Gap

The plat doesn't close by 29' which is on the same order of the gap so it seems like there is no gap. The monument may be an established monument on the lot line?

Is the non closing plat line along the gap area .. Does holding the monumented line close the plat .just curious..

What happens when you hold the distances or if you eliminate one course? If your plat doesn't close and you can hold 2 out of 3 courses and still use the monument. What leg are you holding now? Did the ROW exist in 1926? Does the neighbor consider the corner on the southeasterly line his corner? Hang your hat on the monuments if you can.

I would have to have a good reason to ignore the monument on that line in favor of the math (something besides the math). Is there any other evidence of possession along the line? Do any of the deed descriptions in the chain of title mention adjoiner names?

If the description actually closed, would you suspect that perhaps the single monument may have been tampered with? Is there any other evidence of intent such as improvements? Have you researched the title back to see if the language in the deed was altered along the way?
Just as an indicator, how does the area match the description?

> The plat doesn't close by 29' which is on the same order of the gap so it seems like there is no gap. The monument may be an established monument on the lot line?

The gap is in the opposite direction of the overlap, So no.
The monument om the line is called out in the Morrison deed as being on the line in question.

> What happens when you hold the distances or if you eliminate one course? If your plat doesn't close and you can hold 2 out of 3 courses and still use the monument. What leg are you holding now? Did the ROW exist in 1926? Does the neighbor consider the corner on the southeasterly line his corner? Hang your hat on the monuments if you can.

The record is just busted. I tried everything I could think of to find the error in the map.
The R/W is recent and clips off the southern part of the subject.
Havent been able to reach the neighbor, these are all ramshackle rentals.
I want to use the monuments as they are the only evidence of the line.

> I would have to have a good reason to ignore the monument on that line in favor of the math (something besides the math). Is there any other evidence of possession along the line? Do any of the deed descriptions in the chain of title mention adjoiner names?

I feel you.
The deed description for the Morrison lot calls the monument at the southern point of the Morrison lot as being "on the line" of the subject.

Thanks for your thoughts.
The more I think on this the more I'm sure I'm being asked to put aside the best evidence of the TRUE line in the name of expediency for some folks who have not much more than a commission at stake.
I don't know how I could defend my actions in NOT using the best evidence. It would sound like: "well, the broker and the owner didn't care about the gap, they just needed to get this deal done".
That's some weak sauce right there.

BTW this is the lot referenced in my "Throw in the towel" post. After reading your replies to that post I got reinvigorated and tried to look at his with a less fatalistic attitude. I was going along pretty well and thought I had it wrapped with a (potential)lot line agreement with Carr.
No such luck.

There is no gap. there never is.

> If the description actually closed, would you suspect that perhaps the single monument may have been tampered with? Is there any other evidence of intent such as improvements? Have you researched the title back to see if the language in the deed was altered along the way?
> Just as an indicator, how does the area match the description?

The single monument (Morrison's southernmost point)comports very with the other monuments called for and found on the Morrison lot. It is also called for as being "on the line" in the Morrison deed. I think it is my strongest evidence on the TRUE line.
What I think I'm starting to understand is that the record plat error has been shoved around as the other lots were cut out of the original record lots.

The description going back just references the record plat, so no closure=no area.

BUT
You would never extend a property to the other plan because the other surveyor failed to extend his plan to the actual line.

If the gap was created by others note it as such and move on. Perhaps you will get a call from the others to fix their surveys and remove the gap from the plans.

If I am following correctly, the west side of the hatched area is where a plat (with math errors) would place your subject line. The east side of the hatched area is where the monumented line extended to the R/W would be.

I can not make out the calls on your drawing well, but it looks like you have maybe held a record call along the subdivision to the northwest and used the record call to establish the west edge of the hatching. That call looks to be to the nearest degree.

I would be leery of just holding the call in the face of evidence such as a monumented line that calls for being in your subject line and what looks to be a utility running nearly along the east edge of the hatching.

If you have not already done so, I would be looking as far back as possible for a changed value in the subject property calls. I would also see if I could uncover an easement to the ?telephone? company for the line on the southeast. Who granted the easement and how it is described might help answer where the line is/was.

> The more I think on this the more I'm sure I'm being asked to put aside the best evidence of the TRUE line in the name of expediency for some folks who have not much more than a commission at stake.

The way I see it...

There is no such thing as a GAP. They are a legal impossibility. Either you have a third parcel of land intentionally withheld by the common grantor for a specific purpose, or you have a conflict in the evidence. This is simply a conflict in evidence.

First step to resolve the conflicting evidence is to consider that you have a deed with an ambiguity. It miscloses by 29 feet. The ambiguity opens the terms of the deed for use of extrinsic evidence to explain the ambiguity.

Second step is to break down the individual boundaries in their unique circumstances under which they were created. Remember, we survey boundaries, not parcels of land. It's the surveyor's duty to gather the evidence necessary to resolve the ambiguity. Break down the sequence of events and circumstances which 1) created the boundary and 2) established the location of the boundary on the ground.

Based upon what I've seen posted already, you've got some very strong evidence from the adjoining deeds and monuments consistent with them to explain the ambiguity and to determine the location of the boundary. Let the evidence and the rule of law lead you to the resolution of the ambiguity. The directions/distances in your deed are not the sole pieced of evidence. You must consider the adjoiners equally. Apparently, they resolve the ambiguity.

My last piece of advice would be to NEVER seek advice from parties other than the owners in an attempt to determine the boundaries. That's your job and no one else can tell you how to make the determination. Seeking advice from other professionals is one thing, seeking it from a layman who has a stake in the game is completely detrimental. You'll gain nothing from them other than, 1) making them think they have a say in the outcome, and 2) being misled to expressing your professional opinion in a location that is NOT the boundary.

JBS

Great input.

The metes of a description does not make a record line. If it did, why not hold the Morrison monument called as on that line and show gaps and overlaps everywhere else by rotating a figure around that?

You are not rejecting a record line by holding the evidence found and referenced by an adjoining deed.

If you are holding record calls, can you look at the length of the R/W easement across your client's property and see whether it holds closer to either length?

Can't make out the distance along the southern line of the gap, but it looks significant enough to make it clear whether the county held the record line or the monumented/ extended line. I don't know to what esteem you hold your county's surveyors or any sub they use to document R/W easements.

Just my $0.02

> The monument om the line is called out in the Morrison deed as being on the line in question.

That right there should should be evidence enough that your line and the Morrison line are the same. No problem as far as I see right there.

And Carr to the east looks like a simple rotation problem/issue. Hold Carrs westmost point as the Morrison monument, rotate Carrs lines CCW a bit to hit the fence running to the SSE (I'm guessing thats what it is as it runs from the Morrison monument) and it looks like Carrs north line would then also work with the other easterly monument on Morrisons south line.

I've always held deed wording as a guide - not necessarily "gospel". In this case it would be guiding me to the occupation (Morrison monument and fence). As long as there is 29 feet of slop in the deed, even though you mentioned its 29 feet the wrong way, its an indicator that the origin of the deed "facts" or calls should be taken lightly and should carry less weight than what appears to be the property as used by all adjoiners. Unless there is more information that we don't know of at this time, I wouldn't show a gap.

> > The more I think on this the more I'm sure I'm being asked to put aside the best evidence of the TRUE line in the name of expediency for some folks who have not much more than a commission at stake.
>
> The way I see it...
>
> There is no such thing as a GAP. They are a legal impossibility. Either you have a third parcel of land intentionally withheld by the common grantor for a specific purpose, or you have a conflict in the evidence. This is simply a conflict in evidence.
>
> First step to resolve the conflicting evidence is to consider that you have a deed with an ambiguity. It miscloses by 29 feet. The ambiguity opens the terms of the deed for use of extrinsic evidence to explain the ambiguity.
>
> Second step is to break down the individual boundaries in their unique circumstances under which they were created. Remember, we survey boundaries, not parcels of land. It's the surveyor's duty to gather the evidence necessary to resolve the ambiguity. Break down the sequence of events and circumstances which 1) created the boundary and 2) established the location of the boundary on the ground.
>
> Based upon what I've seen posted already, you've got some very strong evidence from the adjoining deeds and monuments consistent with them to explain the ambiguity and to determine the location of the boundary. Let the evidence and the rule of law lead you to the resolution of the ambiguity. The directions/distances in your deed are not the sole pieced of evidence. You must consider the adjoiners equally. Apparently, they resolve the ambiguity.
>
> My last piece of advice would be to NEVER seek advice from parties other than the owners in an attempt to determine the boundaries. That's your job and no one else can tell you how to make the determination. Seeking advice from other professionals is one thing, seeking it from a layman who has a stake in the game is completely detrimental. You'll gain nothing from them other than, 1) making them think they have a say in the outcome, and 2) being misled to expressing your professional opinion in a location that is NOT the boundary.
>
> JBS

As stated, excellent and well written advice. Thanks.