Can??t say I heard much I disagreed with... I??ve decided that from henceforth- I??ll no longer refer to multiple monuments as a pincushion... ?ÿnow it??s a ??Robillard?.?ÿ
Mr. Lucas skillfully articulates how a survey is a legally defined and recognized act, not a stake-out program contest. Just because we may not like the precision of our predecessor and just because we may think our tolerances our superior to our predecessor, does NOT negate the LEGAL standing of EITHER our predecessor OR the landowners who rely on our fellow predecessor.?ÿ We have a few very large companies in my state that fart pincushions wherever they go, and produce plats that explain how both the BLM AND our Board rules REQUIRE these pincushions (surveyor's droppings) when both these documents state the exact opposite. Pincushions cause chaos, the opposite of what the laws charge us with doing.
Case law is kind of chaotic but then looking at the Westlaw Keycite Index it is organized there under Boundaries Part I Deeds and Descriptions and Part II Establishment and Ascertainment. The key insight here is that Boundary Law flows from Deed to Establishment.?ÿ
The standard Boundary Survey texts tend to stay in Part I (except for original boundaries which are explained in an overly strict manner). Part I begins with the rules of construction which make neat and tidy, easily followed rules. They were never meant to supersede Establishment, however.
When A cuts out a Deed to B then any act by the authority of the original parties (A and B) which measures and lays out the new boundary is an original survey. A and B using a tape measure and stringline are Surveyors. Where A and B take no action to mark the boundary it remains open to location later following an interpretation of the Deed to which it is reasonably susceptible. When successors to A and B act to mark the boundary it is often referred to as an agreed boundary. If it is unknown when the boundary was marked yet the physical possession line is deemed the Boundary it is often called an acquiesced boundary. The purpose of common law rules is to aid the Court (and property owners and boundary professionals) in determining whether the boundary is fixed by prior Establishment or is open to location strictly by the calls of the Deed.
There is a trend among appellate courts in California to dispense with the technical rules and look to physical evidence of the boundary location. They treat it as nearly a sole question of fact unless the appeal presents a very definite question involving a legal principle.
I always told our survey crews that the only accurate survey is the full-sized thing out there on the ground, and that all the subsequent surveying and mapping are simply attempts to remark those lines and monuments, and that the survey measurements and plats are nothing but our best attempt to reflect on paper that full-sized thing out there on the ground as a matter of convenience because the land and its boundary cannot be transported to the courthouse for recordation.
When is your textbook coming out? You seem to have made the most thorough study of anyone posting here, and developed a balanced perspective.
I like his message; but I find the messenger tedious. YMMV?ÿ
Jeff Lucas has a lot of good things to say, but his rantings against the BLM Manual miss the point.?ÿ
very true, the BLM and Public Lands is way out of his area of practice.
He does have great knowledge in other areas, and that is where he should focus his efforts and teaching
I didn??t hear any manual bashing- I heard railing against mis-application of the manual. FWIW- I??m currently dealing with a recent single proportion situation where this new section breakdown gives front yards, septic tanks, and driveways on one side of the highway to properties on the other side of the highway, as opposed to locations established since 1909....
?ÿ
I didn??t hear any manual bashing- I heard railing against mis-application of the manual. FWIW- I??m currently dealing with a recent single proportion situation where this new section breakdown gives front yards, septic tanks, and driveways on one side of the highway to properties on the other side of the highway, as opposed to locations established since 1909....
?ÿ
I haven't heard him for years, so maybe he has come to his senses.?ÿ
It is often mis-appllied so maybe he is back on the right track now??ÿ
One thing that always bugged me was that?ÿ his presentations in states with significant Federal Interest, he ignored the fact that a significant amount of work done by private surveyors involves at least one federal boundary, making the Manual much more than a historical reference.?ÿ
In any given case, accept the physical evidence of location or strictly apply the Deed, that is the $64,000 question.
The Manual is a good boundary surveying book oriented to PLSS problems. It also prescribes some special terminology specific to its purpose. Although intended for BLM Cadastral Surveyors it contains good advice for all surveyors.
The main issue is versions prior to 2009 prescribed an incorrect standard of proof for corners, being "beyond a reasonable doubt." The original surveys were often poorly done and perishable monuments were set. Also most of the patent corners were set after the fact by a variety of people of various skill levels from amateur property owners to seasoned professionals. Speculation is that the GLO chose a strict standard of proof in order that it didn't have to evaluate millions of sketchy corners and accept wiggy subdivisions run by entry men. Just find the corners with solid evidence such the unquestioned marked monument or faced and scribed bearing trees then proportion the rest. Maybe Grandpa's barn and barnyard are now encroaching but Grandpa should've been more careful.
?ÿ
Reading the 1973 Manual as not allowing the acceptance of anything that isn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt is a misreading.
Between 1973 and 2009 IBLA and the courts clarified federal law, and the problem was "fixed" in 2009, yet there is still no love.
You are right. I find the discussion of existent, obliterated and lost confusing and they overlap with different standards it seems to me. It’s a book which is useful, it’s not perfect but nothing is.
Jeff Lucas made me understand how many surveyors Robillard led astray.
I liked Jeff the first twenty times I heard him, like already said, he is preaching the same stuff now.?ÿ He wrote a book for Illinois called "Illinois Boundary Law" and it was the IPLSA that got him to write the book.?ÿ Thank goodness it was him that did the book and not some theoretical moron.?ÿ The book is somewhere between great and excellent in my book.?ÿ Well written and backed up by some case law.
?ÿ
I think his main point about the manual is it doesn't apply to local surveys if the boundaries are already surveyed and occupied.
I paid for a seat at a Lucas seminar several years ago but an assignment to a Fire Origin investigation intervened, had to go there instead.
Judging Walt Robillard against current law (or the current understanding of law) is a thouroughly ridiculous pursuit. He most certainly has works with great value. Those who judge past contributors without recognizing the valid parts of thier are doomed to a lonely and stunted life.?ÿ
One of the first tasks for any survey is to look at federal interest tied to the survey. It can be surprising how much is. At that point it can be argued that it's not so important what the manual says, but what the feds do with it. I never say,,,,,well the feds will never survey here.
Looking at a survey for an old client and need to sectionally breakdown lands in Sections 13, 14, 23, 24 near town and sure enough it's all federal with clear conflicts between math and established interior lines. Game on!!
I doubt Jeff Lucas has gotten involved with this type of survey.?ÿ
