Kent McMillan, post: 445046, member: 3 wrote: When damages are incurred, what insulates the surveyor from claims of professional negligence?
The fact that "negligence" is based on a local standard of care and that in almost thirty years practicing in a very similar area I've never heard of anyone finding a called for stone from the mid 1800's in the road.
We have something here in the Mid-Atlantic states that differentiates us from a lot of the states on the other side of the Mississippi...people. Stones set in roads didn't last (heck stones set in farm fence lines often didn't last): however since most of the properties were occupied by people (rather than scorpions, jackrabbits, and the occasional buzzard) the lines marked by the old stones have been perpetuated by occupation.
James Fleming, post: 445114, member: 136 wrote: The fact that "negligence" is based on a local standard of care and that in almost thirty years practicing in a very similar area I've never heard of anyone finding a called for stone from the mid 1800's in the road.
We have something here in the Mid-Atlantic states that differentiates us from a lot of the states on the other side of the Mississippi...people. Stones set in roads didn't last (heck stones set in farm fence lines often didn't last)
Unless you have dissolving stones in the part of the Eastern US in question (which I assume is not the case judging by the stone buildings constructed in the area), my money would be on more stones than you credit remaining in place in roads originally opened and worked in the 19th century. The obvious problem during the last thirty years is that the Schonstedt company has not brought a stone detector to market and so the level of effort required to find a buried stone has probably meant that surveyors have quite trying.
Paul in PA, post: 445100, member: 236 wrote: Explain how you professionaly tell the client he owes x thousands of dollars for excavation to look for a particular stone that has no identifying marks and could not be separated from a world of stones to possibly prove exactly where the original property corner might have been prior to 250 years of acquiessence and possible road relocation which point would prove to some exactitude the limits of land that the client had no beneficial use of per public rights from an original deed with a 33' misclosure.
I think that you're basically asking me to tell you why you should do a diligent job of surveying the boundaries of a tract of land that was originally created in the 19th century. If you can't recognize a set stone, yes, you should just explain to your client that you don't have enough experience to be able to find three of their four corners but measured 16 sets of angles to the PK Nails that you drove into the pavement where you had a "good feeling" the corner ought to be.
At the end of the day the subdivision line is probably going to hold, I would think Help wouldn't like to hear that however, and I can understand her frustration.
But exactly what would cause it to change?
Finding the original stone at the NW corner will quite possibly move the line easterly, finding it across the subdivision line will probably create a court battle if she goes after that land.
Not to be a downer, but fixing the line where it historically has been would be my preference if I owned that parcel.
What would an excavation and court battle actually cost? 20-30k? minimum?
And what would be the decision? I would think the court in PA would rule for the historical position. The boundary that has been established for decades.
And if you find a stone to the east of the subdivision line? She would give up land?
Hey if the landowner wants to get into such a battle, go for it, but be very up-front about all the options, all the ramifications, and all the possibilities for loss.
MightyMoe, post: 445124, member: 700 wrote: And if you find a stone to the east of the subdivision line? She would give up land?
Actually, the owner of the former school lot wouldn't lose any land at all, except for GIS land that wasn't conveyed to her. Her title is to a specific two tracts of land that would appear to be locatable by various means. The key corner is the SW corner of the school lot. That doesn't fall in a road and was described as marked by a stone in the original ca. 1881 conveyance (as well as evidently in all subsequent conveyances).
The corresponding corner of the adjacent subdivision has been described as marked by a concrete monument. I suppose that it's possible that the surveyor mistook a worked stone monument for a concrete monument, but my money would be on the original stone remaining in place about 7.5 ft. to the SE of where the corner is shown on the subdivison plat. It also seems a bit unlikely that a school lot was not fenced along the sides adjoining a farm. So my money would also be on some remnants of that fence being still in place, waiting to be uncovered.
Kent McMillan, post: 445126, member: 3 wrote: Actually, the owner of the former school lot wouldn't lose any land at all, except for GIS land that wasn't conveyed to her. Her title is to a specific two tracts of land that would appear to be locatable by various means. The key corner is the SW corner of the school lot. That doesn't fall in a road and was described as marked by a stone in the original ca. 1881 conveyance (as well as evidently in all subsequent conveyances).
The corresponding corner of the adjacent subdivision has been described as marked by a concrete monument. I suppose that it's possible that the surveyor mistook a worked stone monument for a concrete monument, but my money would be on the original stone remaining in place about 7.5 ft. to the SE of where the corner is shown on the subdivison plat. It also seems a bit unlikely that a school lot was not fenced along the sides adjoining a farm. So my money would also be on some remnants of that fence being still in place, waiting to be uncovered.
I'm sure she would agree with you that land she has in her possession and now is told to give up will not be "losing land". Land that has been occupied for at least 37 years and no doubt much much longer. All you need to do is convince her that is a cogent argument,,,,,,,,,good luck with that:)
MightyMoe, post: 445128, member: 700 wrote: I'm sure she would agree with you that land she has in her possession and now is told to give up will not be "losing land". Land that has been occupied for at least 37 years and no doubt much much longer. All you need to do is convince her that is a cogent argument,,,,,,,,,good luck with that
Actually, the OP did not set out any facts that would suggest that the poster has been in any possession of the land in dispute except under a construction of her deed. There is no mention of a fence, only a pile of brush along where the adjoiner believes the common line to be. So from the facts as presented, the state of "occupation" remains undetermined and it is an eager leap ahead to say that the OP has any claim of title to land other than that described in the deed to the present owners of the school parcel.
If I were looking for a remedy, I would wonder who might have misrepresented the location of the boundary that led the poster to believe the tract really was GIS-sized instead of deed-sized.
This morning I took some time for some layout and analysis. The deed interior angle between the second and third course of parcel "b" is 109?ø30'. The same angle in the 1982 subdivision is 109?ø37'09". Since direction/angles are a priority in PA over distance the subdivision map has more than made parcel "b" whole. The South deed line of parcel "b" is 105.6' and the subdivision yields 16.5 to centerline. If that stone existed (ha, ha, ha) it is somewhere between the centerline and sideline if deed distance are correct. The West deed line of parcel "b" is 274.56' and the subdivision holds 260.39' to the sideline. Again parcel "b" is more than whole.
Any judge I know would commend the surveyor of the subdivision and not speak well of any surveyor that brought a claim against those lines.
Any arguments regarding any other line is mere howling at the wind.
As a note, the description of parcel "b" which contains the messuage says along the school lot, which means parcel "a". Thus the original schoolhouse is long gone. In my area one room schoolhouses ceased to be used 60-70 years ago. Having traveled in the area in question for more than 50 years I would say consolidated schools became the norm about 50 years ago. However 1 room Amish schools in the area are still in regular use.
As a side note, zoning requirements in the counties around this parcel call for parking spaces for horses and buggies with required hitching posts.
Paul in PA
Kent McMillan, post: 444978, member: 3 wrote: Actually, what that sketch shows is that if a surveyor really wanted to find the stone that marks the South corner of the turquoise-shaded triangle, he'd probe an area about 7.5 ft. SE of where the corner is indicated on the subdivision plat. That looks to me to be the easiest of the four stones to find and, having found it, the rest which fall in roadways should also be locatable.
Kent, In that area "stones in a roadway" are almost impossible to recover, chances are they were never really there. I have worked in that part of PA and have never found a "stone in the roadway.
Paul in PA, post: 445150, member: 236 wrote: This morning I took some time for some layout and analysis. The deed interior angle between the second and third course of parcel "b" is 109?ø30'. The same angle in the 1982 subdivision is 109?ø37'09". Since direction/angles are a priority in PA over distance the subdivision map has more than made parcel "b" whole.
Except there is a *slight* problem that the mathematical construction you favor is apparently based upon zero evidence insofar as the subdivison plat reflects the same.
The South deed line of parcel "b" is 105.6' and the subdivision yields 16.5 to centerline. If that stone existed (ha, ha, ha) it is somewhere between the centerline and sideline if deed distance are correct. The West deed line of parcel "b" is 274.56' and the subdivision holds 260.39' to the sideline. Again parcel "b" is more than whole.
Any judge I know would commend the surveyor of the subdivision and not speak well of any surveyor that brought a claim against those lines.
Any arguments regarding any other line is mere howling at the wind.
Well, you must have some inferior judges in Pennsylvania if the lines of senior titles are routinely adjudicated without any evidence at all, but merely as a COGO exercise. The deeds under which the OP would claim call for marked corners of other tracts, in particular the SW corner of the William Nobles lot indicated on the 1883 map, and a stone planted at the SW corner of Triangle "B" but the subdivision plat shows nothing of either. In short the bearings of the lines that you would like to control appear to have materialized from thin air.
As a note, the description of parcel "b" which contains the messuage says along the school lot, which means parcel "a". Thus the original schoolhouse is long gone. In my area one room schoolhouses ceased to be used 60-70 years ago. Having traveled in the area in question for more than 50 years I would say consolidated schools became the norm about 50 years ago. However 1 room Amish schools in the area are still in regular use.
Based upon the evidence presented in this thread, it appears that there were two schoolhouses, one in place on Triangle "A" in 1873 and one constructed on Triangle "B" in 1882 that appears in the 1883 mapping. The structure that remains in place on the Schoolhouse lot consisting of Triangles "A" and "B" is in the same location as a structure appears in aerial photos from 1937. I'd think it's most likely that it's the 1882 schoolhouse that has been remodeled as a residence.
James Fleming, post: 444713, member: 136 wrote: Just an average day in the life of a colonial lands surveyor 😉
I think the PLSS Surveyors are still in shock that a tract of land does not have to be square.
SReeserinPA, post: 445159, member: 6126 wrote: In that area "stones in a roadway" are almost impossible to recover, chances are they were never really there. I have worked in that part of PA and have never found a "stone in the roadway.
Just out of curiosity, what method was used for searching for the set stones? 19th century road building in Texas typically consisted of using road plows pulled by mules or horses to raise a road bed with material borrowed from side ditches. In other words, the road building process was one of filling over the existing surface rather than cutting it down.
Nate The Surveyor, post: 445108, member: 291 wrote: It'd be great to hear from any surveyors, familiar with this property.
Or, the provider of the most recent survey.
Someone licensed in the subject State.
Someone familiar with these lands.
Someone who practices the area.
N
I am not familiar with this particular property, but I am licensed in PA, I am familiar in this particular area, I am familiar with the work of the individual that prepared the plan posted by Kent several postings ago, and I do practice in this area. Quite honestly the scenario outlined in the original post is all too typical. By this I refer to the apparent quick and dirty approach to the recent survey work, the confusion caused by the County GIS and the local property owner situation. I truly feel for this property owner as they have fallen into a mess that a fair amount of time and money will be required to make better, but never truly fix.
BTW: Kent, I am impressed with the amount of research your were able to assemble in such a short period of time, and you posted here. This is a great sharing experience for the users of this board and one of the reasons I visit here often.
"Except there is a *slight* problem that the mathematical construction you favor is apparently based upon zero evidence insofar as the subdivision plat reflects the same."
Sorry Kent, but I see considerable evidence. This subdivision plat does show tree rows and stone rows, however just not where it is convenient for you. The subdivision plat also shows four roads which can be considered as the best evidence of where three of the roads were in the 18th century. The West line of parcel "b" is in alignment with Hill Camp Rod to the North. The East line of parcel "a", School Road, is parallel with the building lines of structures on the lot to the East.
A set stone in a road would have been an impediment to travel. Roads were not built up from excavated side ditches, but rather 200 + years of traffic turned them to dust which drifted away, leaving the majority of roads lower than the surface of adjacent fields.
There was never any requirement to mark corner stones with required letters and/or numbers, nor to document multiple corner ties. In most of the West you are looking for monuments at 1 mile intervals whereas in the East corners were mere fractions of such distances and the majority set with less care. That we find so few set stones preserved, which are well regarded, is an indication of those few that were set with care.
Paul in PA
SReeserinPA, post: 445167, member: 6126 wrote: I am not familiar with this particular property, but I am licensed in PA, I am familiar in this particular area, I am familiar with the work of the individual that prepared the plan posted by Kent several postings ago, and I do practice in this area. Quite honestly the scenario outlined in the original post is all too typical. By this I refer to the apparent quick and dirty approach to the recent survey work, the confusion caused by the County GIS and the local property owner situation. I truly feel for this property owner as they have fallen into a mess that a fair amount of time and money will be required to make better, but never truly fix.
What I get out of this situation is that it confirms the value of land surveyors working in relatively limited geographic areas so that time invested in uncovering old evidence and making sense out of things can be used to advantage in later work. Trying to survey hit and miss across a large area with similar difficulties would be a recipe for something other than success.
Working in relatively limited geographic areas should also tend to ease the burden of the extensive research tasks that would be associated with performing surveys of such old properties since various projects would share some research resources.
I'm going to have to remain unconvinced as to the universal non-existence of set stones in Pennsylvania roads.
Paul in PA, post: 445176, member: 236 wrote: "Except there is a *slight* problem that the mathematical construction you favor is apparently based upon zero evidence insofar as the subdivision plat reflects the same."
Sorry Kent, but I see considerable evidence. This subdivision plat does show tree rows and stone rows, however just not where it is convenient for you. The subdivision plat also shows four roads which can be considered as the best evidence of where three of the roads were in the 18th century. The West line of parcel "b" is in alignment with Hill Camp Rod to the North. The East line of parcel "a", School Road, is parallel with the building lines of structures on the lot to the East.
Except what you claim is in fact not true. As a reminder, here is the detail of the plat of the adjacent property. I trust you'll admit that It shows absolutely no evidence of tree and stone rows along the lines in question.
It is certainly true that the North corner of Triangle "B" that is called to be the corner of the William Nobles lot on the other side of the road would be expected to fall on the centerline of Hill Camp Road running North. However, you will probably have neglected to notice that Hill Camp Road is grossly incorrectly drawn on the plat as this overlay shows:
Kent McMillan, post: 445178, member: 3 wrote: I'm going to have to remain unconvinced as to the universal non-existence of set stones in Pennsylvania roads.
Although newly licensed in Pennsylvania, I suspect I speak for a fair number of my fellow professionals by saying that your belief that there are a fair number of 17th - 19th boundary stones lying dormant under modern roadways awaiting the arrival of a diligent surveyor so that they may, once again see the light of day, isn't going to make us lose any sleep.
James Fleming, post: 445182, member: 136 wrote: Although newly licensed in Pennsylvania, I suspect I speak for a fair number of my fellow professionals by saying that your belief that there are a fair number of 17th - 19th boundary stones lying dormant under modern roadways awaiting the arrival of a diligent surveyor so that they may, once again see the light of day, isn't going to make us lose any sleep.
I eagerly await any account of actually searching for planted stones under old roads. So far, the convenient assumption that they don't exist seems mostly to be based in hope that the Schonstedt stone detector never arrives on the market.
Kent McMillan, post: 445185, member: 3 wrote: I eagerly await any account of actually searching for planted stones under old roads. So far, the convenient assumption that they don't exist seems mostly to be based in hope that the Schonstedt stone detector never arrives on the market.
Why don't you go find one, talk is cheap from 1600 miles away. It'll only take you 25 hours to get there via I-40. Prove all the local surveyors over there wrong. I notice you never went to Utah at Leon's invitation to prove him wrong but maybe you'll do it this time. You seem to have plenty of time on your hands.
Dave Karoly, post: 445202, member: 94 wrote: Why don't you go find one, talk is cheap from 1600 miles away. It'll only take you 25 hours to get there via I-40. Prove all the local surveyors over there wrong. I notice you never went to Utah at Leon's invitation to prove him wrong but maybe you'll do it this time. You seem to have plenty of time on your hands.
Leon just wanted someone to do his work for him. It would be fun to go to Pennsylvania to some little spot like Warwick township and find old boundary markers that nobody has seen in decades or more. Unfortunately, there is too much to do in Texas.
