I Agree Ralph, A Gross Error.
> Hi JB,
> Thanks for chiming in, So what do you do? Leave alone and call it good?
>
No, Ralph, I wouldn't. I'd be looking for the real evidence that will disclose whether or not the boundary has been established. That may involve reliance upon the pipe, it may not. Numbers, math and measurements are never the evidence used to judge the boundary location. They provide an excellent tool for analysis of the evidence recovered, but can't be used to overcome better evidence.
All the numbers have done in this example is revealed a conflict in the evidence. The idea of "gross error" is a surveyor's concept invented to justify passing judgment on another surveyor's work. That has nothing to do with boundary determination. That's where we should, instead, respond by gathering the evidence necessary to resolve the conflict.
JBS
I Agree Ralph, A Gross Error.
> > Hi JB,
> > Thanks for chiming in, So what do you do? Leave alone and call it good?
> >
> No, Ralph, I wouldn't. I'd be looking for the real evidence that will disclose whether or not the boundary has been established. That may involve reliance upon the pipe, it may not. Numbers, math and measurements are never the evidence used to judge the boundary location. They provide an excellent tool for analysis of the evidence recovered, but can't be used to overcome better evidence.
>
> All the numbers have done in this example is revealed a conflict in the evidence. The idea of "gross error" is a surveyor's concept invented to justify passing judgment on another surveyor's work. That has nothing to do with boundary determination. That's where we should, instead, respond by gathering the evidence necessary to resolve the conflict.
>
> JBS
Okay, I'll always heed to your sage commentary:-)
Always good to bring you out and hear ya.
Cheers,
Ralph
I Agree Ralph, A Gross Error.
> Always good to bring you out and hear ya.
>
> Cheers,
Cheers back to you, Ralph. I wish I could be more involved, but lately have been overwhelmed with work, court cases, travel, presentations, and family matters. Just simply don't have the time for my real passion... surveying! Ya Gotta Love this Stuff!
;o)
JBS
I Agree Ralph, A Gross Error.
It just makes me tighen my jaw when I go through time and care to try to set corners as precisely as possible to the math and later follow someone who obviously didn't take it seriously and didn't use modern equipment to make precise measurement, but instead used it to slop it in even faster. I don't know how a conscientious surveyor can not be irritated by it.
I always set the corners and make an independent check. Having said that, I agree that we need to accept original monuments in their original position. I wonder if a monument, set in this century, being two feet out can be evidence enough to claim it is not being in its original position.
And what about "gross" error? I have trouble believing that can't ever play a factor. After all, if a 5,000 square foot parcel is being portrayed, doesn't the recipient (grantee0 have some kind of complaint if you (or the grantor) charge them for 5,000 sf and only give them 4,000? Does the original subdividing surveyor have any culpability in perpetuating some kind of fraud?
I Agree Ralph, A Gross Error.
Does the original subdividing surveyor have any culpability in perpetuating some kind of fraud?
Yes! In fact I've seen situations where a poorly surveyed subdivision had to be resubdivided to correct gross errors and that is probably the only option to "fix" gross errors. The problem with that is you need to start the process all over. The surveyor that made the mistakes will need to pay to correct the error and it can get very expensive. It can also take quite a bit of time.
I Agree Ralph, A Gross Error.
> It just makes me tighen my jaw when I go through time and care to try to set corners as precisely as possible to the math and later follow someone who obviously didn't take it seriously and didn't use modern equipment to make precise measurement, but instead used it to slop it in even faster. I don't know how a conscientious surveyor can not be irritated by it.
>
> I always set the corners and make an independent check. Having said that, I agree that we need to accept original monuments in their original position. I wonder if a monument, set in this century, being two feet out can be evidence enough to claim it is not being in its original position.
>
> And what about "gross" error? I have trouble believing that can't ever play a factor. After all, if a 5,000 square foot parcel is being portrayed, doesn't the recipient (grantee0 have some kind of complaint if you (or the grantor) charge them for 5,000 sf and only give them 4,000? Does the original subdividing surveyor have any culpability in perpetuating some kind of fraud?
I agree with you wholeheartedly, it sets a dangerous precedent. Using that analogy, anybody can drop 4 pegs call them original, file some documents that don't even reflect the reality of the situation and those who follow their footsteps are stuck with the mess.
Ralph
I Agree Ralph, A Gross Error.
> I agree with you wholeheartedly, it sets a dangerous precedent. Using that analogy, anybody can drop 4 pegs call them original, file some documents that don't even reflect the reality of the situation and those who follow their footsteps are stuck with the mess.
It can be frustrating but that is reality. That is why we make the big bucks! 🙂
I Agree Ralph, A Gross Error.
> And what about "gross" error? I have trouble believing that can't ever play a factor. After all, if a 5,000 square foot parcel is being portrayed, doesn't the recipient (grantee0 have some kind of complaint if you (or the grantor) charge them for 5,000 sf and only give them 4,000? Does the original subdividing surveyor have any culpability in perpetuating some kind of fraud?
Absolutely right, gc. There is a remedy under the law. It's called professional malpractice, negligence, and "gross" negligence proven by a "willful, wanton disregard for property rights." The damaged party's remedy is found in civil court and they should be made whole. None of that, however, has anything to do with land boundary law and the principles by which the boundaries are established. We can't start unsettling boundaries in an attempt to remedy the damages. Surveyor's should certainly be held responsible for the damages in civil court.
JBS
