I have a description of a tract with 5 sides. We found iron stakes at or near all 5 points. The distance between 3 of the iron stakes fit very well (less than .1 feet and those are ground and I am on grid).
One distance is short by 10 feet. The deed reads in part
...to an existing iron rod, a corner; thence North 28-00-00 West 913.21 feet along the line of a ditch and the Jane Smith line to an existing iron rod, a corner; ....
So I have what appears to be an original undisturbed monument that is 10 feet east of the center of this ditch. The measured distance leading to that existing monument is ~10 short of record. I am convinced the rod we found is in fact the same rod. The distance from this found rod to the rod in back is +- 0.2 feet short.
But the description calls for both the rod and the ditch (and the Jane Smith line) as marking the line.
Do you:
1) Hold both rods and let the first few hundred feet of the ditch not be on the line as described?
2a) Extend from the found rod ~10 feet into the ditch and then go to the rod in the back thusly making the ditch the line rather than the rod?
2b) Extend from the found rod but do so at a bearing that is perpendicular to the ditch rather than continuing the line from the previous marker?
3) Figure that the old timers didn't have a clue what they were doing and just use the math to set new markers?
4) Something else? See which of the above lines will give the client the correct acreage called for in the deed?
What say you?
Larry P
Assuming the Jane Smith Line is senior then you need to survey/prove that line first. Assuming the monument is not disturbed or reset by owners etc., and is the original marker, then it will control over distance or deed. How I would handle it.
gee..
since it is a 10' distance , do you think that the rod could be a witness to the ditch?
I know of an interesting survey tale.
Once this company A was doing a s/d layout and one rod fell into a ditch along the rear line of a lot. They set a witness at a 25' o/s on line.
Another survey company B was starting to do lot surveys for builders and called to complain that A was not setting the lot corners.
An older PC who had worked for B in the past and now worked for A, went to the site and pulled his witness corner and set a rod in the ditch which was holding quite a fair amount of Louisiana ditch water.
Needless to say, B called back A and cussed A for setting the corner in the ditch.
Sounds like someone did not want to get their feet wet:-P
> Assuming the Jane Smith Line is senior then you need to survey/prove that line first. Assuming the monument is not disturbed or reset by owners etc., and is the original marker, then it will control over distance or deed. How I would handle it.
What about the deed calling for the ditch to be the line? Does that mean nothing? Isn't the ditch a monument just as much as is the iron rod?
(I hope no one takes anything I am going to post to this thread personally as I will probably play devils advocate for several of the possible positions to take.)
Larry P
> Assuming the Jane Smith Line is senior then you need to survey/prove that line first. Assuming the monument is not disturbed or reset by owners etc., and is the original marker, then it will control over distance or deed. How I would handle it.
Yes,
that the Smith Line (record) then the ditch (natural) would control...no matter how tight the rods (artificial) are in relationship.
I would think that the ditch line was meant to benefit each property like they do in Coastal Louisiana communities...
not much difference between a ditch and a fence here sometimes. Both serve the same purpose.
> gee..
>
> since it is a 10' distance , do you think that the rod could be a witness to the ditch?
>
Mr. Hill,
The rod could be a witness. But the description doesn't say anything at all about that. It calls for it to be "a corner" and nothing is mentioned about how you get from this corner into the ditch.
Larry P
With the information given I'd be leaning toward 2a because the described geometry just screams "point-on-line". That said, I'd be doing a bunch of research to confirm the hunch before finalizing the solution.
Did the surveyor write the description? Was the survey or description prepared prior to the setting of the monuments? Wouldn't be the first time a "planned monument" fell in a ditch, tree, lake, or manhole lid and someone failed to update the deed, plat, etc. to reflect reality.
Hold the centerline of the ditch as your primary call as it's a call to a natural monument. Use the iron in a way that still holds to the centerline of the ditch and best fits to the iron. (2a?).
Why do I think you have a definitive answer and we are all taking a quiz? 😉
More so, state what you did and word it well, including the principles of law and of surveying. Surveyor's following in your footsteps will most likely agree with your findings if you show your logic and if your conclusion is a fair and adequate interpretation of the description.
Oh I like "Devil's" advocates, it always 'causes a significant fruitful discussion.
Yes the ditch in the deed is significant but the order of importance is first senior lines then calls then monuments. See Mr. Robert Hill's reply below. We agree.
> Hold the centerline of the ditch as your primary call as it's a call to a natural monument. Use the iron in a way that still holds to the centerline of the ditch and best fits to the iron. (2a?).
>
> Why do I think you have a definitive answer and we are all taking a quiz? 😉
>
> More so, state what you did and word it well, including the principles of law and of surveying. Surveyor's following in your footsteps will most likely agree with your findings if you show your logic and if your conclusion is a fair and adequate interpretation of the description.
Tom,
I have already done what I am going to do. Just trying to start a discussion. But I do not want to prejudice the discussion by stating my opinion up front. Better to let others express their own with their own reasoning.
At the end of the discussion I hope we can all better appreciate the importance of taking great care in exactly how we word our descriptions. Some day, almost all of the descriptions we write will have to be interpreted by someone. I look forward to a day when the descriptions will be clear to the point that these discussions will be unnecessary.
Have a great day.
Larry P
Did you look at the adjoiner's deed to see where they thought the line was?
along the line of a ditch
What does that mean? Around here ditches have right-of-ways, so could that mean along a ten foot right of way line, or is it a cut fill situation and there is some kind of toe ten feet from the ditch?
As Andy says, that is SOP.
What was the intent of the parties? Yea, I know, if that was clear there wouldn't be a problem 😉
We have 3 "monuments", the ditch, the iron rod and the adjoiner, we know that two don't match well, so - where is the "Jane Smith line" (what are the calls in her description)?
Larry, does the deed close?
Do I understand that that the distances from the monument in question to both the previous and next monuments check out OK?
If you can change one bearing or one distance and get all monuments to agree reasonable well, I would hold them all, on the assumption that you have found the blunder. I don't see that you have evidence to call an original undisturbed monument wrong.
"along the line of a ditch and the Jane Smith line"
Along the line of the ditch, means you go past the pin to the ditch, and then along the ditch. That should take care of your 10' short.
Along ... the Jane Smith line means you find all of Jane Smith's corners and see that she is whole before making any other judgement.
IN GENERAL IT IS UNPROFESSIONAL TO SURVEY ANY ONE LOT WITHOUT CONSIDERING ALL THE BOUNDS.
Yes an iron pin is a monument, but Jane Smith's lot is an even bigger monument.
Paul in PA
...to an existing iron rod, a corner; thence North 28-00-00 West 913.21 feet along the line of a ditch and the Jane Smith line to an existing iron rod, a corner; ....
To me it reads; "to and existing iron rod", he did not set it, sounds like he held it. Thence N 28°00'00" W along the line of a ditch, another found reference that was used for direction only, did not say along the C/L.. Again to an existing iron rod, sounds as if he recovered and held that rod also.
Maybe the distance call as written in the description was not what was intended and the intended distance was 903.21 feet.
Sounds like more research is needed, with all those bearings to seconds and distances to hundredths, there probably is an old survey floating around to search for while tracing the deed descriptions back and doing the same with the adjoiners. What do the owners say, do they have good reason to believe they know where their boundary lines should be.
Interesting to hear what you chose to do, why and how you intend to defend that choice if need be. I have not seen enough data to make a choice I could defend without just grabbing a rule and closing my mind to all else.
jud
My feeling is you run along the ditch until you intersect the line from rod to rod produced. That holds the ditch as called for and the rods but one only for line.
