Rich,
Great post. I, like you, work in an area in which there are very few surveys recorded or available, creating a unique situation for a boundary surveyor, especially when any most of the boundaries and descriptions were done and prepared by non-surveyors (or if it was, by chance, a surveyor, there is no record of it, and probably no monuments - pipes, rebar, stakes, etc) were set.
We, as surveyors, were taught (properly) to follow the footsteps of the original surveyor. Often times it is pretty tough to do when there are no recorded or documented ÛÏfootstepsÛ or when the ÛÏoriginal surveyorÛ was not a surveyor at all (or is it?). When we face these circumstances, we were taught that we must follow the description in the deed. But, many of us were never taught how to properly interpret the description in a retracement situation (in fact, many of us were never taught how to properly recognize when we are actually doing retracement surveying), or when we are allowed to leave the deed and seek other evidence.
ÛÏI also have been taking a different approach to 'finding the lot' lately. Even though I have not fully lept into showing lots as they may actually lay on the ground (as in showing a square platted lot as not actually square etc) I have been taking a different look at 'seeing' how the lot might have been originally laid out on the land due to the evidence along the boundaries.Û
You are on the right track, but if I may, I would suggest a few things to think about. First, try not to think about surveying the parcel or lot. Each boundary/corner MUST stand on its own evidence. IÛªve found that retracing each boundary, not focusing on the entire lot/parcel, leads me to concentrate on the evidence of each boundary and corner. When you take this approach it is much easier to move onto showing the parcels as they actually were created on the ground instead of worrying about the picture on the plat and the exact mathematical relationships stated in the description. When doing so you will soon find that for many parcels, each boundary was created under different doctrines or rules of law, some may have been created via original undisturbed monuments, some may have been created via the common grantor doctrine, while others may have been created by estoppel, or agreement, or acquiescence, while others may be truly lost (proportion).
Second, try and remove the expressions ÛÏdeed lineÛ, ÛÏtitle lineÛ, and ÛÏplat lineÛ from your vocabulary. We have been brainwashed into thinking that these lines are based primarily on mathematics and measurements, and can actually be in a different location than the boundary line (one of the major downfalls of our profession, in my opinion). Instead, focus on what we should be doing as boundary surveyors ÛÒ finding the BOUNDARY lines, which, incidentally, you will find actually are the ÛÏdeedÛ, ÛÏtitleÛ, and ÛÏplatÛ lines.
Third, read all the case law and legal sources you can find, read Cooley over and over again, read LucasÛªs book as many times as necessary, and pay special attention to the educated and experienced surveyors posting on this site (too mention a few for example, Page, Karoly, and Stahl).
Fourth, put down the latest editions of Brown, Robillard, and Wilson.
Fifth, hang in there. Learning how to be a true boundary surveyor takes many years. You will often be confused and frustrated, and others may mock or impugn your efforts and surveys (pay no attention to the peanut gallery), but it is worth the time and effort to become a true professional.
Sixth, challenge and ask questions. Seek input from others, and research and verify the information on your own.
Best of luck.
Rich,
That made perfect sense. You are at a point in your learning that going from one familiar way of thinking, of putting faith in numbers, and going to the way that will serve you better in finding original boundary locations, recognizing and evaluating the broader array of evidence (deeds, maps, historical, unfiled survey notes, physical, parol, etc.) is probably the most uncomfortable.
You know that the laws of math work the same every time. You plug in certain numbers and will get the same answer every time. The result is either right or wrong. No grey area or abstract fuzziness of this pile of evidence pointing here being just a little bit more convincing than that pile of evidence pointing there... maybe, unless this piece of evidence is more or less significant than I think it is or... and so on.
You also know that if another surveyor comes along within the next couple of years and uses whatever modern equipment is currently available and uses it properly, that between any two identifiable points of your survey, your measurement and theirs will agree reasonably closely. Maybe a difference of a hundredth or two here, possibly up to a tenth or so there, but nothing alarming.
But...
You've also now learned enough that you know that following the measurements alone is not the correct way to show the location of existing boundaries. Sure, there are some instances where measuring out the deed dimensions will put you substantially at the same location as a thorough analysis of all available evidence will, or where other reliable evidence is so lacking that the dimensions is all you have to go by. But by adhering to a practice standard that has you always following the dimensions (except where you find a monument expressly called for in the deed - that's an easy rule to follow), unless you have other solid evidence to support that location, you will be setting a corner where one never existed before. Many times you will be moving a boundary from a location it had existed in for many years, the location intended by the original parties but inadequately described by faulty measurements, to a point where it appears it was supposed to be if one assumes that the dimensions cited in the deed were based on very careful measurements made with equipment and methods equally accurate, precise, and reliable as those available to you today.
Even though you know these things, you still have all these terms bouncing around in your head that you are just learning the actual meanings of... acquiescence, agreed boundary, practical location, prescription... but don't yet feel that you have a solid grasp of all these legal doctrines. You run across a situation where the dimensions say the corner should be here, but you have a bunch of evidence that tells you it was almost certainly established and intended to be there. Your common sense and the amount of recent studying of boundary cases you've done says follow the evidence (at least you think the cases are telling you that, and you think you've properly identified the relevant evidence). But you also don't feel that you can effectively articulate why the evidence is more certain than the measurements in terms of what legal doctrine might be most applicable.
Maybe I can help you get through this uncomfortable period faster than I did. Realize that boundary principles are based on experience of several hundred, if not several thousand years of human interaction with respect to land holdings. By definition, they are common sense. If you assume that the original parties who established the boundary, or caused it to be established and then accepted that location were reasonable people, and then imagine yourself in their place as you interpret a map or description in light of what you've found and possibly what you've been told about the conditions then or since then, it becomes a lot easier to explain how an established boundary came to be where it is, and to make a reasonable determination as to whether the location currently on the ground was something those original parties did or reasonably would have intended to mark or define the boundary.
Make that conclusion based upon the facts you've been able to find and by applying common sense as to how ordinary people (ordinary landowners) would have been involved or would have interpreted those facts relative to their common boundaries. After you've found the boundary by such a process, then you, or your client's attorney if it becomes necessary, can later figure out which particular doctrine describes that set of facts and circumstances that you've been able to determine exist or occurred. Don't get hung up on trying to identify a legal doctrine and then attempting to shoehorn the facts in to see if they support the doctrine. That's a backwards process that will drive you nuts and give you ulcers before you are thoroughly familiar with all those doctrines.
This is just what I wish someone had explained to me many years ago as it would have saved me a lot of needless worry. I hope you find it helpful.
Brian Allen, post: 363821, member: 1333 wrote: Each boundary/corner MUST stand on its own evidence. IÛªve found that retracing each boundary, not focusing on the entire lot/parcel, leads me to concentrate on the evidence of each boundary and corner.
This is the key right there.
Art,
Thanks for your description of the situation where one survey exists on one side of the 16th and a later on the other side. That clarifies your previous comment for me considerably.
In a case as you described, it may be that the monuments placed in the old town subdivision on north side of the 16th line, although placed incorrectly, if they've been accepted and relied upon by most everyone in that area and there's very little to nothing up there to indicate the true original locations, now control the boundary locations in that portion of the old town.
Meanwhile on the south side of the 16th line, sufficient evidence still exists of the original lot line locations to reasonably re-establish those locations, and that evidence control the boundaries south of the 16th. I've rarely seen circumstances where the scale of a subsequent survey controlling the lot locations in an entire significant portion of an older original plat, while an older survey or even still existing evidence of the original townsite or subdivision survey would control elsewhere, but have seen similar situations on a smaller scale from time to time.
In those types of situations, I agree that it would not be proper to mix the surveys to control a particular lot. Where you can see that the surveys are that discrepant yet for some reason still control the boundaries within the limits of each survey, then you account for and contain the effect of errors to the locations they occurred. Trying to spread the effect of the error to make otherwise incompatible surveys harmonize through an artificial transition is entirely wrong.
If a road passes through both and by holding the points of each to control only what's within each survey, it causes an abrupt jog in the RW, oh well. So be it. That doesn't mean that the engineer needs to design a jog in the physical road/travel way. He only needs to ensure that it remains within the RW.
Boundaries are created by people. People are subject to making mistakes. Unless a boundary is clearly identified to follow some natural or other pre-existing physical feature, placing that boundary on the ground from a description, or describing it after setting stakes but not mentioning those stakes, is a situation asking for mistakes to enter. Sometimes, like the situation you described, those mistakes can be forevermore reflected in the locations of established boundaries or incorrectly reflected in imperfect descriptions and recently performed surveys improperly interpreting those poor descriptions.
Normally, what Brian Allen writes is exactly in line with my thinking, but I'll differ with him slightly here and say, if you use the latest editions of Brown/Robillard/Wilson, do so with great care and apply only after comparing to the state of the law in your own jurisdiction. Refer to the older editions if you have them. And don't look at any one particular section or chapter as fully answering the topic it professes to address. Other sections of other chapters may appear to contradict the section/chapter you are looking at, and the contradictory sections should be looked at closely for context. Often, what appears to be said in a section can be interpreted in a different way when taken in a context that allows the contradictory sections to agree. But in several instances, the advice given may be entirely misleading and wrong for application in your jurisdiction.
Don Wilson has put out a couple of excellent references on his own (also published by Wylie) that I highly recommend. One of my favorite survey references to date is Forensic Procedures by Wilson. It correctly describes the boundary survey process as one of investigation. He draws comparisons to criminal investigations and the procedures utilized in them. The goal is much the same if you look at the establishment of the boundary as an act that occurred at some time in the past, just as a crime is an act that occurred at some time in the past. You are trying to learn what the circumstances under which that act occurred were, and how the act was performed. When you've answered those questions, you've solved the problem. for the criminal investigator it's "who committed the crime" and support for the answer to that being the answers of "where, when, how, and why they committed the crime".
The evidence is different, but much of the investigative processes the same for locating boundaries. For us, the central question is "where did the act (boundary establishment) occur?", and the supporting info comes from the answers to "who, when, why, and how did the act occur?".
The other one by Wilson that I have and recommend is Interpreting Land Records. In it he describes the types of records to consider, various co0nventional and unconventional sources for records, and then interpreting those records with the goal of determining the true meanings of words & phrases to find what the original parties intended to describe rather than simply what they appeared to describe and assuming that it accurately reflects the intent they held. It's a deeper treatment of the investigative process of the documentary (and map) evidence.
Hey Evan,
You do know he said "put down the latest editions of Brown, Robillard, and Wilson." or am I misunderstanding your post?
eapls2708, post: 363834, member: 589 wrote: Normally, what Brian Allen writes is exactly in line with my thinking, but I'll differ with him slightly here and say, if you use the latest editions of Brown/Robillard/Wilson, do so with great care and apply only after comparing to the state of the law in your own jurisdiction. Refer to the older editions if you have them. And don't look at any one particular section or chapter as fully answering the topic it professes to address. Other sections of other chapters may appear to contradict the section/chapter you are looking at, and the contradictory sections should be looked at closely for context. Often, what appears to be said in a section can be interpreted in a different way when taken in a context that allows the contradictory sections to agree. But in several instances, the advice given may be entirely misleading and wrong for application in your jurisdiction.
Don Wilson has put out a couple of excellent references on his own (also published by Wylie) that I highly recommend. One of my favorite survey references to date is Forensic Procedures by Wilson. It correctly describes the boundary survey process as one of investigation. He draws comparisons to criminal investigations and the procedures utilized in them. The goal is much the same if you look at the establishment of the boundary as an act that occurred at some time in the past, just as a crime is an act that occurred at some time in the past. You are trying to learn what the circumstances under which that act occurred were, and how the act was performed. When you've answered those questions, you've solved the problem. for the criminal investigator it's "who committed the crime" and support for the answer to that being the answers of "where, when, how, and why they committed the crime".
The evidence is different, but much of the investigative processes the same for locating boundaries. For us, the central question is "where did the act (boundary establishment) occur?", and the supporting info comes from the answers to "who, when, why, and how did the act occur?".
The other one by Wilson that I have and recommend is Interpreting Land Records. In it he describes the types of records to consider, various co0nventional and unconventional sources for records, and then interpreting those records with the goal of determining the true meanings of words & phrases to find what the original parties intended to describe rather than simply what they appeared to describe and assuming that it accurately reflects the intent they held. It's a deeper treatment of the investigative process of the documentary (and map) evidence.
Investigation, Schminvestigation...I like to make a grid out of steel bars which is a 1:1 scale of the Plat then get a fleet of helicopters and have them fly the "Plat" into the area and slowly drop it down, make the steel bars red hot so that they cut right through encroaching structures, fences, sheds, barns, cows, horses, chicken coops, and so on. That is the best way I have found to "fix it."
eapls2708
The 1/16th line is not on a road. The old town on the south was just dead end streets, stopping at that line.
Also, the old town is a senior subdivision.
I don't know what or if anyone did more after the survey I worked on. The surveyor I worked for had a fit about the time I needed on it.
I do know that the draftsman did not put some of the key elements on the survey record. I was working for someone else on that project.
The surveyor I worked for didn't like my deep research approach on his surveys.
Tom Adams, post: 363841, member: 7285 wrote: Hey Evan,
You do know he said "put down the latest editions of Brown, Robillard, and Wilson." or am I misunderstanding your post?
Yeah Tom, and I don't completely disagree with that. If a surveyor isn't willing to read it with a critical eye and verify against the current state of law in one's own jurisdiction, they are better off leaving those books on the shelf because the way most people read those, they're more likely to interpret some general principle which is applicable to a limited set of basic circumstances in most jurisdictions (and which could be rendered inapplicable by any of several specific circumstances not discussed in the books) as hard & fast rules which are always applicable in all jurisdictions in any situation where that basic set of facts appears.
That's why I said "differ slightly", because I mostly agree with what he said, even in that particular statement. Read and apply them carefully, or put them down.
Art,
I wasn't necessarily interpreting your situation as having a road. I was recognizing that there may be instances where a survey of one time period may end up controlling a particular area, and another survey that doesn't fit the first one at all may end up controlling an adjacent area. The mention of what could happen if a road were to start in one of those areas and continue into the other was my addition (as a hypothetical) to illustrate that the different surveys might create a jog, but it is what it is. Once boundaries are settled in one area by the one survey and in the adjacent area by the adjacent survey, you can't just move them.
Dave Karoly, post: 363845, member: 94 wrote: Investigation, Schminvestigation...I like to make a grid out of steel bars which is a 1:1 scale of the Plat then get a fleet of helicopters and have them fly the "Plat" into the area and slowly drop it down, make the steel bars red hot so that they cut right through encroaching structures, fences, sheds, barns, cows, horses, chicken coops, and so on. That is the best way I have found to "fix it."
You must be one of them old codgers that won't get with the times. They got lasers for that now! Besides, since the boundaries are actually infinitely thin lines, the steel is way too wide. The next surveyor might disagree with the center of the land-brand by 0.04' and have to re-burn all the lines. A laser is much more precise for that.
eapls2708, post: 363862, member: 589 wrote: You must be one of them old codgers that won't get with the times. They got lasers for that now! Besides, since the boundaries are actually infinitely thin lines, the steel is way too wide. The next surveyor might disagree with the center of the land-brand by 0.04' and have to re-burn all the lines. A laser is much more precise for that.
Back then all we had was steel tapes and EDM's.
I lose money when I inherit a mess that has not been found for years.
Interesting thread. The wisdom here is greatly appreciated.
eapls2708, post: 363823, member: 589 wrote: Rich,
That made perfect sense. You are at a point in your learning that going from one familiar way of thinking, of putting faith in numbers, and going to the way that will serve you better in finding original boundary locations, recognizing and evaluating the broader array of evidence (deeds, maps, historical, unfiled survey notes, physical, parol, etc.) is probably the most uncomfortable.
You know that the laws of math work the same every time. You plug in certain numbers and will get the same answer every time. The result is either right or wrong. No grey area or abstract fuzziness of this pile of evidence pointing here being just a little bit more convincing than that pile of evidence pointing there... maybe, unless this piece of evidence is more or less significant than I think it is or... and so on.
You also know that if another surveyor comes along within the next couple of years and uses whatever modern equipment is currently available and uses it properly, that between any two identifiable points of your survey, your measurement and theirs will agree reasonably closely. Maybe a difference of a hundredth or two here, possibly up to a tenth or so there, but nothing alarming.
But...
You've also now learned enough that you know that following the measurements alone is not the correct way to show the location of existing boundaries. Sure, there are some instances where measuring out the deed dimensions will put you substantially at the same location as a thorough analysis of all available evidence will, or where other reliable evidence is so lacking that the dimensions is all you have to go by. But by adhering to a practice standard that has you always following the dimensions (except where you find a monument expressly called for in the deed - that's an easy rule to follow), unless you have other solid evidence to support that location, you will be setting a corner where one never existed before. Many times you will be moving a boundary from a location it had existed in for many years, the location intended by the original parties but inadequately described by faulty measurements, to a point where it appears it was supposed to be if one assumes that the dimensions cited in the deed were based on very careful measurements made with equipment and methods equally accurate, precise, and reliable as those available to you today.
Even though you know these things, you still have all these terms bouncing around in your head that you are just learning the actual meanings of... acquiescence, agreed boundary, practical location, prescription... but don't yet feel that you have a solid grasp of all these legal doctrines. You run across a situation where the dimensions say the corner should be here, but you have a bunch of evidence that tells you it was almost certainly established and intended to be there. Your common sense and the amount of recent studying of boundary cases you've done says follow the evidence (at least you think the cases are telling you that, and you think you've properly identified the relevant evidence). But you also don't feel that you can effectively articulate why the evidence is more certain than the measurements in terms of what legal doctrine might be most applicable.
Maybe I can help you get through this uncomfortable period faster than I did. Realize that boundary principles are based on experience of several hundred, if not several thousand years of human interaction with respect to land holdings. By definition, they are common sense. If you assume that the original parties who established the boundary, or caused it to be established and then accepted that location were reasonable people, and then imagine yourself in their place as you interpret a map or description in light of what you've found and possibly what you've been told about the conditions then or since then, it becomes a lot easier to explain how an established boundary came to be where it is, and to make a reasonable determination as to whether the location currently on the ground was something those original parties did or reasonably would have intended to mark or define the boundary.
Make that conclusion based upon the facts you've been able to find and by applying common sense as to how ordinary people (ordinary landowners) would have been involved or would have interpreted those facts relative to their common boundaries. After you've found the boundary by such a process, then you, or your client's attorney if it becomes necessary, can later figure out which particular doctrine describes that set of facts and circumstances that you've been able to determine exist or occurred. Don't get hung up on trying to identify a legal doctrine and then attempting to shoehorn the facts in to see if they support the doctrine. That's a backwards process that will drive you nuts and give you ulcers before you are thoroughly familiar with all those doctrines.
This is just what I wish someone had explained to me many years ago as it would have saved me a lot of needless worry. I hope you find it helpful.
Thank you for those tips. That makes sense as I had been walking around properties lately looking at hedges, etc. Saying in my head "that's the boundary" and thinking of the proper doctrine that can assist in proving so if the occupation wasn't to fit the current description. (Not necessarily a clients property, I seem to do this daily while driving, or walking down the sidewalk)
I'm fairly good along subdivision outskirts where you see an old wall and the subdivision map doesn't refer to a wall, but by the breaks and jogs it's easy to tell it was meant to follow the wall. That I can kind of SEE the intent.
I am very weary inside of subdivisions which are simultaneous conveyances but have no interior lot monumentation. Maybe there are two 'lots' with a house on each with no apparent boundary at all between.... or a new fence... I start to wonder if that would set the boundary bc it is accepted by each neighbor and not in dispute, even though it is new.
I also get weary bc what is the fence is just a fence. And was not in the spot originally put in the soil. Yes, as stated above it can fix the boundary by other methods, but wouldn't you then be just doing a survey by only measuring and showing what is in possession? I have seen surveys with a note that says "surveyed as is possession"
I do understand most of these answers would possibly differ slightly state to state and that most of the above situations resolution would come with experience.
eapls2708, post: 363834, member: 589 wrote: Normally, what Brian Allen writes is exactly in line with my thinking, but I'll differ with him slightly here and say, if you use the latest editions of Brown/Robillard/Wilson, do so with great care and apply only after comparing to the state of the law in your own jurisdiction. Refer to the older editions if you have them. And don't look at any one particular section or chapter as fully answering the topic it professes to address. Other sections of other chapters may appear to contradict the section/chapter you are looking at, and the contradictory sections should be looked at closely for context. Often, what appears to be said in a section can be interpreted in a different way when taken in a context that allows the contradictory sections to agree. But in several instances, the advice given may be entirely misleading and wrong for application in your jurisdiction.
Don Wilson has put out a couple of excellent references on his own (also published by Wylie) that I highly recommend. One of my favorite survey references to date is Forensic Procedures by Wilson. It correctly describes the boundary survey process as one of investigation. He draws comparisons to criminal investigations and the procedures utilized in them. The goal is much the same if you look at the establishment of the boundary as an act that occurred at some time in the past, just as a crime is an act that occurred at some time in the past. You are trying to learn what the circumstances under which that act occurred were, and how the act was performed. When you've answered those questions, you've solved the problem. for the criminal investigator it's "who committed the crime" and support for the answer to that being the answers of "where, when, how, and why they committed the crime".
The evidence is different, but much of the investigative processes the same for locating boundaries. For us, the central question is "where did the act (boundary establishment) occur?", and the supporting info comes from the answers to "who, when, why, and how did the act occur?".
The other one by Wilson that I have and recommend is Interpreting Land Records. In it he describes the types of records to consider, various co0nventional and unconventional sources for records, and then interpreting those records with the goal of determining the true meanings of words & phrases to find what the original parties intended to describe rather than simply what they appeared to describe and assuming that it accurately reflects the intent they held. It's a deeper treatment of the investigative process of the documentary (and map) evidence.
Good advise. I will pick up those books.
You wouldn't know it, but I used to joke that 'I couldn't read' I hated reading in school. Now that I'm reading things I like to read, I've been a reading demon.
As far as interpreting the written intention of the deed.... ugh.... such a lost art. Most attorneys want to bill hours so they tell the client they will do it, while I cringe. All they do is slop numbers.
That's one thing I at least like that I do, I try to write a very descriptive description. I wrote one the other day where a parcel was split right along a building line between two touching buildings. I wrote a good description that described 'along the northeasterly face of the brick building on the parcel being described....' and gave it to the client. Then the email chain started about the title company asking the attorney to write a description from the survey. I hopped right in there and told them one had been written before it was too late.
Here's a good one about a non-surveyor "professional" (a title officer rather than an attorney, but they're equally qualified to completely screw up a description) not including the information in the description to properly reflect the grantors' intent, and then a surveyor not making any inquiries as to the intent even though there was evidence on the ground. In the end, the court was able to determine what the intent was from readily available evidence and the intent prevailed.
Actually, I can't figure out how to attach a file, so go here: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9838671674893083713&q=%2Bgoldsmith+%2Boregon+%2Beidman&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&apos ;">Eidman v. Goldsmith
I forgot to add that I didn't just use monuments in the old town to prove the 1/16th corner was wrong. I used some monuments of parcels to the north of the 1/16th and did the same in the section east of the section my work was in. They all fit the north end of the town.
I'm going to check and see if I already have those Wilson books. If I don't I am sure I will get them. Thanks
eapls2708, post: 363886, member: 589 wrote: Here's a good one about a non-surveyor "professional" (a title officer rather than an attorney, but they're equally qualified to completely screw up a description) not including the information in the description to properly reflect the grantors' intent, and then a surveyor not making any inquiries as to the intent even though there was evidence on the ground. In the end, the court was able to determine what the intent was from readily available evidence and the intent prevailed.
Actually, I can't figure out how to attach a file, so go here: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9838671674893083713&q=%2Bgoldsmith+%2Boregon+%2Beidman&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&apos ;">Eidman v. Goldsmith
Thanks Evan.
That case is a great example of the landowners being failed. First by the title personnel. Using your common sense rational, the dividing landowners used common sense by asking the title company (reasonably believed by the average person to be experts in writing deeds) to write the descriptions and deeds for the sales of the properties. Yes, they should have hired a surveyor, but how many people think that all we do is measure property?
"Heck, it ain't that hard, grab the hunrt foot tape Edith, we're gonna go survey our property and then we'll take them thar measurements down to the title company & ole Joe will prepare some of those quick claim deeds". Hey, it happens all time doesn't it?
But where they were really failed was by our profession. How more prudent could the buyer (plaintiff) be? She hired a licensed professional to find the boundaries of the property she bought at auction. Predictably, the "surveyor" grabbed the deeds, and run out and slapped the math on the ground, climbed over fences to set irons in the ground, filed the "plaque" at the courthouse and told the client "Hey, your neighbors are using some of your property!" As I have heard JB say, "he pulled the pin on the hand grenade, handed it to the client, run to town and cashed his $400 check." Yep, money well earned!
Would these landowners have saved (combined) probably near $100,000 and years of battling each other if the "surveyor" would have performed a proper boundary survey? How much more would effort would it take, after finding the ambiguities, to conduct a few interviews and find the true intent of the deeds? Maybe another $200?
What a bargain for the landowners!!! They would saved tens of thousands of dollars and years of heartache!!!
What a bargain for the land surveyor!!! He would have found the true intent, prevented another lawsuit, made a little more money, but more importantly he would have actually performed a professional service that would have elevated our image as a profession, not given us another black eye!!
What a bargain for the lawyers!! Well, maybe not.
As for the importance of learning the laws of the states you practice in, compare the basis of the decision in this Oregon case to similar Idaho cases - Reid v Duzet, 94 P.3d 694 (2004) and Campbell v Weisbrod, 245 P.2d 1052 (1952). I believe the Idaho courts properly would have rejected the boundary by agreement argument in favor of "Where the seller and the buyer go upon the land and there agree upon and mark the boundary between the part to be conveyed and the part to be retained by the seller, the line thus fixed controls the courses and distances set out in the deed executed to effectuate the division agreed upon."
One of my favorite Judicial writers is California Supreme Court Justice Lucien Shaw who served in the first few decades of the twentieth century. He wrote the landmark 1908 Young decision among others. He employed a lot of common sense in boundary location opinions, he seemed to understand surveys and surveyors. Unfortunately his common sense approach has been somewhat undermined by recent Judicial decisions but his reasoning is still very valid. An interesting thing in his biography is he went to a one year law school right out of high school. He was also a renowned California water rights expert.