FrancisH,
And from my perspective, your last post demonstrates you lack of critical reading skills. I know that case law is often confusing to expert measurers. Not to mention your quote mining to make an erroneous conclusion (e.g. your statement in red). You might want to read the entire decision now. It is very straight forward and cites case law on mineral surveys and other states. I never defended the original surveyor or his blunder. I stated quite clearly that I have no authority to fix his blunder after the fact. What part of that don't you comprehend?
Not to mention your quote mining to make an erroneous conclusion(e.g. your statement in red).
Quote mining? That's part of the decision. It was stated at start of the decision to call out the fact that deeds control monuments for non original surveys.
Lot owners rely on monuments placed by surveyors as always correct . If a surveyor blundered it is not aggrieved party's fault hence Good Faith doctrine steps in to quiet title ownership.
You still don't get the important role you so called professional surveyors play? If that blundering surveyor did his work properly there would not be a case right? The case came about because of inconsistency between ground and deeds. Which is what I was espousing to reconcile ground and deed.
. I stated quite clearly that I have no authority to fix his blunder after the fact. What part of that don't you comprehend?
Actually if you read what I quoted earlier, the monuments should have been moved to follow deed as was stated in
"Where land is disposed of by reference to an official plat, the boundary lines [as] shown on the plat control.
No one is asking you to fix it, when the buyers bought the lots, all could have been settled if they got a surveyor to fix the erroneous monuments to follow deed. I think it is you who don't comprehend the decision. Where does it say in the decision that the surveyor could not move the erroneous monuments?It was assumed correct by subsequent buyers because the guy who did the survey even submitted a certification on its correctness.
This scenario has nothing to do with the 1870s Cooley's assessment of poor surveying environment and equipment. This is 20th century survey environment which is why the decision reaks of misunderstanding of judges of surveying principles. This came about because those who were supposed to be experts in the surveying profession all wanted to be lawyers instead. And leaving the actual surveying work to technicians who from your quotes you seem to look down on in the surveying ladder.
FrancisH, post: 399995, member: 10211 wrote: Quote mining? That's part of the decision. It was stated at start of the decision to call out the fact that deeds control monuments for non original surveys.
Are you not familiar with the term, "quote mining"? You didn't read far enough. You obviously stopped after reading, ""Where land is disposed of by reference to an official plat, the boundary lines [as] shown on the plat control." If you had continued to read the remainder of that paragraph you would have been exposed to, "the rest of the story" as Paul Harvey was fond of saying. The last sentence of that paragraph at the top of page 6 states, "In case of conflict, monuments control plats or maps, and an actual survey controls over a plat or a map."
In this case there is a conflict between the plat and the monuments! Your quote mined sentence is not controlling. You may ask how do I know that? Well, the court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff-Appellee that's how. The appeals court's holding is that the lot pins are superior to the plat with regard to the position of the interior lot lines. You really can't be this confused can you?
Also, where did you get the erroneous notion that the survey of the lot lines is a "non original survey"?
"In case of conflict, monuments control plats or maps, and an actual survey controls over a plat or a map."
You are really digging rulings from ancient times to cover present cases aren't you. The Cooley doctrine came up with 'monument over plat' because of inadequate surveying technology in the 1800s.
You keep on referring to this ruling even when technology and training have improved to cm level accuracy. The excuse used by Cooley is not relevant in today's environment. When will you get that into your head?
Another thing that keeps on bothering me is that no surveyor in the case even mentioned of checking those 2 erring monuments if they agreed with description from adjoining lot.Wouldn't be a simple check to see if those 2 monuments located on the exterior boundary will also coincide with the adjoining description?If those 2 monuments agree then deed is erroneous. If those 2 monuments do not agree with deed description of adjoining lot then those monuments are erroneous. You can't have all 2 descriptions and monuments all agreeing with each other.
Common sense was not used by the judge or both parties' surveyors.
"In case of conflict, monuments control plats or maps, and an actual survey controls over a plat or a map."
May I ask you now, where do you base your plats? Isn't it from field data? And when do you make your plat? Isn't it after your fieldwork?
So your plat is a reflection of your fieldwork. Those 2 should agree with each other. All computations are checked before you draw the plat right?So the only way that your monuments would be out of sync with plat is when you did not check on your field layout. It was laid out without any counter checks.
Or you left it to a technician who did not properly set to 00-00-00 his BS reading. The fact that those 2 monuments are out of place yet still agree with the line distance means that it was set together from a single traverse that had bad BS, bad coordinates, bad surveyor in charge.
Also, where did you get the erroneous notion that the survey of the lot lines is a "non original survey"?
Really you don't know? It was stated that the case arose from a SUBDIVISION SURVEY. It means the original lot is the exterior lot or is part of an original larger lot. If it was subdivided,so the resulting lots are no longer 'Original' lots.
Not that hard to understand right?
I think we should all start looking at the root. Who is FrancisH?
I suspect he/she is one of the regulars here. The writing style is kinda familiar but I don't quite place it.
Has lots of time, has a good background, and a good general knowledge of US survey history.
Probably a civil servant in a higher level position.
Who is FrancisH?
Too many monuments, not enough time.
Peter Ehlert, post: 400006, member: 60 wrote: I think we should all start looking at the root. Who is FrancisH?
I suspect he/she is one of the regulars here. The writing style is kinda familiar but I don't quite place it.
Has lots of time, has a good background, and a good general knowledge of US survey history.
Probably a civil servant in a higher level position.Who is FrancisH?
What does it matter who he is? I've been following this thread for days, skipped a few pages because it was all getting so redundant. There simply is no way to convince FrancisH that U.S. surveyors are not a ravening pack of incompetent bunglers out to fleece the public. That's his view, and it clearly is not going to change.
"at this point what matter does it make?" funny.
I think Trolls should be outed, that's why.
Playing devil's advocate is kinda fun, but often it is damaging if done by a Troll.
This thread is entertaining in the same way as this:
http://www.cbs46.com/story/33717889/train-and-tractor-trailer-collide-in-norcross
Peter Ehlert, post: 400006, member: 60 wrote: I think we should all start looking at the root. Who is FrancisH?
I suspect he/she is one of the regulars here. The writing style is kinda familiar but I don't quite place it.
Has lots of time, has a good background, and a good general knowledge of US survey history.
Probably a civil servant in a higher level position.Who is FrancisH?
Yeah, his last post had familiar elements to the body.
FrancisH, post: 399937, member: 10211 wrote: What you just said is what I would expect a lawyer or real estate agent to say but not from a 'professional surveyor'.
A professional surveyor would lose sleep trying to figure out WHY there are 3 distances to describe a single line.
P
Lol. Now this has my giggling.
Lol. Now this has my giggling.
A professional surveyor never giggles and never uses the LOL word when it comes to descriptions that don't match monuments.
My teen daughter would use such words and it may be OK but then she's a teenage giggling girl and not a "professional surveyor" (in quotes with a pinch of sarcasm)
Warren Smith, post: 400035, member: 9900 wrote: Yeah, his last post had familiar elements to the body.
I saw that too.
There is software that analyzes written text, and is said to be as accurate as fingerprints, with a large enough sample... we have that.
Suspect list ain't that big.
😉
There is software that analyzes written text, and is said to be as accurate as fingerprints, with a large enough sample... we have that.
You are watching too much CSI Cyber. FBI can't even locate Clinton's missing emails.
Ahhh!
Francis, you are one of us! Your last post gave it away.
Thanks fer stirring the pot!
I have to turn your creaping voice off sometimes. (not you, but the one you represent)
Have a great day.
That was good.
Nate
FrancisH, post: 400093, member: 10211 wrote: A professional surveyor never giggles and never uses the LOL word when it comes to descriptions that don't match monuments.
My teen daughter would use such words and it may be OK but then she's a teenage giggling girl and not a "professional surveyor" (in quotes with a pinch of sarcasm)
Surveyors have to get younger eventually, right? I think I brought the NYS average surveyor age down like 10 years all on my own when I got licensed.
Some prison has granted internet access for good behavior.
I made myself some popcorn and came on to read the latest adventure of FrancisH and the war against American Surveyors. I think he should start his own blog and the incompetence and absurdity of Surveying in the U..S. Did a couple of you guys figure out who this is? Want to enlighten the rest of us?