesn't mark their common corner?
3) If the misplaced marker is removed, what record exists that it had ever occupied a position other than one in substantial agreement with the record of the original survey that placed it?
What do you suppose that the answers are?
Thanks, Cousin Kent
1) This situation unfolded at about the same time that you posted about the hole that you replaced with a monument. When I realized that this pipe was 7.5' from its mapped position, I carefully looked 7.5' East for evidence of where it might have been and saw only apparently virgin soil. I dug in a radius of a few feet (it was near a barbed wire fence so I didn't want to trust a metal detector) and didn't find anything, like another pipe that might have been set without removing the erroneous one.
I wouldn't expect you to read all 100 replies to that CLSA thread, and I was trying to be somewhat diplomatic, but let's say this surveyor was known to be on a fairly strict liquid diet. When I called the County Surveyor's office to see if they knew where to find the surveyor or his records and they told me they thought he was dead, the man I spoke to kept having to bite his tongue to avoid saying more derogatory things than "He never should have been surveying".
Ordinarily, I agree. With most surveyors around here, I would first assume that the monument had been moved, but in this case, there is some evidence that would call into question the initial placement of the pipe. For one thing, a guy that works for me now used to work for an engineering firm that collaborated with this surveyor for a while, and apparently up until his retirement or demise, he was not using computers or data collectors, and this survey was done in 2002. Not that accurate work was not done before those things were available, but they do provide a safety net of sorts for blunders that we didn't have before.
2) I don't think it's prohibited by law per se, but the CA BOR punished a guy for removing an obviously erroneous monument, as I have described here before, based on the premise that it violates standards of pracice.
In this case, the neighbor doesn't want the pipe removed and replaced in the map position because then the line will go through his shed and the owner of the subject property doesn't give a darn where the real line is because they're a bank and they just want to get rid of this property as expediently as possible.
3) If I hadn't found the pipe where it is currently located, which I almost didn't, I would be setting my own monument at the mapped location based on the other found monuments and the map dimensions. Actually, even if I had gone out there with a metal detector and found all the monuments including this errant pipe with the proper tags on them, I would have possibly just flagged them up and called it a day. I realize that's not a great idea, but I'm just saying I could see myself or somebody else doing it without ever knowing there was a problem.
Thanks, Cousin Kent
> 2) I don't think it's prohibited by law per se, but the CA BOR punished a guy for removing an obviously erroneous monument, as I have described here before, based on the premise that it violates standards of pracice.
>
> In this case, the neighbor doesn't want the pipe removed and replaced in the map position because then the line will go through his shed and the owner of the subject property doesn't give a darn where the real line is because they're a bank and they just want to get rid of this property as expediently as possible.
Well, that information would settle matters, I'd think, if you've got one of the adjoining owners now keenly interested in the errant marker not being corrected and you would have to fight an uphill battle with your BOR to remove it even if the adjacent owner were amenable, the proper course is to recognize it as being the marker that was originally in place when the subdivision was made and the lot sold off. Mr. Adjoiner is always free to suddenly recall all sorts of things about the marker that evade his recollection at the moment.
So, the proper question to be answered is "who is damaged by not correcting the errant marker?" Evidently, the only damage is the cost of filing the record of your survey that shows the true location of the division line between the parcels. Once that is filed, I take it that all future surveyors will be aware that the original subdivision map was in gross error.
Map v. monument
Was the map in gross error or was the monument in gross error that everybody now would just as soon be the corner? The map was prepared based on an approval process authorizing the creation of a 100,000 square foot parcel. The Parcel Map was prepared with calculations submitted to prove that a 100,000 square foot parcel was being recorded. A pipe was driven in the ground at a point that never would have been approved or recorded because it would have created a sub-standard parcel.
It's not like the textbook cases where a deed is written from pipe to pipe and a course is written wrong in the description. In this case, the map comes first and the monument is supposed to go where the map says. Slight variations from map dimensions are to be expected, but on relatively flat open ground, 7.5 feet on a 2.3-acre parcel is just a gross blunder or fraud or something else bad.
I, and the pretty smart real estate attorney I've consulted about this, could make and have made a case either way. He leans toward the map dimensions disirregardless of the shed and the neighbor's testimony. I lean toward the monument since the neighbor says he was shown the pipe as being the corner when he bought the place and I can't prove that it's been moved or that he is making that story up. But depending on who wants to argue with me, I could talk out of the other side of my face too.
