How about a good thread on land surveying?

Seems to be a basic difference of opinion on this, so some arguments from those that believe a junior corner cannot bend a senior line should be presented.

After all, this is a survey board?

Keith

Keith,

An example can't be presented in the context of your usage of the language.

As I and others have pointed out in the past; if there is truly a legally senior/junior rights conflict then it must be resolved in favor of the legally senior right holder.

What the manual is really saying is that there may appear to be a conflict of this sort based on the dates or order of monuments set. However, other evidence may indicate that this conflict really does not exist and the monuments in question are of equal standing under the law.

In other words, if a "junior" monument actually controls some particular point then it can't actually be "junior" in reference to another monument that might, but does not, control that point.

The use of that terminology in the manual is misleading and confusing. I don't know why they insist on using it when it confuses even the experts on the manual.

Duane
That is a good synopsis of the entire debate. Controlling is the key word when looking at Junior/Senior rights. If a corner is accepted by the BLM then it rises to the controlling point and could not be considered junior to points set previously.

It can get confusing to those outside of the PLSS but we have been struggling with this for many years. Both the terms and just when you can accept a 'junior' corner as controlling.

In our patchwork quilt then often junior corners are all the evidence of the once senior outer corners left in areas. Most of us feel that using them is far better than resorting to proportion.

Deral

In our patchwork quilt then often junior corners are all the evidence of the once senior outer corners left in areas. Most of us feel that using them is far better than resorting to proportion.

I agree. There are so many variables in boundary retracements, that it is pretty hard to come up with general rules that apply to all or most situations. I am a believer that this axiom even applies to Case Law. No two surveys are exactly alike. some may have ingredients that could be an exception to established Case law. Of course one has to tread carefully.

Along a common tread

Sometimes the courts write better decisions than others.

In a 1997 case here in Maryland (related to the subject at hand), it's almost as if the Court of Special Appeals was trying to stuff as much established case law in one decision as possible so it could all be found in one place as a reference:

Millar v. Bowie, 694 A. 2d 509 - Md: Court of Special Appeals 1997

Does junior-senior rights on land ownership control the issue of junior-senior corner monuments? Maybe this is an awkward question, but the Manual's sections that I have quoted below, is independent of land ownership. Is that possible in your mind?

There can be all kinds of examples and one comes to mind that a senior right may come about after a junior corner is established along the senior line! Then what?

In other words, senior rights are not always based on senior corners.

Getting back to the issue, as I see it; there must be some clear language someplace that flatly states that original corner monuments and an instrument line between them is ALWAYS controlling. This is the issue.

Again, the Manual sections that I have quoted do not mention junior-senior land rights.

Keith

Along a common thread

James,

Do you have a conclusion on your court citation that we could read and get the gist of the case?

Keith

Duane,

I think you are confusing the language in the Manual that I think is very clear.

That is, junior-senior land rights are not addressed and this does not come up in the survey/resurvey of Public Land. The BLM land surveyor, naturally does not reestablish boundaries between private and private land.

The BLM land surveyor is interested in corner/line evidence that reestablishes the boundary between Public Land and private land. I have to imagine that the Manual rules would be considered by private surveyors if they were resurveying these same type boundaries.

And of course, being a retired Federal land surveyor, that is where I am coming from, and I have to assume that resurvey rules will apply to most of private resurveying too.

If in fact senior rights are always controlling, then does the chronology of surveys/resurveys come into play too. Again, the example of junior corner monuments being set along a line that will establish the boundaries of the senior land right.

Keith

Excellent case, James

> Sometimes the courts write better decisions than others.
>
> In a 1997 case here in Maryland (related to the subject at hand), it's almost as if the Court of Special Appeals was trying to stuff as much established case law in one decision as possible so it could all be found in one place as a reference:
>
> Millar v. Bowie, 694 A. 2d 509 - Md: Court of Special Appeals 1997

James, that's an excellent decision you cited, an admirable exposition of the issues and written with style.

Mr. Fleming

The whole context of your cited case deals with the meaning of the wording of the descriptions with various caveats regarding proof that was not in evidence which would modify the court's reliance on the wording.

When deeds and descriptions are drafted by attorneys or when surveyor's descriptions are 'modified' by attorney's ineptly trying to 'maintain a chain of title', this type of endless argument will result.

These cases prove that, without a surveyor who can understand the need to determine where the owners have established their line, the owners have no real control over their property and our courts will continue to try to perpetuate inaccurate deeds.

It is imperative that surveyors educate attorneys and land owners for the need to establish clear physical boundaries in order to eliminate the fumbling of the courts and restore control to the land owners who have the authority to fix the location of their own common boundary.

Remember, the surveyor does not need a dispute in order to function. Attorneys who function in an adverserial system, must have, or create, a dispute before they can function. Surveyors can resolve ambiguities better that lawyers can resolve disputes, and much cheaper!

Surveyors, acting as mediators, can assist the owners to create and file a document fixing a boundary. That document then, is the record document that prevails in court, eliminating any need to resurrect the ancient erroneous deed. This mediations service can be demanded by the court as a legitimate out-of-court settlement procedure that must be attempted and fail before a judge will accept a case for trial.

Richard Schaut

Keith,

Are you now saying there is no bone fried rice in the PLSS? I'm really not seeing why you defend the questionable language in the manual. How can one separate a limit of title issue from land boundary's?

I think you are defending the manual rather than any principle of land boundary law. This is the trouble with bureaucracy, it becomes more important to those in its employ than what it was meant to accomplish.

As far as I can tell, land divisions between public and private still fall under the laws of retracement. At least until and unless it becomes a last resort issue of senior rights or another last resort rule such as proportion.

In my view a junior monument cannot control a senior monument; it's a contradiction in terms that just does not work for me. The line must be where the parties understood it to be at the time of the transaction, even if one party was the federal government. If that is not the case then there's really no sense in surveying at all.

> I think you are defending the manual rather than any principle of land boundary law. This is the trouble with bureaucracy, it becomes more important to those in its employ than what it was meant to accomplish.

That is the best summary of this whole topic I've read so far. Excellent.

Duane

Are you purposely trying to confuse this whole controversy that should be easily understood by land surveyors?

For instance, where does this bogus thought come from; "In my view a junior monument cannot control a senior monument; it's a contradiction in terms that just does not work for me." Whoever said that?

The question is again, Can/should a junior monument control the senior line as the Manual clearly states. Read my quoted section again and tell us, you don't understand it?

Junior-Senior Corners

The line is regarded as having been fixed in position by the senior survey and subsequent dependent resurveys or retracements. If both sets of corners are recovered, a junior survey,if it was established in the course of an obvious careful resurvey or retracement, reporting the most recent measurement of the line, will be used for alinement of the line and for control in restoring a lost senior corner of the line.

The alternative is to accept the procedure that has been expressed here that only original corner monuments control the senior line and only an instrument straight line between those corners and ignoring all intervening evidence of the line is acceptable. Do you believe that is a retracement/resurvey rule to abide by?

I have quoted what I believe supports my land surveying opinion and I would certainly like to see something in writing that supports your opinion.

Where do you get that I am saying there is no bona fide rights (correct spelling)in the PLSS.

Geeeesss

Keith

Duane

> The alternative is to accept the procedure that has been expressed here that only original corner monuments control the senior line and only an instrument straight line between those corners and ignoring all intervening evidence of the line is acceptable. Do you believe that is a retracement/resurvey rule to abide by?
>
> I have quoted what I believe supports my land surveying opinion and I would certainly like to see something in writing that supports your opinion.
>
> Where do you get that I am saying there is no bona fide rights (correct spelling)in the PLSS.

Duane is quite right in pointing out that the question of a title that U.S. of A. transferred into private hands by a description based upon a survey deals with the most fundamental bona fide right there is. What some evidently want to do is to endlessly insist that the rights acquired under the conveyance of land by a particular description mean nothing, or are indefinite, even though all of the corners of the land may have been surveyed and marked at the time of the original severance of title from the sovereign.

Keith, for example, has been perfectly clear that the description under which those bona fide rights were acquired means basically nothing to him, that subsequent conveyances made by U.S. of A. and the later surveys upon which they may have been based, will always modify the boundaries of the original grant with no regard to the vested rights of the existing private owners.

Kent

You always attempt to put words into my statements and are wrong most of the time.
For instance, where did I state anything close to this; "Keith,for example, has been perfectly clear that the description under which those bona fide rights were acquired means basically nothing to him, that subsequent conveyances made by U.S. of A. and the later surveys upon which they may have been based, will always modify the boundaries of the original grant with no regard to the vested rights of the existing private owners."

Kent, just stick to the controversy and give us some reference citations or anything that will support your constant theme of only original corner monuments and an instrument straight line between them and ignore all subsequent evidence of the line.

Or, am I in error in my stating your resurvey procedure?

And of course you have no idea of what bona fide rights are. They ain't what you stated;". . . description under which those bona fide rights were acquired . . ."

Granted, your resurvey procedures would be easy to follow and the only judgement that you have to have is finding the original stone mound, and apparently you are good at that. And of course you have to have the ability to run an instrument line correctly.

Must be easy as you pass all the junior corners that other land surveyors have set in an attempt to show the line and define the boundaries of the subsequent land owners.

Keith

Duane

Maybe this is what you are not understanding; "If both sets of corners are recovered, a junior survey,if it was established in the course of an obvious careful resurvey or retracement, reporting the most recent measurement of the line, will be used for alinement of the line and for control in restoring a lost senior corner of the line."

Did you not read the word "lost"?

Keith

Duane

I am sure you must know or assume that the writers of the Manual know what they are talking about and the statements in the Manual are not flippantly made to confuse land surveyors.

You should at least understand that much.

Keith

I don't know why we have to argue about this.

The purpose of setting monuments is so that property owners can use their land.

If I was a property owner and I was paying for monuments I wouldn't waste my money if the Land Surveyor told me I can't use these monuments.

Suppose in a Dependant Resurvey the GLO or BLM resurveys a Section and determines all 8 corners then subdivides and sets a bunch of 1/16th corners.

It isn't too much of a stretch to imagine they didn't set the 1/16th corners perfectly (even assuming they found all 8 original corners which often are feet in diameter).

Suppose a property owner relies on the 1/16th corner which is a GLO pipe with stamped cap sticking 2' up in the air with rocks piled around it, it seems to me this is the very definition of good faith.

But I'm just a field surveyor, I don't know nothin' bout birthin' no babies or anything like that.

Dave

You are right that it seems like we, land surveyors, would not be having this sort of discussion, but yet as you can readily see, there is a very wide difference of opinion.

The point that land surveyors should be able to understand that they are retracing/resurveying existing boundaries and naturally over the years, many more monuments have been set at the request of the land owner and according to some, it they ain't on an instrument straight line between only original corner monuments; they ain't no good!

That makes land surveying a method of expert measuring and I ain't buying it.

Keith