TPS, I think that significant figures are relatively lost today. You can come up with numbers on a machine that read way beyond the estimated precision.
In older times, if someone wrote 800' you might not be certain if they meant to the nearest foot, nearest 10' or 100'...but old school would have them put an overscore over the significant digit when it is not obvious.
On your old plats...are you certain that they meant 76 to imply 76.00? or are you making that assumption. Around here I often see numbers rounded to the tenth of a foot in legal descriptions and on old plats. A lot of old subdivision plats would have lot distances such as 50.0' widths then the last lot on the block might say 50'±. That implies to me that the original subdivider said to throw any excess or deficiency into the last lot and that meant that if it was 9' off the whole nine would go there, they weren't implying that it was within a half of a foot. all the 50.0' widths would imply within a tenth (+/-0.05)
I can think of a few circumstances where you might have 76'±10'. Here are a couple:
on a plat, you might measure from an item to the center of, say, a stream. You measure to 76', but you are saying "I could have picked the centerline to be 10' either side of where I measured to."
Another place you might use it is you might take a reading of the width or height of an item or items (say the distances building-face to building face across a street.) You take a number of measurements and the smallest being 66' and the largest being 86' so you say that there is a 76' between building faces ± 10'. A big difference than if the clearance only varied to within a foot.
Sorry for the ramblings, but another quick note. Don't misunderstand my subdivision example....I would still be accepting original monuments and proportioning between them for unfound monuments....but I would consider that the last lot could have greater excess or deficiency than the others in that block.
Anyway, that is as I understand sig. digs. and use of ±
:good:
I'd read through the legal description and also the legals for the adjoiners to see if they fit each other well. You mention contours - is that how the legal is written? Is it a metes and bounds description or a lot in a subdivision?
your post is too vague to assess the property properly.
If I understand the original post correctly, the "76'+/-" is a dimension on a slightly curved or bent line meant to represent the approximate width of the lot at the edge of water. I'm assuming that any lot with water frontage was shown this way (+/-), and this isn't a case where the intention was to place all the excess or deficiency into the last lot, but maybe I'm wrong on that point. By my thinking, and since the lot was surveyed and wood stake set, the "76'" probably was based on some calculation, or field measurement, made when the surveyor set the original wood stake. I'd say that expecting the measurement to be within a foot is reasonable, which may also be why he showed the dimension rounded to a foot.
To me, it seems like it would be easy to test this theory by locating the rear corners of a couple of lots in each direction. If the problem is on the order of 40', over 76', it should be easy to see if other lots vary significantly from their record water frontage width. If, for example, holding the rod in question makes my lot 40' too wide, and the neighbor's lot 40' too narrow (per the record), then I'd be of the opinion that the rod of unknown origin is not an accurate replacement of the missing wood stake.
It would be unusual for a plat monument to be set below the ordinary high water mark. At least, in my part of the world.
"the contour that is the property line." Huh? Wazzzatt??
Takes a while to wrap ones mind around to that. But I find myself thinking, "what is the judge going to want to hear from me?" I can't fix them all. But I can sure show all that is there. I'm just the messenger that can measure. I really don't feel that way, all the time.
On several of the TVA lakes in this area the property was purchased/taken in fee simple to a specific contour.
Most important question: Is the 76 foot dimension supposed to represent the horizontal straightline distance between two set monuments or is it to represent the approximate length of the actual contour running between those two set monuments. You could have two monuments 20 feet apart, but, the contour line could be 200 feet long if there was a significant ditch in between.
The monument of record is a wood stake, not a "pin" (what is that, anyway). Until you can ascertain where the "pin" came from, it's just that, a hunk of iron.
more or less
there are some great court cases where the justices discuss more or less in great detail, more or less.
from the web:
more or less - (of quantities) imprecise but fairly close to correct; "lasted approximately an hour"; "in just about a minute"; "he's about 30 years old"; "I've had about all I can stand"; "we meet about once a month"; "some forty people came"; "weighs around a hundred pounds"; "roughly $3,000"; "holds 3 gallons, more or less"; "20 or so people were at the party"
could 76' in the 50's become 100' in the 10's? probably not unless the pond changed. i would not trust the pin unless there was something else to support it. any other monuments? any bounds?
given the great amount of sand in these parts, we have loads of bounds. i also do not trust pins and pipes as much because they can be easily moved or relocated.
I may have missed it somewhere, but the first thing I would do is start tying down the corners of the other tracts that front the lake and see how they all fit. If all your other distances are good, or at least close, lot better indicator that the one in question is bogus. Pretty common in Tennesee to call a contour, say 690' as the property line. Sometimes not easy to survey. Another indicator would be to get the elevation of other pins around the lake, if they are all at one elevation, and the "bogus" corner is at another elevation, another indicator it may be bogus.
:good: :good:
Read what Professor Stahl wrote. Then read it again. Then think about it. Then think about it some more.
Larry P
From Minnesota, the land of 10,000+ lakes and 100,000+ lakefront boundary problems--
Mr. Clemons makes some good points.
It sounds as though you don't have angles or bearings on the side lines of the lots, or anything that useful. You do have an iron that makes one lot 25' long of plat distance and the other one 12' long, if I understand correctly, 15' off the contour, and with parol evidence against it. Now if you could only find the remains of a knotted rope around the rebar, it would simplify matters a good deal.
I've had some success importing aerial photos into CAD, superimposing CAD lines on visible occupation lines, and seeing how they compare with plat dimensions. Of course you need a couple of visible objects a known distance apart to scale the aerial.
Better than that,if enough information is available to create a CAD copy of the plat to scaling accuracy, it could be slid around to fit occupation on the aerial. There might be perimeter dimensions on the plat, or occupation along the plat boundary, that would help in creating and/or positioning the CAD copy. Scaling from the original plat sometimes helps, but not always.
If the curvature of contour lines affects the lakefront dimensions, which isn't clear, that effect could be approximated by scaling from a quad map or other reference topo. Older quad maps vs. more recent contours might indicate grading changes that could affect the dimensions, if in fact they seem to be measured along the contours.
It could give some idea of the quality of the original surveyor's work and what HE meant by +/-. Footsteps are better than mathematical definitions. A 25' discrepancy, if it is a discrepancy, shouldn't be hard to see. Even 5' is not that hard to see if this process works.
A photo overlay of this sort also makes a good exhibit drawing.
JB, I beg to differ....
I found a once fence corner, with loads of reliance. The ORIGINAL plat showed a pin 12' away. (In the road, present day) I dug it up. It is an original pin, 14" subsurface. Nobody has relied on it. But, it is fact. It is RECORD TITLE.
Reliance can make a boat stake into a corner, but not always. The whole or total picture is important. All the evidence has to be looked at, considered, and then differing weights allowed to stand, because in the final analysis, you are after the truth of the matter.
I found a section corner 160' from where RELIANCE had it too. We wound up holding the ORIGINAL GLO corner, 160' away. In opposition to another surveyor, that USED the RELIANCE corner.
Facts are facts. Truth is truth. And, we are evidence gatherers, and USERS.
🙂
N
> 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
the landowners didn't even know it was there until it showed up on this other guy's plat.
I would advise your client to obtain their own survey opinion, from a different surveyor, in order to get a second opinion. It's either that or accept the findings. A survey is not a map or a measurement but rather a professional opinion, and as such they can vary. No way you're going to get anywhere on a message board with a real and particular land boundary issue. Even if you posted everything you and the other surveyor know about it a good surveyor would want to perform further evidence gathering on and off site. The discrepancy from record is enough to justify the expense if lakefront is worth anything like in this neck of the woods. If the second opinion agrees with the first, so be it, your client doesn't have to worry about "what if"? Peace of mind is worth something too. If you let it stand without challenge it may become the boundary even if it was not the original boundary (see JB's reliance post).
For instance, in NY a survey is presumed correct after 10 years on record and unchallenged. That means a challenge after that time must show clear and convincing evidence rather than being on equal footing with the other survey judging which has the preponderance of evidence. In addition after 10 years the original line might be superceded by reliance on the 10 year old survey under an equitable theory (so you might win on the survey by clear and convincing but still lose on the boundary after all that time). In other words, now is the time to do something or forget it.
> 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
24 feet long and the side line measures long and not an original monument and it is out in the water.???
We have a lot of lakes around here and home owners pound anything and everything into the ground to tie up boats/docks ect..
There is more evidence here to prove it is a tie down then to prove it is a property corner. Keep surveying additional properties both ways until you know!
Scott
> If I understand the original post correctly, the "76'+/-" is a dimension on a slightly curved or bent line meant to represent the approximate width of the lot at the edge of water.
I agree
>I'm assuming that any lot with water frontage was shown this way (+/-), and this isn't a case where the intention was to place all the excess or deficiency into the last lot, but maybe I'm wrong on that point.
I agree (I was only indicating an example of where ± might be used, I didn't mean this particular case....I think I only muddied our discussion with that example).
>By my thinking, and since the lot was surveyed and wood stake set, the "76'" probably was based on some calculation, or field measurement, made when the surveyor set the original wood stake.
Again, I agree.
>I'd say that expecting the measurement to be within a foot is reasonable, which may also be why he showed the dimension rounded to a foot.
>
Here is where we differ a bit. If this is along a waterfront, it could indeed fluxuate more than a foot. 76 is only a snapshot in time of a fluxuating waterfront. I would say that this would be a case of ± being used properly. If the scrivener, had been approximating along a curve that is kind of random and not precisely measurable, but thinks his measurement is within a foot, 76 without the ± would be used.
> To me, it seems like it would be easy to test this theory by locating the rear corners of a couple of lots in each direction. If the problem is on the order of 40', over 76', it should be easy to see if other lots vary significantly from their record water frontage width. If, for example, holding the rod in question makes my lot 40' too wide, and the neighbor's lot 40' too narrow (per the record), then I'd be of the opinion that the rod of unknown origin is not an accurate replacement of the missing wood stake.
I agree. I don't think we are prescribing to how to handle this particular case much differently. I am primarily disagreeing with you on how ± is properly used.
> 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
Agreed, but first he must determine if it is a survey monument or a "Goat Stake".
SJ
I don't think Mr. Stahl, is addressing whether or not that rod is the boundary rod (per se). I think the point is that you are looking at it from the wrong "angle". I agree with Larry: read and reread what Mr. Stahl wrote and try to understand what he is saying. The fact that you didn't, and still haven't, provided enough information to make a determination on where your boundary line lies, indicates that you need to learn a concept that several people hear have been trying to tell you.
Or that's my opinion anyway.