> :good:
>
> Here is one from Ohio...
>
> "In making a resurvey it is the surveyor's duty to relocate the original lines and corners at the places actually established and not to run independent new lines, even though the original lines were full of errors."
> Sellman v. Schaaf, 26 Ohio.App.2d 35, 41-43, 269 N.E.2d 60, 65-66 (1971)
This is not about running independent lines, as Duane Pointed out:
Prima Facie Evidence: Evidence good and sufficient on its face; such evidence as, in the judgement of the law, is sufficient on it's face; such evidence as, in the judgement of the law, is sufficient to establish a given fact, or the group or chain of facts constituting the party's claim or defense, and which if not rebutted or contradicted , will remain sufficient...(Black's Law).
I believe that's what Duane is referring to above, with regard to the burden of proof being on the retracement Surveyor.
Moreover,
A document may be prima facie evidence as to the names and identities of the parties involved, but may not necessarily be prima facie evidence of it's subject matter, that is, the land it purports to describe.
I think the latter is at hand here. Is the document accurately describing what's on the ground??
Ralph
> ... Is the document accurately describing what's on the ground??
We may never know.
> ... we are finding the undisturbed lot corner ..... ?
an undisturbed lot corner is the lot corner.
> Ralph, you are right on. Never say "never."
>
> I retraced a Subdivision from the 80s; there was 3 tenths floating around and, frankly, they should have done a lot better than that because I retraced a subdivision from the 1950s and that guy had 2 hundredths floating around. But the typical big-box firm 1950s subdivisions will usually be more like 4 to 8 hundredths at the most. Sometimes there will be a systematic shift between the centerline control and the Lot corners. Then the 1970s rolls around and everything seems to fall apart. What changed?
>
> The presumption is the original undisturbed monument will hold but that is not absolute.
>
> Notify the Surveyor that is responsible for the mess and let him deal with because it his problem. The client in this case may have a cause of action. Don't just guess one way or the other and walk away.
Thanks Dave:-)
:good:
What is your level of confidence that the pin is undisturbed?
> What is your level of confidence that the pin is undisturbed?
It was stated in the original post that they found the "we are finding the original undisturbed original lot corners".
If someone is intentionally disturbing the pins, they are gonna move them more than 0.2' Only surveyors worry about such insignificant distances,
> > What is your level of confidence that the pin is undisturbed?
>
> It was stated in the original post that they found the "we are finding the original undisturbed original lot corners".
>
>
> If someone is intentionally disturbing the pins, they are gonna move them more than 0.2' Only surveyors worry about such insignificant distances,
So I guess, you can conclude that the Original Surveyor couldn't get it within 2 feet in 2006.
Ralph
> > > W
>
> So I guess, you can conclude that the Original Surveyor couldn't get it within 2 feet in 2006.
>
> Ralph
Yeah, the 2 feet sounds like a blunder or a moved pin.... But I was stating what the original post said: Undisturbed
I can not offer any other opinion as I did not visit the site.
I Agree Ralph, A Gross Error.
In my opinion a gross error cannot be accepted as correct. What is intended in the court rulings is that routine error is to be accepted as correct.
That is my whole intent. I am asking that the court undertake the corrections as a whole, not surveyors piecemealing it to death and disfigurement.
Paul in PA
I Agree Ralph, A Gross Error.
10-4 LPL, we're in agreement.
Ralph
I Agree Ralph, A Gross Error.
A Judge can't just parachute into a subdivision like this and fix everything if the Lots have already been conveyed. Every property owner has a right to due process of law so the Court can't rule on boundaries not a party to any action. Most of the cases I have seen or been involved in only dealt with one boundary line which is tough enough given all of the lawyers, discovery and other procedure that goes on.
If the Lots have not been conveyed then no Judge is necessary. All that needs to happen is the owner of the Subdivision needs to cause the monuments to be corrected.
Conveyed As To What ?
One cannot just correct one lot at a time, the whole lot has to be corrected in an equitable way. I believe any harmed individual landowner can ask a judge to correct the whole mess. The judge is not parachuting in, he is being asked to make an equitable distribution not a piecemeal redistribution.
When it comes to equity judges today go way beyond the law.
Paul in PA
Conveyed As To What ?
If the Lots have been conveyed out by the Subdivider a Judge can't just fix it all unilaterally.
Say Lot 1 has been conveyed to Jones, Lot 2 to Smith and Lot 3 to Wilson. Jones and Smith have a dispute and can't resolve it themselves. A lawsuit happens and the Judge rules. The Judges ruling cannot apply to Wilson's Lot 3 because Wilson was not a party to the action.
Say Jones, Smith and Wilson are reasonable people and decide that the Plat should control their respective boundaries. Then they can effect that or any two of them can agree.
I would prefer one grand solution but that only works if either the subdivider still owns all of the Lots or all of the Lot owners are willing to agree on a solution.
I have seen this in Sections too where a lawsuit happened in the north half of the Section. The matter was resolved and that resolution does not apply to the south half because the owners down there are not parties to the action in the north half.
Conveyed As To What ?
I just had a vision of a fleet of DC3s flying over the problem subdivision and discharging their load of para-Judges floating down in the black robes under black parachutes.
Conveyed As To What ?
> I just had a vision of a fleet of DC3s flying over the problem subdivision and discharging their load of para-Judges floating down in the black robes under black parachutes.
No they have to be C-130s
Conveyed As To What ?
> When it comes to equity judges today go way beyond the law.
>
I'm calling BS on that one. No man is above the law. That includes judges.
Every judge I've testified in front of makes a conscientious effort to conform their decision to the law.
JBS
I Agree Ralph, A Gross Error.
> In my opinion a gross error cannot be accepted as correct. What is intended in the court rulings is that routine error is to be accepted as correct.
>
This seems to be a commonly held opinion among surveyors. I'd sure like to know what rule of law we're relying upon to derive such an opinion. I haven't found it. Instead, I find judicial opinions that don't care how far off is "too far" or how close is "close enough." Only surveyors seem to go out on the limb to make that determination.
JBS
I Agree Ralph, A Gross Error.
Hi JB,
Thanks for chiming in, So what do you do? Leave alone and call it good?
Ralph
I Agree Ralph, A Gross Error.
There also seems to be a presumption that if the original subdivider still owns the lots in a newer subdivision that no property transfer has taken place.
When I file a subdivision the city/county acquires an estate in the roads, utilities acquire a dominant estate in the utility easements, there is often park or rec. set asides, open spaces that the city/county or some board has an interest in. It’s not so simple to change ORIGINAL monuments. From my experience in courts they don't care about the perfect math. They will not want to see your closures, your least square solutions, your perfect positions. If you go around to filed subdivisions and move undisturbed ORIGINAL monuments: good luck to you!
