The industry standard has been determined to be between 0.04 and 400 on the message boards. Now that we know the rebar falls within that range we need to find out if it marks the boundary
Who owns the lake? Do they own to the high water line? Tying in supporting local evidence is something that should have been done already as well as checking the deed documents around the tract of interest.
jud
Can I please
Have the legal definition of the term 'squat'?...lol You like my pop JB, to funny.
Can I please
> Have the legal definition of the term 'squat'?...lol
Squat. The abbreviated form of "squat diddly," or "diddly squat." Also referred to some as "doodly squat." A quick search of the term reveals its origin ...
;o)
JBS
> 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.
>
An "original pin" by definition has been relied upon. The reason an original pin controls isn't by some divine blessing; it controls because it was 1) intended to control, 2) represented to the buyer as controlling, and 3) relied upon by the buyer to mark the newly created (by the proper conveyance of the land) boundary.
While the fence corner may have been relied upon as marking the location of the property side line, the boundary would naturally fall in the middle of the road where you would likely not find a fence post (or any other evidence of occupation).
> 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.
>
Absolutely agreed, Nate. I'd add that representation and reliance can also make a perfectly valid original monument into a lousy goat stake. When knowledge of the original monument is lost and other evidence is mistakenly represented or relied upon as marking the boundary, it may be found to ultimately establish the boundary location.
> 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.
>
Be careful with that one. Just because it's the original GLO monument, doesn't mean that it still controls the location of the boundary as established under the law. The establishment doctrines of written, oral and implied agreement, estoppel and practical location can turn that GLO stone into a boat anchor.
> Facts are facts. Truth is truth. And, we are evidence gatherers, and USERS.
>
Agreed. There's the GLO stone; there's surveyor A's pipe; there's surveyor B's rebar next to C's, D's and E's. There's where the distance falls coming from one way; there's where it falls coming from the other. There's the new fence; there's the remnants of the old fence. Here's what White's deed says; Here's what Black's deed says. Here's what White was told; is it the same or different than what Black was told. Those are all facts that provide vital clues for determining the boundary location. The real task at hand - where is the boundary? Only the appropriate rule of law for the given fact set will answer the question. Only a surveyor can apply those rules to the facts and determine the location of the boundary.
JBS
Thanks JB for your well thought reply. I held the REAL GLO corner, but in writing descriptions, I commenced at the REAL corner, then went to the reliance cor, and went around the property. I treated it as BETTER evidence of what was real, but did not mess up the title!
🙂
N
A favorite Flight Instructor answer to the question, "How much do I pull back in the flare" is "just the right amount!"
So you are saying if it is 80'+- it should be treated as +-10' but 79' or 81' should be treated as +-1'? Your logic escapes me. I would treat any whole number as +-1'.
> So you are saying if it is 80'+- it should be treated as +-10' but 79' or 81' should be treated as +-1'? Your logic escapes me. I would treat any whole number as +-1'.
Well, technically, per the rules of significant figures, 71'-79' is +/- 0.5 feet. 70' or 80' is +/- 5 feet. The ending zero is not automatically considered significant. I think that's a good rule of thumb to use when trying to figure out what the +/- means in the context of an old plat. But as said before, surveyors of the past may not have been all that "up" on their significant rules. I'd start by assuming that a +/- dimension that ends with a non-zero number is within a foot, where as I'd be more skeptical of a +/- distance that ends with a zero.
Of course, my initial assumptions can and probably will change after doing some field work and getting a feel for how accurate the +/- distance are. They could be 0.5' or they could be 40'.
:good:
Since surveyors measure feet, I would not apply the significant zero rule to those measurements. I would also not say that it means +- 0.5' either, you are measuring feet so it is +- a whole foot. Of course +- can be greater if you are measuring to something that moves or is not determinable exactly, like a center line of stream or shoreline.
From the info you've given so far, the rebar seems to be the proverbial "goat stake", or in this case, dock stake.
What evidence did the surveyor indicate as supporting acceptance of the rebar? If it was simply that it is an object commonly used by surveyors for marking corners, then I'd disagree with his holding it. Lacking other corroborative evidence, it would seem that dimensions from the deed would be better evidence of the original lines.
What other physical evidence is there of the property line?
As others have said, too few facts given to say one way or the other with much conviction. Can you post the description, post the surveyor's reasoning and evidence relied on in support of the rebar, and a description of other factors (descriptions of adjoining property, locations and ages of fences and other improvements, etc.)?
As JBS said, the monument means little by itself, the distances mean little by themselves, but seen in the context of the entire body of evidence, a picture of where the original boundary was established begins to emerge, and each of those pieces of evidence when weighed with others will determine the preponderance of evidence in support of or contrary to the corner at the rebar.