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.
Yes, but I understood you to say that that little detail was immaterial now since the parcel had been approved and there is a house on it. So, weigh some harm that could possibly have been done in the approval process - but wasn't - against Mr. Adjoiner on the witness stand telling the judge about how he relied upon that marker to site his shed. I know which side of that one I'd rather have my money on.
Map v. monument
Again, not expecting you to read 100 replies to a thread on the CLSA board, but the neighbor also claims that the shed existed when he bought the place a few months after the map recorded, in 2003. I have looked at the old historic aerials on Google Earth and I can't see the shed before 2006 but there might have been more trees obscuring it before he built the big garage next to it that I thought was his house before I saw the real house further to the East.
I tried to get the bank to do a boundary adjustment to put the line in a mutually agreeable location and define a 100,000-square-foot parcel so everybody would be happy, including me. Even though they had a cleanup crew there replacing carpet and who knows what else inside the house, and renovating the landscaping and they're going to demolish the outdoor brick fireplace that happens to be on the neighbor's property no matter what line you choose, they couldn't find it in their budget to nail down the boundary issue once and for all.
One theory that has crossed my mind is that the surveyor was instructed to place the shed on Parcel B and when he realized that he would either have to set another pipe on the south line or put the line through the shed to create 100,000 square feet, he said screw it, let's just put the pipe over here and go get us a drink.
Map v. monument
> Again, not expecting you to read 100 replies to a thread on the CLSA board, but the neighbor also claims that the shed existed when he bought the place a few months after the map recorded, in 2003.
Well, it's safe to say that Mr. Adjoiner may be telling a somewhat different story in the future, but one that supports some equity in his favor. It sounds as it is is also likely that Mr. Banker won't be spending any money disputing Mr. Adjoiner's contentions.
That element to the situation should help clarify your decision enormously.
> One theory that has crossed my mind is that the surveyor was instructed to place the shed on Parcel B and when he realized that he would either have to set another pipe on the south line or put the line through the shed to create 100,000 square feet, he said screw it, let's just put the pipe over here and go get us a drink.
Is it possible that Mr. Surveyor was using slope distances for horizontal distances when he set the erroneous corner?
Map v. monument
As I said earlier, this place is relatively flat. I don't know what it looked like in 2002 when it was subdivided, but there's not that much brush, either. The worst measurer in the world shouldn't have been off more than a couple of tenths putting that pipe in, unless it was an angular error or a calculation error. Since I've heard that the surveyor was basically using 50-year-old technology to survey with, I don't really know how he was doing things and the County Surveyor guy didn't know whether he was doing his own field work or hiring others to do it or who they might have been.
