I have tract of land that is on a lake. The deed that transfers the lot, references a plat that was made back in the 50's. the property line on the side the lake is on says 76'+/- and is along a relatively straight contour line. the other surveyor finds a pin that makes that line over 100'. His point is, that we have to use the monuments. My question is, what does +/- mean? is it a couple of feet, or up to 40 feet? him holding this pin is causing what my client thinks is an overlap, and when compared to the record documents, it appears incorrect.
What do you guys think?
If the pin is the original pin set in the plat then you hold the pin. It's a slam dunk.
The rub is the suggestion that because of the great variance from the measurement this may not be the original pin. Assuming there are other factors which assures your surveyor that it is, indeed, the original, then I support his findings.
No offense, but simply not enough information.
Where did the monument come from? Is it the original monument? Does it match the adjoiner's property line math? Is it some random chunck of steel, do you know what the purpose was of putting it there?
You appear to know that the monument on the other end of the 100ft is correct (I assume?) How did you decide which one to hold and which one to call 100' off?
It is doubtful that a surveyor mis-taped 25' in 75. So you need to figure out how that monument got where it did and what it was meant to represent. Obviously there is another line assuming a closed figure, how does that monument fit to the other corner it is supposed to fit to.
I'd be looking at a way to justify the monuments location. Is it original to the subdivision? Can you prove a gross error? Did a property owner move it because his tape measure was just calibrated?
To many unknowns.....
the plat says a wood stake was set. there are several other corners that were angle irons set. this is not an angle iron, it is a 3/4" rebar
nobody knows where this 3/4" rebar came from. one owner says it is a tie down for a floating dock. may be one used in the winter time. it is several feet below the water now
> nobody knows where this 3/4" rebar came from. one owner says it is a tie down for a floating dock. may be one used in the winter time. it is several feet below the water now
It's out 25' from one of the adjacent corners, it is not the original monument, and you have parol evidence that it was set for a different purpose than a property corner.
Is there any other evidence to support or not support it being the corner? How does it match to the other corners it should fit to?
> nobody knows where this 3/4" rebar came from. one owner says it is a tie down for a floating dock. may be one used in the winter time. it is several feet below the water now
That is certainly a strike against it.
> the plat says a wood stake was set. there are several other corners that were angle irons set. this is not an angle iron, it is a 3/4" rebar
Well, I'm sure that there are a lot of details. That is why it's not possible to pass judgement from this distance. But it sounds like you do have grounds to be skeptical.
Was this surveyor the low bidder by any chance? By how much?
it is 12 feet out the other way too. Record plat says 109.2+/- the other surveyor measured it 121.42 from where it crosses the contour, and it is well below the contour that is the property line. like 15 feet below it.
If I were setting reference monuments, i would set it on or above the contour that is the property line.
How well does this rod fit with the abutter's property/description?
I've seen too many traverse rods to just accept one where it doesn't fit.
[sarcasm]If I find a rebar I use it, no matter what the deed or plat says. Rebars rule![/sarcasm] o.O
The mathematical answer is 76'+/- would be 75.5 to 76.5. If the surveyor thought the measurement was off by 10 or more feet, then he would/should have used 80'+/-. The fact that the surveyor used 76' implies, to me, a known level of accuracy in the 1 foot range.
> The mathematical answer is 76'+/- would be 75.5 to 76.5. If the surveyor thought the measurement was off by 10 or more feet, then he would/should have used 80'+/-. The fact that the surveyor used 76' implies, to me, a known level of accuracy in the 1 foot range.
That's my thinking also. We have a few lake front lots like that. They kinda knew where the contour line was, but not exactly... and it was a lot of... a great amount of work to find the contour. One good local old timer would set monuments on the lot line at particular distances, but not right at the contour. At least you could use it for some cogo and hang your hat on.
> The mathematical answer is 76'+/- would be 75.5 to 76.5. If the surveyor thought the measurement was off by 10 or more feet, then he would/should have used 80'+/-. The fact that the surveyor used 76' implies, to me, a known level of accuracy in the 1 foot range.
I disagree. 76' would imply within a foot. (and 76.0 would imply within a tenth.)
76'+/- would infer that it is more uncertain than even within a foot and it doesn't even give the level of uncertainty. If the surveyor thought the measurement was precise to within 10' he could say 76'±10'.
You keep talking about a contour line, is it called for in the description?
jud
On old plats, it's normally understood, around here anyway, that "76'" is the same as "76.00'", for the purpose of normal lot dimensions. I guess you could say that the significant figures are implied. I agree with your point that the uncertainty is technically unknown in "76'+/-", but I think "nearest foot" is implied when you show the dimension with a number other than zero in the one's place. Otherwise, why not use "80'+/-"? The "76'" came from somewhere.
Those old plats that mix 76, 57.5, 60.61, etc. and tempt you to treat that as 76.00 are often the plats that don't close mathematically within a foot or more, even before they went out to mark them on the ground.
I have been studying land boundary laws intensely for going on 30 years now. Not once, ever, have I found a single court case which answers this question. Do you think that is odd? NO. Because boundary determinations are NEVER made by asking the question or by answering the question. Why, then, do we surveyors keep asking it? We can't seem to wrap our mathematically oriented brains around the concept. It's not about the math; it's about the landowners! It's about the law!
Surveyor's monuments don't mean squat by themselves. Distances don't mean squat by themselves, either.
The question that must be asked EVERY TIME is, "Have the landowners relied upon the monument as intending to mark their boundary?" If there is no evidence of reliance, then it's just a survey marker. If there is evidence of reliance, then the surveyor should gather the evidence, weigh the evidence to determine the facts, then apply the appropriate rule of law to determine if the monument controls or not.
JBS
It's never too far; it's always, just far enough....;-)
