If junior monuments cannot be on line where they are found absent gross error or fraud they should not be set in the first place.?ÿ
There is the theoretical "perfect line" from our measurements and then there is the perfect line from someone else's measurements.?ÿ In fact, MY LINE is no better than HIS LINE.?ÿ We all need to keep that thought in mind at all times.?ÿ Simply because a certain set of numbers appears on the screen does not mean they are absolute.
We just run into situations running sections lines for one owner an adjacent owner might have a small chunk that that calls to the section line in an old deed and puts a kink in a line that might have been passed through. Im probably talking about different situations than the OP.?ÿ
I don't worship math and actively fight the human tendency to be attracted to symmetry.?ÿ I don't care about the line being perfectly straight, I care about what the humans on that line are doing now and how long they've been doing it.?ÿ It would likely be more difficult for me to do this in PLSSia, but I don't work there so I don't have the curse or blessing of corner records, field notes, and state sized subdivision plats to confuse me into thinking that conformity is my priority.?ÿ If the best available evidence leads me to believe that the off-line corners have been glommed onto for a couple of decades, then I'm putting an unsightly angle in the otherwise perfectly straight line.?ÿ I know how to lie with maps, I just don't care enough about long straight lines to want to do so.
But, but, but, what about the title companies and what about the poor old quadriplegic widow who can't possibly be expected to resurvey her one-hundred acres every nineteen years??ÿ Owning land has costs greater than just the taxes you pay.?ÿ If you don't want to lose small slivers of your land you must walk the line upon occasion or hire others to do so for you.?ÿ The defense of property is a natural obligation that predates the laws of men.
?ÿ?ÿ
@murphy?ÿ
The PLSS is changing slowly, even the BLM is starting to accept closing corners as line on the senior line when they are "close enough".
Closing corners have always been considered controlling the junior intersecting line and the process was to bury the found off line closing corner monument and re-monument on the senior line, either extending or truncating the junior line.
Of course, the next surveyor is bound to find the shiny new monument slightly off the senior line and set another, then another, ect.
New guidance is to accept the found monument if it's without gross error.?ÿ
In effect people surveying along a senior line and finding junior corners along a subdivision are doing the same thing, treating the junior monuments as closing corners and showing offset's or errors in the junior monuments.?ÿ
I tend to do otherwise and accept the junior monuments and kink my line to them, then there isn't any offset or errors to show. Always there are exceptions to everything.
If the best available evidence leads me to believe that the off-line corners have been glommed onto for a couple of decades, then I'm putting an unsightly angle in the otherwise perfectly straight line.?ÿ I know how to lie with maps, I just don't care enough about long straight lines to want to do so.
Thanks for the response, I'm hoping to confirm my understanding of your point.
Say you are retracing parcel A, a square tract 400' to a side running cardinal directions, from a description written in the 1980's. An identical tract, Parcel B, adjoins to the north, it has been subdivided into 100' wide north/south lots in the mid 1990's. You recover and accept Parcel A corners. You also locate 3 on-line lot corners cut from Parcel B. One is 0.2' outside, the next is .04' inside, the next is >0.1' inside. The area is wooded and there is no evidence of occupation.
From my understanding, in your retracement of Parcel A, your retracement would 'kink' the line to follow the found lot corners, describing a line with 4 calls where it was previously described as one. Assume parcels A and B were created in a partition simultaneously. Would your resolution change if A was found to be senior to B?
?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
From my understanding, in your retracement of Parcel A, your retracement would 'kink' the line to follow the found lot corners, describing a line with 4 calls where it was previously described as one. Assume parcels A and B were created in a partition simultaneously. Would your resolution change if A was found to be senior to B?
If it's a simultaneous conveyance and the monuments are called for and/or have been relied upon, I'm going to hold the monuments. That's the easy scenario.
If the subject parcel is senior to the one whose monuments are being found off line, I'm likely not going to kink that line unless that line of the senior parcel cannot be placed by any other means - which is uncommon. But if I have to use the junior to place the senior, so be it.
I'll be showing those on- or off-line monuments and their pedigree, as well as explaining why I did or did not hold them in my narrative.
Once occupation and reliance gets involved it can get murky, but as a general rule another surveyor slamming a rod a few tenths?ÿ (or even feet) off a line that was established before he/she got there does not automatically move that line.
?ÿ
?ÿ
I'm doing one of those today, yes I would kink the line to match the subdivision corner monuments, 0.2', 0.04'?, 0.1' in a wooded area with subdivision corners 30 years old now.
That's a no-brainer, regardless of the senior/junior line issue.
I won't leave even virtual pincushions if it's possible not to.
?ÿ
@murphy?ÿ
I've seen a growing number in our ranks awaken to this thought. The actions of owners over time trump the best mathemagical cookbook solutions..?ÿ
@tfdoubleyou Are the 1990s monuments sticking out of the ground and plainly visible, or do you need a metal detector to find them?
Some of us gray beards have never fallen asleep to that concept. An old poster once said monuments mean things.?ÿ
@murphy?ÿ
The PLSS is changing slowly, even the BLM is starting to accept closing corners as line on the senior line when they are "close enough".
Closing corners have always been considered controlling the junior intersecting line and the process was to bury the found off line closing corner monument and re-monument on the senior line, either extending or truncating the junior line.
Of course, the next surveyor is bound to find the shiny new monument slightly off the senior line and set another, then another, ect.
New guidance is to accept the found monument if it's without gross error.?ÿ
In effect people surveying along a senior line and finding junior corners along a subdivision are doing the same thing, treating the junior monuments as closing corners and showing offset's or errors in the junior monuments.?ÿ
I tend to do otherwise and accept the junior monuments and kink my line to them, then there isn't any offset or errors to show. Always there are exceptions to everything.
The problem I see with that is that closing corners were not set with the intention of being on the senior line whereas that is not true with almost all subdivisional or lot corners. The new guidance is not new. It's older than any of us. The issue is that the old guidance was not followed.?ÿ
@tfdoubleyou Are the 1990s monuments sticking out of the ground and plainly visible, or do you need a metal detector to find them?
IMO irrelevant to the on line vs off line discussion. It is where you find it.?ÿ
@murphy So, more or less, you are saying that vesting documents yield to posession lines??ÿ I hate to go there but it is not within the scope of our authority to determine ownership lines over title lines.?ÿ Whether in a Colonial or PLS state, our obligation is to determine the platted or deeded lines along with supporting monumentation and show lines of posession based on the title lines, period, end of story.?ÿ It's our job to show title lines with location of improvements relative to them, if they are in conflict, it's the job of the courts to determine ownership or other rights.
@norm?ÿ
The 2009 manual discusses it in depth in Chapter 7 I believe.
Of course the majority of original closing corners set in the PLSS that I ever came across should not be used for the senior line.
But, once shifted to line the new monument will be "off" some amount but will still control if faithfully done.?ÿ
I even had a 1970's era retracement showing a closing corner off .09', when I did a survey for that line I accepted it as part of the senior line, that was circ. 2008 just before the new manual, so yes I was applying that rule before the new manual.?ÿ
?ÿ
See above post, read chapter seven in the 2009 manual, it's a starting primer.?ÿ
Junior monuments can control senior lines, it's our job to accept that fact.?ÿ
You aren't changing the senior line.?ÿ
You are surveying it.?ÿ
?ÿ
I'm not going to say that I never kinked a straight line.?ÿ Mostly, I think it's happened when there was a stonewall or fence, running for hundreds or 1000+ feet, and the plan/description calls it out as a single bearing and distance.?ÿ And when I surveyed it, my fence or stonewall locations weren't exactly straight.?ÿ But that's understandable.
But this seems like a different situation, where a long straight line with monuments at each end, and nothing physical in between that would change that.?ÿ And then what, another surveyor comes in, and can't set a few subdivision monuments reasonably along that line??ÿ And his mistakes should change the existing line?
I'm not sure I agree with that, that monuments set by a surveyor who couldn't accurately measure the two end points very well, or worse, maybe he couldn't be bothered to locate both ends and used a single monument and a plan bearing to set new monuments supposedly on the common line.
Monuments set on a survey establish the line unless bad faith or gross error can be proven.
Land Surveyors often have the presumptions reversed. Monuments faithfully set to mark a boundary are presumed to establish it, the burden of proof is on the one who wants to ignore a monument.
I did have a case where a monument was very recently set 2 feet off but that was because of a blunder by the other surveyor And it was on his client??s side of the section line so I did not hold it as establishing the line.
@mightymoe I don't work in a PLS but I can guarantee, despite whatthe manual says, if original and undisturbed monuments, as documentated at the time of the original survey, will always control in any court of law, unless there is a recorded written instrument altering the line.?ÿ Being off 0.09' is usually only a difference in measuring accuracies and equipment.
I emphasise, title rights and ownership rights are not for the Surveyor to resolve, they are legal issues.
But isn't a surveyor rejecting faithfully established junior monuments on a senior line the one effecting title and ownership rights.?ÿ
The OP is discussing 0.2', 0.04' and 0.1' on a 400' wooded line. Showing monuments crossing can create a title issue, showing the line following the tiny errors and going through the monument would protect both parties.?ÿ
If the OP said 2', 0.4', 1' I may have a different answer, and for sure if he said 20', 4' and 10', those would be gross errors.?ÿ