It sounds like you have good reasons to believe that some of the line T posts were not set next to the original line wood stakes. And the landowner may have eyeballed line in placing his T posts closer to the river. If that is correct, then those T posts would not have the same weight as the front ones.?ÿ
Tough call for sure, but holding the above reasoning, you would have a good argument to match up with the plat dimensions. As long as that does not ??disturb the neighborhood? in any way, I don??t see how anyone could come along later and challenge it or would want to.?ÿ
A very cheap surveyor, wooden subdivision stakes are circ. 1900 to maybe 1920 in this area. Have you ever found an old wooden one??ÿ
Yes, it was his standard MO. I think I found less than 10 of his 3/8" rebars and caps, in a 10 yr time span. He had 3-4 crews going. 800 surveys a yr would be a reasonable guess.
We could not compete with him. (we were turning angles, and pouring our souls into it!)
He finally lost his ticket.
Thank you,
N
You say that the property owner (subdivider) set the T-post. Were the T-post in when the property owner sold the property? If so than didn't the subdivider and the new owner agree to the T-post.
If you choose to reject them my logic for rejecting them would be something in the nature of there is no record of the reasoning of there placement, there are no living participants to there placement that can be consulted, they do not carry the characteristic of a monument set by a licensed practitioner in my local area of practice, in my opinion the t posts were placed as approximate markers of maintenance limits of raw land. Very interesting problem you have, a compelling argument could be made for holding them as well.?ÿ
Reminds me of a friend's lot in a rural subdivision ~1980.?ÿ He didn't think the T-post the real estate guy told him was his corner looked right. We measured out the plat dimensions and hit right on a rebar. 15 ft different.
It's hard to figure out who set a T-post if that person isn't there.
IF I accept them, then it falls apart.
By how much? I'm sure you have overlaid the found stuff and wiggled it all over the math model but it is still unacceptably off? ?????ÿ
If the original surveyor set wood stakes, those would be the original monuments. T-posts set by the land owner would have naturally been beside the wood stakes by some amount. I'd say that any solution that put the mathematical corner locations within a foot or so of the t-posts would be a justifiable solution that honors the t-posts for what they are.?ÿ
I agree with those that have said that if you are going to treat some of the t-posts as monuments you should treat all of them as such. But?ÿ when we find a monument set many years before, especially where there is no apparent occupation line, how do we know that monument is in the same position it was originally set? Well, we really don't. So if we have a batch of monuments that fit dimensions well, and a few outliers, we might exercise a little discretion and call those outliers disturbed. They may very easily be. There is little to be gained by standing on principle and altering the record dimensions of some unoccupied Arkansas woodland acreage by 2 feet.?ÿ ?ÿ
Another thing to consider. The dignity of monuments comes from the idea that buyers see the monuments and make their purchase in reliance upon them. These are t-posts in the woods. Maybe the buyers are blissfully unaware of their presence, or, if the are, of their significance. If that is the case maybe the mathematical dimensions and areas should carry more weight.?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ?ÿ
?ÿ
@mark-mayer - coming to this late, Mr. Mayer pretty much said what I came up with too -
Ken
In a post somewhere in the middle of this thread, I think Nate said some of the posts are line posts, not near corners. Did the original surveyor set them? Did the developer set them? Did they legally put a bend tn the lines?
it seems the original surveyor set line points within view of the road. Some of these are too far back so may have been eyeballed further back by the landowner.
You have 3 legal issues:
1) original monuments in position or acceptable evidence of their original location holds.
2) notwithstanding that, in the absence of knowledge of the location of the boundary the land owners may MUTUALLY establish it. Whether this happened is a somewhat tricky question and depends on how heavy and obvious the consequent possession of the land is in the absence of direct and compelling testimony. This seems to support the idea that the t-posts out of view of the road are mere witnesses and don??t precisely control.
3) any given boundary is independent of all others once established. Plat geometry is useful in the case of lost boundaries but does not control established boundaries.
When you say the rear posts 'may have been set by 'chaining along the river' do you mean at the time of subdivision? If done later they could be evaluated differently. If done at platting they are original.
I would put some good effort into finding the origin. If it can't be determined then the owners must be involved in the solution. Avoid any temptation to impose an answer if you can't support it with evidence, even if it seems reasonable. This is where the professional part starts. Help the owners solve the problem.
Good luck
How do the adjacent lots fit?
I'm sorry Nate. Went back and read more of your findings. We all hate surveys like this. Seems simple at first glance. But the demons show up. I've had my fair share.?ÿ
I had to stop deliberating, and set corners. I decided it was 52/48, and held them. If Mr G W got em within a foot, (mostly), or 2.5' in 700', and the land owner/developer set t posts there, or close, it's time to hold em, because they had the AUTHORITY, and authority holds over technique, or method.
Thank you all who responded.
Nate
