Atrue professional seeksknowledge.
A professional offers solutions to his clients in a concrete manner. None of those wishy washy findings that passes findings to some dead surveyor.
It requires many years of experience to realize that measurements alone are not the answer to maintaining stable boundaries and a peaceful and prosperous society.
And yet the first that they teach you in surveying 101 is how to use a transit and a steel tape.
FrancisH, post: 397350, member: 10211 wrote: Which is why you fix everything once and for all.
If a monument is out of line with deed, you either fix the monument or the deed. You make deed conform to monument or monument conform to deed.Once you make that transition then future surveys will find that monuments now conform to deeds. And any missing monument will be relocated based on deed. Which is what original survey intended since they also made a plat of the survey after monumentation.
No any missing monuments will be relocated on the evidence found. whether by our deed, adjoiner deed, parole evidence "which I don't expect you to understand" or occupation which is what we are professionals and not mere mathematical tec.
Hey if you believe that digital reading is telling you truths without the full understanding of errors more power to you
Hey if you believe that Monuments are telling you truths without the full understanding of blunders more power to you
FrancisH, post: 397366, member: 10211 wrote: This is a discussion warren, no one has to win or lose. You present your arguments and so shall I.
I have presented my arguments why your system fails lot ownership.
Your only countering argument is becase of laws passed down in 1800s that no one has even thought of to challenge.
Well, the law does evolve, and take current circumstances into account.
As to a continuing discussion, I would request that you keep it civil. That is, after all, the hallmark of professionalism.
In my position as a County Surveyor, I am tasked with assuring that maps filed for record conform with technical standards. Beyond that, there is an ethical mandate to maintain the link between prior monumenting of described parcels of land being severed from "parent" parcels and the reestablishment of those boundaries on the ground for the mutual benefit of the contracting party and all the adjoiners.
It is quite a juggling feat, and the surveyors performing this work and filing records of their surveys bear full responsibility and liability for the published result.
This is a good thing, and the surveying community is extremely altruistic in adhering to standards which uphold these safeguards for the public good.
I have to presume that the same holds true in Singapore.
No any missing monuments will be relocated on the evidence found. whether by our deed, adjoiner deed, parole evidence "which I don't expect you to understand" o
There you go again, you again have 3 options- your deed, adjoiner deed or parole evidence.
That statement implies that you do not understand that you must have 1 basis for boundary.
3 options again brings uncertainty to how to solve discrepancies.
FrancisH, post: 397366, member: 10211 wrote: This is a discussion warren, no one has to win or lose. You present your arguments and so shall I.
I have presented my arguments why your system fails lot ownership.
Your only countering argument is becase of laws passed
FrancisH, post: 397377, member: 10211 wrote: There you go again, you again have 3 options- your deed, adjoiner deed or parole evidence.
That statement implies that you do not understand that you must have 1 basis for boundary.
3 options again brings uncertainty to how to solve discrepancies.
Lol, how can one survey one lot without taking into account the adjacent parcels.
So if three of you corners work mathematically do you even check the adjacent parcels?
All right, why are you so fixated on American surveyors not being able to discern between obvious blunders and attributable mismeasurement?
Posters have offered many examples of situations where questionable monuments have been rejected.
To put it in a more understandable milieu, it is much like weighting measurement values in a least squares adjustment. Some outliers don't match, and therefore don't fit the model.
Like I said earlier, I appreciate the discussion. I just don't appreciate being called unprofessional and a crook.
I will stand behind every survey I have done no questions, and I firmly believe most US surveyors will do the same. I am not sure where you obtained your info on US surveyors, but I gave never met one to hide behind a legal description.
Lol, how can one survey one lot without taking into account the adjacent parcels.
Common lines between adjoining lots should have common values. If they are not same because one follows actual monuments and another follows original survey then yoj have ambiguity. Which is why actual monuments should follow deed or vice versa so you eliminate that ambiguity once and for all.
All right, why are you so fixated on American surveyors not being able to discern between obvious blunders and attributable mismeasurement?
Because it came from previous responses that an existing monument is better than deed description.
How is a blunder detected? Isn't it by comparison between actual distance on ground and description?
So if monuments are sacred on the ground it means there can't be any blunder even if they disagree with deed description.
Someone even said a monument found 200ft away from where calculated it to be was considered correct!
I do understand your principles, but here it really is not that simple.
I do understand your principles, but here it really is not that simple.
Well you as a group had 200 years to slowly fix it but everyone afraid to start fixing it.
FrancisH, post: 397337, member: 10211 wrote: Again please review your legal 101, decisions are based on previous cases, a new case brought before a court with different circumstances could negate all previous rulings.
You as a surveyor should understand that each encroachment or trespassing case is different and as such will have a different decision. Problem is you use a decision handed in the 1800s and carry it to present day. Circumstances are different 200 years ago.
Do not confuse things.
Case Law is not changed when some judge rules in favor of their brother in law over some farmer with bad legal representation.
Court decisions are mere guides and contradict themselves daily with witty and cloudy if not rather confounded statements to state the obvious misuse of power.
In the court system, justice is blind and the expectation of satisfaction is futile.
When your legal team is filled with minds that can quote the correct law at the right time and present their case in the courtroom, you will prevail.
Standing on merit and saying you are right is not proof of anything.
That is how the laws of the land prevail.
To change the laws, one must enter into court with real and tangible evidence of the contrary to exist and that your solution will serve the public's interest and show that any other solution would harm that interest.
To say that a monument is simply in the wrong place because the math does not fit is mere conjecture that your findings show that what is on paper does not fit on the ground.
Math alone does not prove anything itself.
What about the location of the monuments across the entire land.
Are those monuments in place according to the math or are they in place because that is where they were placed with the intent that they serve to mark the limits of the property and to show the division of ownership between the properties.
Again, who is to say that the monument you use for your control is in the correct place and any other monument is anything thing less than being it the correct place.
The answer is not simply "the math".
When you are simply making the math fit the ground and cause monument after monument to be moved to fit that math, you are not serving the public's interest.
Math does not replace the intent a monument represents.
You are doing more harm to the public and are throwing out all reason and cause and replacing harmony with chaos.
Francis,
I don't recall you bringing up the concept of junior/senior rights. It's one thing to deal with simultaneous conveyances, but even they share a boundary carved out from a larger tract of land.
As has been pointed out ad nauseum, land titles in America have been in a continual state of densification over centuries. The tools with which they have been calculated and layed out have also evolved. But, the principles of repose, reliance, and sanctity of title - based upon tangible evidence - endure. They must, and that is what Justice Cooley was stating. Commentators in our age recognize this, and those of us who mentor the aspiring generation instill this sensibility after proper training in the technical aspects of measurements.
Geodosists are not the best candidates for land surveying. Those with a yen for history and forensic investigation are.
FrancisH, post: 397386, member: 10211 wrote: Well you as a group had 200 years to slowly fix it but everyone afraid to start fixing it.
The difference is here the courts make rulings for the people to follow.
We have actual property rights for the individual owner.
Not Government
The difference is here the courts make rulings for the people to follow.
We have actual property rights for the individual owner.
rulings are based on challenges made by individual cases brought about by a survey findings that goes against current ruling.
in order to have a change in jurisprudence, current jurisprudence must first be challenged..
When a dictator controls or a party controls the government for over 30 yrs which is what Singapore has had, it must be difficult for the individual to stand up for his rights when everyone, even the government surveyor is against him.
He thought that pipe was the corner of his property for 30 years, but some young government surveyor said nope its 20' over here according to the deed that was written 60 years ago.
Something wrong with a system of that nature.
To say that a monument is simply in the wrong place because the math does not fit is mere conjecture that your findings show that what is on paper does not fit on the ground.
No, the monument by being not in its place based on today's findings means that some injustice has been done to someone. someone bought a 100 acre lot in the past and the dead surveyor said that those were his bounding monuments. If those monuments contain 120 acres then his neighbor must have lost 20 acres that he did not know about. If those monuments contain 80 acres then the current lot owner lost 20 acres that he supposedly paid for and was not able to fully utilize for his intention.
You have at a certain time in history have to correct this fallacy that your boundary contains exactly what you bought as described in your deed.
Keep in mind that trial court decisions are appealable to the Appellate court in a District. The Appellate review is of points of law, not of evidentiary substance. These opinions are published and citable as persuasive in other Districts within the State. The Supreme Court accepts appeals from an Appellate decision if it touches upon a previously settled point of law which, as you say, is being challenged for purposes of clarification.
The federal judicial system parallels this structure for constitutional issues as between the states.
Studying this body of case law is facilitated by compiled legal treatises, grouped by subject matter. This has been made easier by computerized boolean search engines.
It is incumbent upon a professional land surveyor to follow this guidance. There is no other specialty so trained and educated to provide this expertise as to property boundary matters.