Let me add some more possibilities:
https://www.amazon.com/Surveying-10th-Francis-H-Moffitt/dp/0673997529
https://www.linkedin.com/in/francis-h-dion-iii-09007464
http://www.prairiehaven.com/?page_id=17114
http://www.godsonassociates.com/land-surveyors-barbados/
http://www.mygenealogyhound.com/arkansas-biographies/ar-pulaski-county-biographies/francis-h-conway-genealogy-pulaski-county-arkansas-little-rock-ar.html
Found another possibility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey_Mouse
This has been a bogus thread
There was a prolific poster who was conspicuously absent during this miasma.
Monte, post: 398230, member: 11913 wrote: Found another possibility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey_Mouse
Sitting in a class getting monuments over bearings and distances beat into my head again,,,,,,,,,,,with court rulings,,,,, Francis is missing out
Our system of land boundaries seems somewhat chaotic but is it holding us back? I don't think so.
A system where everything is figured out and entered into the database can be appealing. A geometrically ordered society certainly is appealing to Engineers. There is a cost associated with that though and there are cultural and legal considerations here which make such a system less than completely practical. Francis seems to think we are a bunch of reprobate slackers because we haven't pursued a fully integrated cadastral database system where everything is figured out. Many of his accusations aren't true, such as using bottle caps, or never getting the total station out, just asking the owners, etc. Here in California we are required to file a Record of Survey map in situations where there are big discrepancies or the Deed description has never been shown on a filed Survey before.
Boundaries are legal, not mathematical, entities. The legal realm is not black and white anywhere, it can't be. It really amounts to a decision making system where the answers aren't easy and there may be differences of opinion. Geometric certainty is not necessarily the highest value, maybe in the view of the Engineer it is but our society seems to prefer a different system.
I had a co-worker ask me about his "5 acres." So I did some research on the parcel, the legal starts at a quarter section corner, runs east 540 feet, then runs south about 350 feet to another old Deed, then runs west 520 feet to the north-south centerline, then north to the point of beginning. The north-south fence is about 520 feet east of the quarter section corner based on some guessing in Google Earth. Of course lay people always seem to think they own 5 acres (or whatever) but we think they own to their described boundaries. The Deed mosaic in the area is an odd assortment of old descriptions in chains and quarter degrees combined with more modern DMS with feet. I did no field surveying, just some light research to satisfy my own curiosity. I gave him a referral to a local private practice LS but I don't think he ever commissioned a survey.
The adjoiner to the east has a Deed which indicates 540 feet is the correct number (I haven't determined which parcel is senior). The issue is the neighbor has parked a mobile home partly into the 20' strip. I told him the best thing is to let sleeping dogs lie partly because his grantor built the fence decades ago and was the original owner of his legal description so it may be a pretty good indication of the intentions of the original parties. It would be great, I guess, if I had four coordinates in my rover and I could just stake his corners and lines in 2 hours but then his property taxes or other fees would go up to pay for it. He isn't really being damaged, he is able to live in peace, he just doesn't know precisely where his boundaries are located.
I told him the best thing is to let sleeping dogs lie partly because his grantor built the fence decades ago and was the original owner of his legal description so it may be a pretty good indication of the intentions of the original parties. It would be great, I guess, if I had four coordinates in my rover and I could just stake his corners and lines in 2 hours but then his property taxes or other fees would go up to pay for it. He isn't really being damaged, he is able to live in peace, he just doesn't know precisely where his boundaries are located.
this sums it up for everything that I have been saying. a client asks a US surveyor to check on his ground monuments. you check & see that it is 520' on the ground against 540 on the deed. you assume immediately that his boundaries are correct because his adjoiner already has his fence up a long time ago.
WHY? because it's the easy way out. minimal work and pass it all the way back to the previous surveyor.
they are always correct because they surveyed it first.
and you call yourselves land surveyors. you are scammers like the example that I made a while back.
FrancisH, post: 398254, member: 10211 wrote: this sums it up for everything that I have been saying. a client asks a US surveyor to check on his ground monuments. you check & see that it is 520' on the ground against 540 on the deed. you assume immediately that his boundaries are correct because his adjoiner already has his fence up a long time ago.
WHY? because it's the easy way out. minimal work and pass it all the way back to the previous surveyor.
they are always correct because they surveyed it first.and you call yourselves land surveyors. you are scammers like the example that I made a while back.
He is a co-worker, I don't do surveys for co-workers. I just did him a favor. If he wants to hire a private surveyor then more power to him. I didn't charge him even one nickel. He is a Heavy Fire Equipment Operator so I may need him to return the favor one day, you know pull my work truck out of the muck. He maintains the forest roads.
I didn't check anything on the ground. The Deed has an internal conflict. I think it is a simple blunder related to the way the point of beginning is described but I can't say for sure, at a minimum I would have to find the quarter section corner, there is no record of it since the 19th century original field notes. He said about 10 years ago a Surveyor cored a couple of his oak trees (possible original bearing trees) but he never heard what came of that effort. There are no new Surveys on file showing that corner.
The point is Surveying here is not as you characterize it. We have items of evidence to look at, the location of a quarter section corner, two record distances which disagree, one physical object (a fence) which seems to agree with one of the two distances, we are looking for the preponderance of the evidence. What does the evidence taken together as one tend to show is the most probable correct answer? It's not just, oh gee there is a fence, why don't you just use that. If the evidence stacks up against the fence then we show it off. Sometimes an encroachment is an encroachment; we don't just accept it because it is there.
Finally managed to read through the entire posting.
I am in Singapore and am studying the Australia cadastral laws too.
In my opinion, America cadastral laws are similar to Australia laws where they have a guideline on the hierarchy of evidence. Where assumption is that the monument is correct and sometimes the description could have an error in it(Based on what I remember, need to dig out the law book again). But generally monuments hold precedence. It is just the practise previously on how the land was laid out and sold. It was sold based on the monuments you see on the ground and not what you see on paper. To try to convert your entire boundaries to coordinates will be a huge job and will take several generations!
In Singapore, we actually have 2 systems for the cadastre, where the old one is based of existing monuments on the ground and the newer system is based of coordinates from the National Coordinates from GNSS. However in both system, the titles are still the same and the Law guarantees the area of the land and the details of it is based of the Certified Plan (plat) recorded in the system. In the old system, one have to find existing monuments that agree with the Certified Plan before being able to call on it being stable and in the right place. However there were several problems with that as too what was said where if you found 3 monuments that agree with each other but were in actually in the wrong place. Who is right. In my employ we had a similar problem and had to trace back the history of the lot to understand the history of the lot to then be able to define the boundary. Another problem has got to do with party wall (walls that define a boundary and shared between neighbours). Normally the boundary lines would line parallel and in the middle of the wall, however in that instance, the original monuments were found to be skewed and line between them did not follow the middle of the party wall. That is when the professional experience comes in to help define then what the boundary should be as legally both terms are right.(It was not my judgement to make as I am not licensed, my boss is!) In the new system, the monuments are now fixed by coordinates and the conversion is done by surveyors tying in the monuments by precise gps(thats a different topic). However there sometimes were problems in the conversion as the monuments tied were not strong enough.
To say whether one system is better than the other, I will not comment. I will only say both started at different times and in different circumstances. In reading history books of Australia and Americas, most lands were quickly subdivided out and sold to people by the governments then. The emphasis was that you were sold based on you walking the land and seeing the monuments and the land was sufficient for you. In Singapore, where it was still in the colonial times, the Surveyor General then established a system on divided the land and there was not a need to rush it as there was little need to subdivide for the purpose of selling the land.
P.S. Singapore still do have some land that have no boundaries that define how big they are and only have areas mentioned in it because it is in the very old system when Singapore was still a British Colony!
P.S.S. I have seen Nate's Copy of a plat. Does anyone have a copy of Francis Plat I would like to study with reference to this thread? Had requested from him but there was no reply.
sireath, post: 398261, member: 9370 wrote: Finally managed to read through the entire posting.
I am in Singapore and am studying the Australia cadastral laws too.
In my opinion, America cadastral laws are similar to Australia laws where they have a guideline on the hierarchy of evidence. Where assumption is that the monument is correct and sometimes the description could have an error in it(Based on what I remember, need to dig out the law book again). But generally monuments hold precedence. It is just the practise previously on how the land was laid out and sold. It was sold based on the monuments you see on the ground and not what you see on paper. To try to convert your entire boundaries to coordinates will be a huge job and will take several generations!
In Singapore, we actually have 2 systems for the cadastre, where the old one is based of existing monuments on the ground and the newer system is based of coordinates from the National Coordinates from GNSS. However in both system, the titles are still the same and the Law guarantees the area of the land and the details of it is based of the Certified Plan (plat) recorded in the system. In the old system, one have to find existing monuments that agree with the Certified Plan before being able to call on it being stable and in the right place. However there were several problems with that as too what was said where if you found 3 monuments that agree with each other but were in actually in the wrong place. Who is right. In my employ we had a similar problem and had to trace back the history of the lot to understand the history of the lot to then be able to define the boundary. Another problem has got to do with party wall (walls that define a boundary and shared between neighbours). Normally the boundary lines would line parallel and in the middle of the wall, however in that instance, the original monuments were found to be skewed and line between them did not follow the middle of the party wall. That is when the professional experience comes in to help define then what the boundary should be as legally both terms are right.(It was not my judgement to make as I am not licensed, my boss is!) In the new system, the monuments are now fixed by coordinates and the conversion is done by surveyors tying in the monuments by precise gps(thats a different topic). However there sometimes were problems in the conversion as the monuments tied were not strong enough.
To say whether one system is better than the other, I will not comment. I will only say both started at different times and in different circumstances. In reading history books of Australia and Americas, most lands were quickly subdivided out and sold to people by the governments then. The emphasis was that you were sold based on you walking the land and seeing the monuments and the land was sufficient for you. In Singapore, where it was still in the colonial times, the Surveyor General then established a system on divided the land and there was not a need to rush it as there was little need to subdivide for the purpose of selling the land.
P.S. Singapore still do have some land that have no boundaries that define how big they are and only have areas mentioned in it because it is in the very old system when Singapore was still a British Colony!
P.S.S. I have seen Nate's Copy of a plat. Does anyone have a copy of Francis Plat I would like to study with reference to this thread? Had requested from him but there was no reply.
Is Singapore moving like California? Coordinates are based in the geodetic control network of monuments (mostly Continuously Operating Reference Stations aka CORS). Eventually you have to start from some monument somewhere.
I read some of Blackstone's Commentaries on English Law. 99.99% of the discussion is on their very complex land title system with one or two mentions of the "subject matter." Their title system seems to be almost completely divorced from location; location is just the barest minimum of a mention of the subject matter; Smith's Estate. Where are the boundaries of Smith's Estate? Go ask around the community to find out. In the U.S. there is a little bit stronger connection between title and location but it is pretty loose. The main function of a deed description is to identify the property; location is determined from a much broader gathering of evidence.
Dave Karoly, post: 398264, member: 94 wrote: Is Singapore moving like California? Coordinates are based in the geodetic control network of monuments (mostly Continuously Operating Reference Stations aka CORS). Eventually you have to start from some monument somewhere.
I read some of Blackstone's Commentaries on English Law. 99.99% of the discussion is on their very complex land title system with one or two mentions of the "subject matter." Their title system seems to be completely divorced from location. In the U.S. there is a little bit stronger connection between title and location but it is pretty loose. The main function of a deed description is to identify the property; location is determined from a much broader gathering of evidence.
Not so sure of California. Coordinates are based of your traverse networks which are linked by Survey Markers that had been surveyed by Static Post Processed Sessions and not RTK. RTK have not reached the level of confidence and accuracy due to the Tall buildings in Singapore.
Are you referring to Singapore land title system? It was actually adopted from Australia Queensland title system when Singapore became independent. I have trouble trying to grasp the difference between what defines a property and the location.
I'm all for updating the cadastre of the United States so that all is tied together neatly as it is in Singapore. It would require a field survey of every property in the nation, providing work for surveyors for generations. It would cost hundreds of millions (billions?) of dollars. Let's see if we can get the taxpayers to pay for all of this. Surveyor's would never have to worry about a recession again! Of course, as Dave K. previously mentioned, all of these surveyed lines would be subject to challenge in court unless lines of agreement were in place.
I heard the new addition of Brown's will have this thread in it.
sireath
I have always pictured a deed as the tool that allows me to identify the specific puzzle piece (property) I'm going to survey. The "location" part is the collection and evaluation of evidence that allows me to define the edges or shape of that puzzle piece so that it hopefully fits harmoniously with all of the puzzle pieces around it.
Sireath,
Thank you for injecting some practical information on the forms of Singapore land surveying, particularly the background from which it stems.
There seems to be a disconnect between the training many surveyors receive on the technical aspects of measuring and the reporting of those results. Canadian surveyors appear to be well educated and have rigorous examination about boundary issues prior to licensure. Dave Karoly eloquently speaks to the gathering of all relevant evidence in order to produce the ultimate rendering of a considered opinion on the location of boundaries.
The term itself is revealing. One's boundaries are those of several others. They cannot exist independently of each other. Our means of cataloguing common corners, lines, and curves is salutary in this age of definition by systemic coordinates: x, y, and z. But the anchoring of these positions by tangible monuments is what makes it possible for human behavior to be manageable. Adoption of organic law (constitutions) to define rights and obligations leads to a workable society in this regard.
Good fences make good neighbors. This holds true when oceans separate some of us. With mere keystrokes, we can communicate our thoughts virtually instantaneously. Our forebears did not have this advantage.
Of interest is that the California legislature saw fit in 1873 to enact a statute (Code of Civil Procedure section 2077.2) which states that:
"When permanent and visible or ascertained boundaries or monuments are inconsistent with the measurement, either of lines, angles, or surfaces, the boundaries or monuments are paramount."
The context within which this subsection exists is in a section on interpretation of written instruments of conveyance of real property.
In 2013, the legislature enacted another statute (Civil Code section 841 (a)) which reads:
"Adjoining landowners shall share equally in the responsibility for maintaining the boundaries and monuments between them."
Your mileage may vary.
[USER=9367]@Lurker[/USER] Oh because Singapore do not practice the deed system anymore. Everything have been brought into the titles system. I am now confused between the difference between plats, deeds and locations. By your definition, deeds just show what lot falls under but the locations shows the monuments and where it is supposed to be? Then what is in the Survey Plat?
[USER=9900]@Warren Smith[/USER] Yes, Most surveyors here are trained technically and have access to proper equipment. But to comprehend and be sufficiently prepared to be an expert witness in the courts, some surveyors are lacking in the aspect here.
An interesting problem in Singapore is that to be registered, you have to have obtained sufficient qualifications(i.e. a degree in surveying) However locally there is no more degree courses due to lack of sufficient number for the universities requirement. Thus one has to go overseas to a recognized university to study surveying.
sireath, post: 398345, member: 9370 wrote: [USER=9367]@Lurker[/USER] Oh because Singapore do not practice the deed system anymore. Everything have been brought into the titles system. I am now confused between the difference between plats, deeds and locations. By your definition, deeds just show what lot falls under but the locations shows the monuments and where it is supposed to be? Then what is in the Survey Plat?
[USER=9900]@Warren Smith[/USER] Yes, Most surveyors here are trained technically and have access to proper equipment. But to comprehend and be sufficiently prepared to be an expert witness in the courts, some surveyors are lacking in the aspect here.
An interesting problem in Singapore is that to be registered, you have to have obtained sufficient qualifications(i.e. a degree in surveying) However locally there is no more degree courses due to lack of sufficient number for the universities requirement. Thus one has to go overseas to a recognized university to study surveying.
A Deed is an instrument which transfers title from Grantor to Grantee, that is its primary function. There must be a description of the subject matter sufficient to uniquely identify the Tract being transferred. Often this description contains precise information about the boundaries but it is not required. It is also very common to have a reference to other information such as a subdivision plat or Section, Township, Range in which case the subdivision map is obtained or in the case of Sections the official field notes and plat of the township.
First the Deed description is used to attempt to locate the boundaries of the Tract. In the case of conflicts we have been given rules of construction to aid in resolving the conflicts always bearing in mind the rules are only used for the purpose of aiding in ascertaining the intentions of the parties because it is a canon of Deed construction that the intentions of the parties is the primary consideration.
Once the Deed has been properly interpreted we may find that there are monuments or lines of possession not called for in the Deed description which appear to be a Boundary. In these types of cases we move on to the establishment doctrines which are tools our courts have developed to test whether an established boundary is valid, enforceable in Court, and whether both owners mutually accepted it.
In order for the owners to establish a boundary, first they must be uncertain of its location, that is they lack knowledge of its location. Whether they have to merely lack such knowledge or are required to get a Survey varies from State to State. A known boundary can't be moved by an establishment doctrine because this would violate the Statute of Frauds. Our Courts have refused to recognize an established boundary in a different location where the original monuments exist and are known.
Second there must be mutual agreement, either expressed or implied, between the coterminous property owners to the established physical boundary which must be marked by monuments or other improvements. Some States have two doctrines, one usually called agreed boundaries which requires an agreement and the other usually called acquiescence which primarily relies on the passage of time but I believe the agreement is still present, just lost to time or forgotten. Discussion of what constitutes sufficient evidence of agreement varies widely across time and states.
Third there must be passage of time equal to the Statute of limitations or if less then circumstances which would cause substantial loss such as a building built in reliance in good faith on a recently established line. In some States no passage of time is required in the case of a valid boundary line agreement.
The Deed rules of construction and the establishment doctrines work together to aid in determining the location of boundaries. They do not operate separately from each other. If the Deeds (or references) directly call for monuments then those will control and it is very difficult to overcome them.
If a Deed proceeds from a called for monument a direction and distance to a point then the only way to ascertain the location of that point is to measure the direction and distance on the ground and stake it. If the stake is not called for in the Deed then it does not control under the monument rule of construction. If there is no other evidence to support the stake then the court likely disregard it especially if it is substantially out of compliance with the Deed. However, our courts look to find out what the agreement was between the parties. If the parties mutually established the stake or if one set it and the other accepted it by their conduct then the Court may consider it established.
The Deed contains the written agreement between the parties but the parties also may make agreements in parol after the Deed delivery to establish their boundary location. This is fundamental in U.S. real property law. They may not transfer property without a writing but if they are only attempting to establish their common boundary then the boundary as established is considered to be the same boundary as called for in the Deed. This serves a practical function of allowing boundaries to be finally fixed in an imperfect world.
As always Dave, its been a learning experience reviewing your take on property rights, been following a few posters, sigh, including kent ;), for some years and have benefited hugely from you guys.