Highlights:
Sometime after March 2004, Appellants retained Greg Hasty, a licensed Missouri land surveyor, to perform a boundary survey of the Adamson property. ? His survey locates and identifies the “existing pipe” used as the point of commencement in the legal descriptions of the recorded deeds on the Adamson property and the Innovative property, but does not utilize it as his commencement point. ? Hasty did not use the “existing pipe” to commence his survey because the Adamson and the Innovative deeds also referenced this “existing pipe” as marking the northwest corner of the north half of government lot 1 of the southwest quarter of section 19, township 38 north, range 16 west, which corner Hasty determined to actually be located approximately 16.95 feet east and 35.23 feet north of the “existing pipe.” ? Therefore, Hasty utilized this corner as his point of commencement instead of the “existing pipe.” ? This change in the point of commencement places the boundary between the Adamson property and the Innovative property in the Hasty Survey approximately fifteen feet east of the location of the boundary as established by the Arnold description of the property and as shown on the Arnold survey. ?
Arnold is a land surveyor, licensed by the Missouri Division of Professional Registration, and conducts his business within Camden County. ? In either late February or early March 1998, Arnold agreed to and did provide Appellants with the Arnold survey of the Adamson property. ? After Appellants' easement was extinguished by Case 2, Appellants contacted a second surveyor, Hasty. ? The two surveys, as previously discussed, indicated different boundary lines, with Hasty's being more favorable to Appellants' desire to gain access to the back of their property on the east side of the Super Lube building. ? After receiving Hasty's survey, Appellants filed this action against Arnold contending that Arnold was negligent in surveying the Adamson property and that they were damaged as a direct result of that negligence.
Appellants alleged that the Arnold survey was negligently prepared, in that it did not comply with the Missouri Minimum Standards for Property Boundary Surveys and it “inaccurately described” the common boundary line between Appellants and Innovative.
Hasty testified that Arnold failed to meet the Minimum Standards in preparing his survey of the Adamson property and that, had he done so, the common boundary line would have shifted. ? Specifically, Hasty testified that the existing pipe was not located on the government lot line and was not a monument properly tied to a government corner. ?
Before Arnold surveyed the property for the Adamson purchase at issue in this case, he examined various deeds in the chain of title, deeds of adjoining properties, Missouri Department of Natural Resources records, and other surveys that had been made in the general area. ? Numerous deeds in the chain of title of the Adamson property specifically reference the “existing pipe” which is the beginning point in the description of the Adamson property and the Innovative property. ? All of the descriptions contained in the various deeds of record, including deeds of adjoining properties, trace back to the same point where this “existing pipe” was located. ? The location of this pipe had also become referred to as the Northwest corner of the North half of Government Lot #?1. ? Arnold testified that, in his professional opinion, based on the information he researched and the work he performed, the “existing pipe” referred to in the chain of title for the Adamson property was the existing government corner at the time he conducted his survey.
The trial court determined that Arnold acted in a reasonable manner under the circumstances and did not breach any duty to Appellants. ? We agree. ? Arnold's survey utilized existing physical monuments to locate the boundaries and corners of the Adamson Property as described in the deed of title. ? See generally Ollison v. Village of Climax Springs, 916 S.W.2d 198, 206 (Mo. banc 1996) (“t is one of the settled rules of the law of boundaries that calls for courses and distances, quantity, etc., will, in case of a conflict, be controlled by, and yield to, one for a natural object or landmark or permanent artificial monument.”). ? The trial court had before it the various deeds and the testimony submitted by the parties concerning the Adamson property and found that while it is now known that the “existing pipe” was not the actual government corner, there was overwhelming evidence in the chain of record title that the point where the “existing pipe” was located was recognized as the “government corner” in many prior surveys and deeds. ? Hasty was the only witness who asserted Arnold breached a duty to Appellants. ? The trial court, however, found Hasty's testimony lacked credibility as he himself had surveyed the same property in 1987 using the “existing pipe” as his commencement point and had come up with results that were nearly identical to those of Arnold. ? Indeed, Arnold testified that his first survey of this property in 1992 was essentially a retracing of the legal description developed by Hasty for the property as located by Hasty's placement of iron pins in relation to the “existing pipe” in his 1987 survey. ? Based on this evidence, the trial court concluded it was not unreasonable for Arnold to have believed, in his professional judgment, that the “existing pipe” from which he commenced his survey was the proper commencement point for a survey of the Adamson property and that Arnold's use of the “existing pipe” as a commencing point for his survey was not a breach of any duty Arnold owed Appellants under the Minimum Standards or Missouri law. ? Based upon the trial court's determination that Hasty's testimony lacked credibility, a determination to which we are obligated to defer, Appellants simply failed to carry their burden of proving that Arnold breached any duty that he may have owed Appellants. ? Appellants' point four is denied.9
Once again, the almost uncontrollable need for surveyors to continually "breakdown" sections again and again and again according to chapter 3 of the Manual goes down in flames.
When will we start listening to the courts and finally learn that the God of mathematics and measurements is a false God in the profession of boundary surveying???????
What I find most intriguing is that Hasty surveyed the property in 1987, utilizing the "existing pipe" and then, sometime after 2004, surveys the same property again and disagrees with his 1987 survey. While I can see the utility in learning from our mistakes, surely Hasty should have considered the ramifications of the court learning that Hasty couldn't even agree with himself.
That had to be egg on the prosecuting attorney's face when that fact came to light, I would think.
Instead of flaming Hasty perhaps its more appropriate to study why he changed his opinion of what minimum standards require after his first survey. Perhaps this is what surveyors are being spoon fed. I don't know this to be true in his case but its a possible explanation.
What Is The Point ?
The Court accepted a property corner as a property corner. That is to be expected.
The Court did not recognize the property corner as an aliquot corner. Again that is to be expected.
The property corner was not incorrectly located, since it bounds the property.
The property itself is what was originally located incorrectly. It does appear that the property corner was incorrectly referenced over the years as something it was not.
Paul in PA
I don't necessarily consider it a flame. But it certainly wouldn't, in my opinion, have helped the plaintiffs case.
Alan
No you didn't flame Hasty. I was anticipating more responses going down that road. I assume Hasty knew full well of his earlier survey and intentionally did not accept the iron pipe as the corner the second time around.
What Is The Point ?
The location of this pipe had also become referred to as the Northwest corner of the North half of Government Lot #?1. ? Arnold testified that, in his professional opinion, based on the information he researched and the work he performed, the “existing pipe” referred to in the chain of title for the Adamson property was the existing government corner at the time he conducted his survey.The trial court determined that Arnold acted in a reasonable manner under the circumstances and did not breach any duty to Appellants. ? We agree.
Not knowing Hasty, I assumed him to be of the ilk of an old, departed friend of mine, who I dearly loved, and who once famously said: "That friggin' Section 6 over by Moke Hill, it's got five center of sections! And two of 'em are mine!"
Don
What Is The Point ?
But at the core of this issue was the question, did Arnold fail to meet the minimum technical standards and did Arnold act outside the bounds that a reasonable and prudent professional would have? In other words, did reliance on the "existing pipe" violate those standards? Since Hasty himself had already relied upon the "existing pipe" I don't think the court had any choice but to question Hasty's credibility.
Whether or not the pipe did indeed represent the corner it should have seemed to be the least of the considerations.
What Is The Point ?
The trial court got the holding the monument part but they still didn't get the big picture. That being the Monument is what is was reported to be. The trial court can't have it both ways but they try just like many surveyors. The trial court had before it the various deeds and the testimony submitted by the parties concerning the Adamson property and found that while it is now known that the “existing pipe” was not the actual government corner, there was overwhelming evidence in the chain of record title that the point where the “existing pipe” was located was recognized as the “government corner” in many prior surveys and deeds. Now known?? No siree. The overwhelming evidence that reconizes the corner as the government corner makes it the government corner. Government corners, once established don't move and they can't now know an alternate location. Why is this concept so hard to understand? It's ironic that the surveyor that was vindicated was named Arnold. (Dykes v Arnold)
> Once again, the almost uncontrollable need for surveyors to continually "breakdown" sections again and again and again according to chapter 3 of the Manual goes down in flames.
>
> When will we start listening to the courts and finally learn that the God of mathematics and measurements is a false God in the profession of boundary surveying???????
:good:
The two surveys, as previously discussed, indicated different boundary lines, with Hasty's being more favorable to Appellants' desire to gain access to the back of their property on the east side of the Super Lube building.
The trial court, however, found Hasty's testimony lacked credibility as he himself had surveyed the same property in 1987 using the “existing pipe” as his commencement point and had come up with results that were nearly identical to those of Arnold.
This certainly leaves the impression that the surveyor was looking for a solution that favored his client. Maybe the GIS, etc was mapped according to the mathematical section breakdown? Who knows.
I beleive the westerly red line is the disputed line.
Incorrectly located monument overturned in appellate ct.
it happened in maryland, as well.
make sure you 'hold' the called for marker, not necessarily the one your client tells you is the POB
