Narrative:
This boundary survey was done at the request of XX, the landowner and grantee by a quitclaim deed recorded at entry XXXXX, Book XXX, at Page XX, Sanpete County, Utah, Official Records.
This is a survey of the following described parcel:
Beginning West 5 chains, South 20 chains and West 15 chains from
the Northeast Corner of the Southeast Quarter of Section 10,
Township XX South, Range X East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian;
thence North 8 rods, thence East 12 rods, thence South 8 rods,
thence West 12 rods to the point of Beginning.
This parcel can be traced back to the original creation in 1920 reflected at Book XX, Page XXX, Entry No. XXXXX. As was the custom land descriptions assumed sections were 80 chains along all sides and all directions were cardinal. So the apparent intent of the description is a 8 rod by 12 rod rectangle with its beginning point being at the southwest corner of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 10. The original section monuments have long been gone but there remains much physical evidence of where the original lines were placed. The best evidence in my opinion is the fences pointing into the center of the southeast quarter of Section 10. There is a very old established fence at various positions in the east west direction. There is a fence from the south along the east side of the old road to Spring City. Also found was a east/west fence very near to 8 rods north of the quarter-quarter line fence corresponding the to the north boundary of the subject parcel. The adjoining landowners to this parcel were all contacted and indicated that these fences are the long established boundaries to their land and that they didn't want them disturbed by a modern resurvey and breakdown of the section.
There has been a large dependent resurvey done and filed by a private land surveyor covering this area. In my opinion this survey has not been properly done and was done without the authorization of the landowners in the area. This survey seems to accept a few corners in the area as being original but gives no evidence of their originality. Then the survey proceeds to proportion in the remaining corners from long distances as if the lines are lost. There is a great deal of physical evidence and deed records that should have been used to complete such a resurvey if it was authorized by the landowners affected. There is no indication that this evidence was even considered much less that it was rejected after it was evaluated. The use of this resurvey to breakdown the section and therefore lay down completely new lines of all parcels would be a violation of these landowners established rights. I have rejected this resurvey as a basis to locate the boundaries of the parcel where it was originally located. I have used two to the resurvey corners as tie out points for the parcel as these corners are in the record with substantial monuments on the ground.
I set 5/8 inch rebar with 2-1/2 inch diameter aluminum caps at the four corners of the parcel. The marker at the northeast corner had to be drilled into a large sandstone just under the surface of the ground. The resulting measurements and tie outs are shown on the map. A green with white top steel tee post was set within a foot of each corner marker.
Note on POB Tie:
Measured - N45 16'14"E 1882.38Ft.
Record - West 5 chains, South 20 chains and West 15 chains from
the Northeast Corner of the Southeast Quarter of Section XX,
Township XX South, Range X East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian
Note: It's obvious that the record is not derived from measurement
or a survey at the time of parcel creation but rather from
coordinate math assuming perfect Sections. Perfect Sections don't
exist and are particularly not the case in the Sanpete Valley. The
parcel Point of Beginning was located from physical evidence of
occupation found on the ground.
There is a lot to like there. I would have called out the "dependent resurvey" by surveyor name, date, and recording reference, and I would have substituted "in my opinion" for "it is obvious", but, other than that, I approve.
I like the sentiments a lot.
But I feel that they don't belong on the face of a survey. It is way too long and the tone is not right. On the whole it belies trouble in the ranks. Which of course, there is, but these battles should not be fought in public.
I feel it falls short of professional.
Stephen
WOW!!! All I can say is "great job". That, and if this had taken place in Idaho, the surveyor who wrote this and apparently correctly performed a resurvey, would be hauled in front of our licensing board and severely disciplined. Our board has unilaterally declared that in order to accept any monument not set in "good faith prior to 1903, or without evidence of a prior survey by a licensed surveyor, is inappropriate".
So what's the deal about 1903 in Idaho? Is that the year they started licensing surveyors? Has every parcel created in Idaho since 1903 been required to have a survey by a licensed surveyor and a filed public record? What do you do when there isn't any previous survey by a licensed surveyor and there is nothing to accept at the corner?
Wouldn't the board need to prove the surveyor got the boundary wrong? Wouldn't the decision be subject to judicial review where the court would need to determine the surveyor got the boundary wrong to uphold the discipline? Sounds like this fella better stay out of Idaho!
Seems like an unauthorized dependent survey of about 20 sections of private land in a long developed area might get a surveyor in front of the board in Idaho also. Might as well call em all in and serve refreshments.
Leon:
I assume that is your work. Here are some suggestions for improvement:
> This parcel can be traced back to the original creation in 1920 reflected at Book XX, Page XXX, Entry No. XXXXX.
Better: the subject parcel was created in 1920 by the conveyance recorded in ...
>As was the custom land descriptions assumed sections were 80 chains along all sides and all directions were cardinal.
Better: Abstracting of conveyances in Section _____ recorded in [give references] indicates that the early subdivisions in Section ____ were described in a manner consistent with the belief that the section was 80 chains on all sides and that all sides ran exactly North, South, East, or West.
>So the apparent intent of the description is a 8 rod by 12 rod rectangle with its beginning point being at the southwest corner of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 10.
Better: In my opinion, the location of the parcel described was intended to be fixed upon the ground with the Point of Beginning at the Southwest corner of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 10.
>The original section monuments have long been gone but there remains much physical evidence of where the original lines were placed.
Better: I was unable to find any of the original section corner monuments and examination of public records did not reveal any record of any other surveyor having claimed since ______ to have recovered any of those original monuments.
> The best evidence in my opinion is the fences pointing into the center of the southeast quarter of Section 10.
Better: My opinion is that the following fences [describe fences and approximate date of construction] perpetuate the positions of the following boundary lines [describe lines with reference to record].
> There is a very old established fence at various positions in the east west direction.
Better: I found what appears to be a very old fence running generally East-West along [describe line}, but was unable to determine when it was constructed. Its appearance is consistent with fences I have seen in the area that are known to have been built between ______ and _________
>There is a fence from the south along the east side of the old road to Spring City.
Better: I found a fence in place along the east side of the old road to Spring City but cannot say with any certainty when it was built, by whom, or for what purpose.
>Also found was a east/west fence very near to 8 rods north of the quarter-quarter line fence corresponding the to the north boundary of the subject parcel.
Better : I found an East-West fence in place at a distance that varied between _____ rods and ______ rods North of the fence that I adopted as marking the 1/4 1/4 line.
>The adjoining landowners to this parcel were all contacted and indicated that these fences are the long established boundaries to their land and that they didn't want them disturbed by a modern resurvey and breakdown of the section.
Better: The adjoining landowners [give names and identities of lands claimed by them] drove my rods where they thought their corners were and I affixed an aluminum cap to the rods and determined their positions as set by the landowners.
Leon,
All excellent questions. In just a few minutes you have asked a bunch of relevent questions, ones that in over two years, many so called experts have failed to not only ask, but failed to answer. It's a long expensive story. At some point in the future we may be able to fully discuss it in public. For now, lets just say it is a huge cluster f......
Send an email if you are interested in hearing more.
You should take your narrative and save it in your files as a survey report. As to what to show on your map, try this:
Special Note:
In conducting a retracement survey of a parcel in Whatever Number Section, a large amount of old fences and other evidence of occupation lines was recovered and mapped. The positions of the lines that this evidence indicates vary significantly from the positions indicated in the deed and original survey maps and also vary from at least one recent dependant resurvey map. Consultation with the adjoining land owners indicates that the fences are generally running along the property boundary lines and have long been accepted as such. The surveyor has determined that the fences and other occupation evidence stand as marking the location of the property boundary lines and corners, despite not matching the dimensions shown on the deeds and plat maps. As a matter of real property law and sound land surveying practice, the fences as found are accepted as marking the property boundary lines and corners.
LRDay
Stephen
Kent:
You still crack me up.
:good:
I like the content in general of LRDay's narrative. But I like the idea of not calling out another surveyor's work and calling out opinions as opinions. Kent's wording to reflect that is very good in my opinion.
In the respect that calling out someone else's work as "wrong" I agree with Mr. Calder, but in the respect of having a narrative on the face of the survey plat, I disagree. The better you can explain what you did and why, the better for another surveyor to retrace your work and/or a court to see your logic.
Of course, it isn't clear if this is Leon's words or something he found.
I think I would reconsider all the editorial comments. Fine for a message board but I question how appropriate it is on a legal document. Just the facts. Also has the previous surveyor been advised of your findings?
Narrative:
This parcel can be traced back to the original creation in 1920 reflected at Book XX, Page XXX, Entry No. XXXXX. There is a very old established fence at various positions in the east west direction that was accepted as the best evidence of the south line of the subject parcel. There is a fence from the south along the east side of the old road to Spring City that was accepted as the best evidence of the west line of the subject parcel. There was an east/west fence at 8 rods north of the south fence of the subject parcel also accepted as best evidence. The adjoining landowners to this parcel all stated that these fences have been used as long established boundaries.
A previous survey accepted proportion as best evidence. The land owners of and adjacent to the subject parcel have not used that survey to establish their boundary lines.
Much better. Just state the evidence, the facts derived, and your opinion for each line in question. No need for the lengthy narrative (as tempting as it is).
JBS
> Much better. Just state the evidence, the facts derived, and your opinion for each line in question. No need for the lengthy narrative (as tempting as it is).
>
> JBS
That makes sense, but all I kept thinking of the parcels being suveyed in the future, and the surveyor of the future is hold two suveys in their hands...the dependant resurvey, and this one.
Without putting your opinion and judgment in the record, how will that future suveyor know the why? (And I don't think that differing opinions should be kept quiet. All professions I know disagree quite openly, from Drs to Lawyers.)
I think you have to keep it simple, but I think in cases like these it is a harder call.
I think it's clear that most of us would have written this a little bit differently.
That really misses the point of the post The OP is showing a lot of courage here to post up something like this for the dissection of the crowd. It's certainly been sliced and diced so far.
As someone potentially retracing this survey, I have to say that I would be delighted to find this narrative as a report of survey.
I didn't really see a point (per se). Only an "interesting narrative". I agree that it is great to put a narrative on the plat although some say they wouldn't have. So although I agree with the act of writing a narrative, I don't know why Mr. Day would post this without expecting feedback.
I think the general consensus of some of the guys who commented on it are saying that it's poor form to put down commentaries on another survey and "it's obvious that" and some of the other comments. I think better form would be to stick with the more factual-based comments, and how you dealt with them as opposed to a commentary about the last surveyor's survey.
I see that the surveyor said it was custom to assume sections were perfect 80's in the land descriptions. I would conclude that was the intent of many/most descriptions as well when you have no calls other than aliquot distances. However, if I had found that the "first" surveyor of this property had used the description verbatim, and it was the accepted property for the many years, I would be prone to accept those distances based on the descriptions. Same if the first survey had used proportioned distances. ie: if both ways are reasonable interpretations of the deeds, I have a hard time to argue with the long-accepted property locations.
The most irritating part of surveying is if you find two or more sets of corners based on the fact that you can interpret the deed in two or more ways. When you have ambiguous deeds like that I am more prone to doing my damnedest to try to figure out which came first and have that be the higher guiding principle than one of the ambiguous interpretations. Also, I would do my best to re-establish the land corners based on existing monumentation in the general vicinity of the missing corner than to prorate them in. (Also agreeing with the author of the narrative).
I suppose maybe I should give some more info. It is my narrative for a survey that hasn't been filed yet. It's the first draft maybe 15 minutes work after pondering the issue for days.
Anyway it sort brings to focus a long on going problem with surveying this area. The valley floor was surveyed by the GLO in 1855-66. They set wood posts. The GLO was run off in 1857 by Utah's settlers and didn't return until 1869 and surveying in this area wasn't resumed until 1871. The GLO deputies in 1871 had difficulty finding but a few posts and mounds to continue the survey and most of the new surveys where started off from lines that themselves were resurveys with almost no original evidence to go from. They never went back into the area and resurveyed the subdivision of a few townships. So the settlers did their own thing and probably the county surveyor did his own resurveys before about 1900 when most of the land had gone to patent. But there is absolutely no records of what the county surveyor did. So basically the landowners have done their own thing with the help of surveyors without any records until 1988 when Utah become a filing state. Few deeds have anything else than just the metes without bounds like the description from the original post. The title folks and recorders adopted a strict code of doing everything by the coordinate math and perfect sections (even though the original GLO records show other than 80 chains east/west). But everything went along fine, mostly boundary peace as all the farmers knew for the most part where their boundaries have been all their lives.
So now comes the modern surveyor armed with all the new technology and knowledge of the PLSS. Got to have the section corners to do a survey. OK, sorting though all the deeds and history and mapping all the physical evidence to try to put it back where is was originally is no easy thing to do. Lots of time required and ultra expensive and no client willing to pay. So what do we need, well the section corners. With the section corners we can do the math, fire up the CAD, dump the coordinates into the GPS, load up the rebar and send your tech out to the field. By 5PM you have billable work done. You can stake em till you drop. You get clients willing to pay your minimal fees (well maybe).
So for the easy work like a recent subdivision that's all been done pretty tight and control is in and the CAD file on tap what you need is the section corners. So somebody decided to do it, a few “dependent” resurveys of many sections which mostly depended on proration from corners that had been previously prorated or even a fence corner that looked good or had a rebar of unknown origin alongside. The surveys are filed around 2000. The county probably paid the bounty for installing the corner markers and filing corner records (with state grant money that had to be spent).
So what do you have now, new section corners which enable section breakdowns (of sections broke down over a hundred years ago). The result is mostly chaos. The amazing thing to me is the number of folks that just move the fences (you get back on the other side what you lost on this side). Things get testy when a road is in the wrong place and I've never seen UDOT move a highway. The railroad was abandoned in 1983 so you don't need to worry about staking into or across their ROW. When the line goes though the 80 year old house many times they will work it out with quit-claim deeds. Many new survey markers are ignored and I've heard a lot of stories about them being ripped out by landowners. I had one irate farmer tell me about following the crew around the field and ripping up their markers as soon as they moved to the next one. Pretty much told me what was going to happen if I started hammering stuff into the ground anywhere near him.
I'm reluctant to even do some work but sometimes I'm stupid and do.
So anyway, I took on this survey. The evidence of where this parcel has been located since its beginning is not hard to find on the ground but you won't find it in the record. There is no previous survey on record or any evidence of a survey or corner markers. Like most of the area you have the physical evidence of where it has been for a long time. If you put all this evidence together over wide areas you get the pattern seen in the records, it just has to give to the real size of the landscape and not the perfect 80 chain squares. I think much of it was done from the fence on the side of the new parcel and then from that fence and so on. Somebody got shorted and some got the extra. Most areas are large so most folks got at least what the deed says and many got a bit more. Look, average folks can measure pretty good with a 100 foot tape on fairly level ground, especially if you don't care about a foot or so. If you measure all the way across and you have 20 extra feet or so you don't make a big fuss about it (report it the sherrif and such).
So everyone's wondering why I wrote what I did about the resurvey. Well, what I said I believe to be true. Maybe I shouldn't file it in a public record, I'm going to tone it back a bit. But I'm pretty sure what is going to happen in the future. Some surveyor is going to breakdown the section according to the dependent resurvey and stake an adjoining parcel and there is going to be about a 30 shift in everything from where it has been for 90 or more years now. My survey is going to be called wrong and irresponsible (for locating the established boundaries) and the crap is going to hit the fan (maybe I'll get lucky and one to the neighbors will jerk it all before it cools in the ground but that won't kill the record). So I suppose I'll at least be straight up about it and say what I did and how I came to the determination. How do I explain why I rejected the dependent resurvey without saying why I rejected it? If I get called in front of the board I suppose everyone else will be there also, a nice big happy discussion. It will be like a UCLS meeting. But this much I know for sure, these landowners have much more to do with where these boundaries have been established than any resurveyor does. After all, they own the land.
Too bad too many surveyors don't understand property boundary law. Long established, recognized, and accepted boundaries on the ground trump mathematical proportions, For example:
(2009 Manual) 6-41. It is not intended to disturb satisfactory local conditions with respect to roads, fences, and other evidence of use or occupancy. The surveyor has no authority to change a property right that has been acquired legally, nor accept the location of roads, fences and other use or occupancy as prima facie evidence of the original survey. Something is needed in support of these locations. This will come from whatever intervening record there may be, the testimony of individuals who may be acquainted with the facts, and the coupling of these things to the original survey.
In many cases due care has been exercised to place the property fences and other evidence of use or occupancy on the lines of legal subdivision and locate the public roads on the section or subdivision-of-section lines. These are matters of particular interest to the adjoining owners, and it is a reasonable presumption that care and good faith would be exercised with regard to the evidence of the original survey in existence at the time. Obviously, the burden of proof to the contrary must be borne by the party claiming differently.
It will be such a relief when everyone learns the difference between a resurvey/retracement and an original survey.
Carry on, and fight the good fight Leon.
Right on the money, Leon.
JBS
