That ALTA standard is referring to the precision of the equipment and the execution of proper surveying techniques used to conduct the survey, not the ability of the original surveyor to set a monument where the landowner intended it to be.
If a straight line defined by monuments at each end is divided up at a later date then the line is not moved, it is further defined and established. There is no expectation of perfection which is unobtainable.
It is not a title issue, it is a location issue. Title has nothing to do with it, there are no title lines, only boundaries.
California has a case involving a 1/16th line which was established 500 feet north of where it would normally be expected to be found, there was no title change, the Court was merely inquiring into the established location of the 1/16th line.
I don't know how it can be explained any simpler than that.?ÿ
If tomorrow I set a capped rod ten feet off of an original 1890s monumented 100 foot line during a subdivision and call it "on line" in my record of survey or short plat that I file next week, and then you retrace it next month, would you hold my monument based solely on the fact that another surveyor set it?
As soon as monuments go in the ground, are we bound to hold them without question? Just...blinders on? I thought that we have the responsibility to weigh all the available evidence.
Is every single monument is as good as every other monument, every single time? No matter what?
@rover83 the key is reliance by the owners, commonly for a statutory period. The specific fact pattern will vary by jurisdiction. The only 'automatically perfect' monuments are set in federally approved surveys.
California has a case involving a 1/16th line which was established 500 feet north of where it would normally be expected to be found, there was no title change, the Court was merely inquiring into the established location of the 1/16th line.
And that didn't cause a problem with anyone's title?
@bstrand?ÿ
Of course not. Everybody owned (held title to) their aliquot part. Some of those parts had boundaries in surprising places and areas a little different when examined by another surveyor?ÿ
It's somewhat difficult to interpret reliance on a 1000' line through the woods, with a couple of rogue rebar at the rear corners of some 1 acre lots.?ÿ Their mere existence doesn't necessarily equal reliance
I've rejected all types of monuments.
I can't recall ever rejecting the type described in the OP.?ÿ
I've rejected federally set monuments. If they weren't ever relied on and its a monument set in gross error, it needs to be dealt with. Normally it's correctable but not always. The point being if you reject a monument then go the rest of the way and correct it. Inform the surveyor of the gross error and get one monument placed at the corner (no doubt your new one will be some distance off the senior line).
The latest example was a corner of a 1940s era survey. The corner in question had 3 rebars and 1 aluminum cap all within 10' of each other. Two were possibly tie downs, those we pulled, leaving the rebar (rebar were not original monuments for the survey which was monumented with pipes) and the cap. When we showed the new cap surveyor the information we gathered he agreed to have his pulled; that's what needs to be done. This was a difficult area and the solutions weren't easy straightforward ones, but that's what we get paid for.?ÿ
Reasons to reject monuments would be; monuments in conflict with others (pincushions, resolve them), monuments set in gross error (bad moves by the BLM is one example), disturbed monuments, there are many other examples, but not being exactly on a senior line isn't one. If you want to reject those then fix them, don't leave your client with a cloud on their title created by a survey plat.?ÿ
I've had mine rejected and agreed to have it pulled also, it goes both ways.?ÿ
One doctrine seldom discussed and one most easily applied to the facts is practical location. Our highest court has called it estoppel by practical location and they have said its different than acquiescence and adverse possession. "The line established in that?ÿmanner is presumably the line mentioned in the deed, and no lapse of time is necessary to establish?ÿsuch location, which does not rest on acquiescence in an erroneous boundary, but on the fact that the?ÿtrue location (as in a junior survey that shows the new monuments on line) was made, and the conveyance in reference to it."
@bstrand no issue with title.
Before the case A had the south half of the northwest quarter and B had the north half of the northwest quarter.
After the case A had the south half of the northwest quarter and B had the north half of the northwest quarter.
The court examined the representations and conduct of the property owners and determined the boundary between the halves was established.?ÿ Courts have explained that there is no title transfer and the parties own up to the established boundary by their respective deeds because the established boundary is treated as the same as the boundary in their deed.
@norm?ÿ
I wholeheartedly agree with the opinion, and it makes perfect sense - when there is in fact a "common grantor" which established the line, a phrase repeatedly used throughout the text.
I wouldn't think twice about holding original monuments along a line that was intended to be straight but was monumented otherwise - by a common grantor.
I remain unconvinced that off-line monuments set for a recent subdivision of Smith will always override the common line between Smith and Jones, when that common line was already monumented and established by the common grantor many years before.
Wow!?ÿ Seven pages so far.?ÿ Just WOW!
@norm?ÿ
I wholeheartedly agree with the opinion, and it makes perfect sense - when there is in fact a "common grantor" which established the line, a phrase repeatedly used throughout the text.
I wouldn't think twice about holding original monuments along a line that was intended to be straight but was monumented otherwise - by a common grantor.
I remain unconvinced that off-line monuments set for a recent subdivision of Smith will always override the common line between Smith and Jones, when that common line was already monumented and established by the common grantor many years before.
Nothing is always or never, of course there are exceptions to every rule.
?ÿ
While it is often discussed in absolutes, if citing case law - it's important to remember that the case contains the details for that situation.?ÿ Differences in details could alter the courts decision.?ÿ Heck, the case cited in this thread has several references to other cases that had slightly different details and slightly different outcomes with the judicial opinion noting such.
Differences in details could alter the courts decision.
Heck, just differences in how the case is argued with the same details make a difference.?ÿ
In one case in Maryland the surveyor held the centerline of a lane as a common boundary that had, at various times in previous surveys (but not always, and not in the original grant creating the line) been shown as the boundary.?ÿ In court they argued the common law presumption (now codified) that a call to a road is a call to the centerline.?ÿ The court disagreed because the lane wasn't called for in the original deed.
Had they argued that the lane had historically been used by both parties, and since its location fit the missing line within the tolerances of the original deeds error of closure, that it was the best evidence memorializing the location of the line as originally run on the ground, they might have prevailed.?ÿ ?ÿ
There is a lot of back and forth with this thread, if this was so and if that was so and this case and that case.?ÿ
But, from the OP lets just say it:
Accept the monuments as the line, don't show offsets, that puts doubt on both properties and that would be totally because of actions taken by the new surveyor.
There isn't another correct option.?ÿ
?ÿ
Accept the monuments as the line, don't show offsets, that puts doubt on both properties and that would be totally because of actions taken by the new surveyor.
There isn't another correct option.?ÿ
I understand and agree with the point in principle, but what I still struggle to accept is the fact that by following this procedure, (showing an accepted monument as on-line and providing a passing distance along the line with no offset) a surveyor following my map might calculate a position of said monument, only to locate it some distance away. Perhaps that distance is only 0.4', or perhaps 1.4', based on my judgement and acceptance of the evidence. But either way, now this retracing surveyor is left to reconcile a discrepancy between record and evidence, hopefully drawing the same conclusion I had before.
Frankly, I don't trust every surveyor coming behind me to not assume I had simply blundered. I can say confidently this will happen, as I know I would have interpreted a blunder reviewing these facts at prior points in my career, so I know others will as well.
?ÿ
Ancillary to this discussion is the topic of expert measurement to make sure you're not the PLS missing the mark by a tenths or feet.
Here in the east, it can add days to a project to traverse out and pick up distant monuments, so it's often necessary to discuss this possiblity upfront with the client to eliminate financial insentives to just get it done.
A typical rural surveyor, running a slightly out of plumb prism pole with a couple of sticks to hold steady on the important shots, can meet minimum standards with and have significant slop in their measurements.?ÿ I spend money on Trimble traverse kits and double locking tripods and StarNet to make sure I'm not the guy creating a situation where a retracing PLS has to spend time thinking about the acceptance of "off-line" monuments.?ÿ
Don't be the surveyor making snide comments about measuring to the gnats derriere. Be the one capable of setting a solid monument directly on a line of any given length.?ÿ
