"Established corner at existing post" would describe the action. I mean the post was NOT a 'corner monument' previous to the survey. And in a logical deduction, I suppose the post was "found" since no action was taken by the surveyor to actually place it.
seems kinda screwed up....but what we really want to know is how much was it leaning?
It's both ...found and set.
It is found. For the sake of this discussion.
And, it is established by the actions of the surveyor, through his crew, as a property corner.
That is, we have a pre-existing, farmer set, artificial boundary of the yard.
It has now, (by the act of the surveyor) been re-purposed, or recycled into a function, that it was not designed for.
Is it adequate? Depends. Is it good practice? Depends.
Is it how I do it? Not usually.
The few times I have done this, I visualize the post rotting, or suddenly vanishing, and use BDC. Same for witness trees. I try to imagine it rotting, and gone, and some lost and forlorn surveyors helper, finding one vague stumphole, that fits the rest of things.
If I use the "wire intersection" as the corner, (not BDC) then I set something. "Set 1/2" rebar, at fence corner, north 0.4' and east 0.6' to BDC of treated pine fence corner post, fence runs south and east."
Why has this discussion accrued this much attention?
Because we all have messed about for hours, trying to find the remains of such things. Or, at least, we have, or are thinking about it.
As this is a new parcel, existing fence post as per sales agreement or owner's instruction. Even a BOR should be able to understand this. Some municipalities in this area would have heartburn, as a fence post would not meet the specification for a subdivision corner. I am with Kent on this one and believe the Surveyor should make a strong suggestion that better monumentation be used where the fence is on the house tract.
Shawn Billings, post: 365719, member: 6521 wrote: What's "BDC"?
I suppose 'bottom dead center' in mechanic's speak, or centroid in geometric
You "found" the monument pointed out by the client based on his agreement with the buyer. You "set" a corner inside the monument to prepare a proper description. The same applies even if there is no immediate buyer. The corner is where you set it based on finding the specified monument. The monument could have been anything from a building corner to a cucumber tree.
Found and set are Land Surveying terms of art.
The fence post is not a monument until the Deed records so it can't be found in terms of the term of art. It is set although the Land Surveyor did not physically install the fence post. I admit "set existing 4"x4" redwood fence post" sounds funny.
That is my analysis but the contrary may be shown.
Dave Karoly, post: 365840, member: 94 wrote: Found and set are Land Surveying terms of art.
The fence post is not a monument until the Deed records so it can't be found in terms of the term of art.
WhatÛªs in a name? That which we call a rose,
By any other name would smell as sweet.
Shawn Billings, post: 365739, member: 6521 wrote: Except those aren't the parameters of the exercise. I never said what the material of the posts was, nor the condition of the posts, only that the surveyor located the posts and used the posts as the monuments. You and Williwaw both make valid points about setting a precise monument near the intended monument, which was the fence corner post (per the heirs who hired the surveyor). I'm not going to argue whether that's the proper course or not. (There's a thread for that discussion by the way). Mr. Harris made a similar comment. We do the same in many cases - set a rod or a spike at the wire intersection of a fence corner post. But I'm looking for comments to a specific question, when a surveyor uses fence corner posts for the establishment of a new boundary:
Does the surveyor describe the posts as "Found" or "Set"?
Has to be "set". It was not a monument until you made it one. If not for some law requiring either "found" or "set" I would not use either term.
Nate The Surveyor, post: 365817, member: 291 wrote: It is found. For the sake of this discussion.
And, it is established by the actions of the surveyor, through his crew, as a property corner.
That is, we have a pre-existing, farmer set, artificial boundary of the yard.
It has now, (by the act of the surveyor) been re-purposed, or recycled into a function, that it was not designed for.
Is it adequate? Depends. Is it good practice? Depends.
Is it how I do it? Not usually.
The few times I have done this, I visualize the post rotting, or suddenly vanishing, and use BDC. Same for witness trees. I try to imagine it rotting, and gone, and some lost and forlorn surveyors helper, finding one vague stumphole, that fits the rest of things.
If I use the "wire intersection" as the corner, (not BDC) then I set something. "Set 1/2" rebar, at fence corner, north 0.4' and east 0.6' to BDC of treated pine fence corner post, fence runs south and east."
Why has this discussion accrued this much attention?
Because we all have messed about for hours, trying to find the remains of such things. Or, at least, we have, or are thinking about it.
Sorry Nate, but I have to disagree with a few points.
The boundary (lines & corners) are established by the landowners - not the surveyor. Sure, we like to think we are the boundary establishment gods, and what we do is to be revered and respected, but it isn't our land, and it isn't our boundary - they belong to the landowners. We do not have the power and authority to establish boundaries and corners, especially in direct contradiction to the intention and instructions of the landowners.
We can advise and assist the landowners in what they desire to do. We should leave footprints, and records which preserve the evidence of the boundaries, corners and monuments in whatever reasonable way we can, but we should not directly contradict the intents and actions of the landowners through our own pedantic habits and "rules", and preferences.
We do not survey to make life easier for other surveyors, nor do we survey to please seemingly overbearing licensing boards. We survey for the landowners. We survey to find and identify boundaries. We survey to protect the public.
How do you think a court would rule if the landowner intended the center of post to be the "corner", represented such to the buyer, both believing and acting if the center of the post is the corner, but some surveyor, through his actions and recorded documents stated the "corner" was some inconspicuous point outside the post, being referenced by a few hidden rebars and caps with carefully measured bearings and distances? I think the answer is obvious.
Before someone drags the straw man out the barn and accuses me of stating that the every corner should be the center of whatever fence post is handy - that is NOT what I am saying. I am saying - it depends - usually on what the intentions of the landowners are.
As for laws that say asinine things like "the surveyor MUST state whether the corner is "found" or "set", leaving no other option --- well, if we aren't capable of convincing our licensing boards that we, as licensed professionals, are intelligent enough to decide to what is proper in each unique situation, who's fault is it?
In my opinion what you're doing is creating an independent survey, so the fence lines are superfluous as being neither a bonafide boundary or possession line. I wouldn't even include the fence in the plat or description. Rather, I'd set monumentation diagonally outside of the fence corners far enough to be occupied by instrumentation and show these on the plat and scrive them into the legal description. Fences can be confusing in land title matters and it is our responsibility not to promulgate complexity as well as error.
How about just asking "where do you want the line?"
A: On the Fence
Maybe it is better with One party having the fence... how about with the fence on Your side?
A: Nope, on the fence line.
Make measurements, map and describe what the land owner wants.
Now we are back at the original question: is that Fence "found" or "set"?.... using those terms to make some BOR happy.
mark it "Found", then describe What is Found.
That is what we do WHEN the client agrees. IF THE CLIENT wants the existing object/monument (whatever it may be, including a fence post) to be the corner, THEN that is what we do. We can advise all we want but, ultimately, we are working for them.
Many times I have advised clients to move a totally new division line away from crappy, old, nearly worthless fences filled with massive trees to a place where a new fence can be built simply and at far less cost to both the buyer and the seller. Plus, there is no future dispute about cutting down trees or who needs to repair the raggedy old fence. Most of the time I can convince them to do so, especially by pointing out that my bill will be less as it will be a simpler project. Too many times they have already locked in an agreement that neither party is willing to change.
Holy Cow, post: 365879, member: 50 wrote: That is what we do WHEN the client agrees. IF THE CLIENT wants the existing object/monument (whatever it may be, including a fence post) to be the corner, THEN that is what we do. We can advise all we want but, ultimately, we are working for them.
Many times I have advised clients to move a totally new division line away from crappy, old, nearly worthless fences filled with massive trees to a place where a new fence can be built simply and at far less cost to both the buyer and the seller. Plus, there is no future dispute about cutting down trees or who needs to repair the raggedy old fence. Most of the time I can convince them to do so, especially by pointing out that my bill will be less as it will be a simpler project. Too many times they have already locked in an agreement that neither party is willing to change.
This may be viable for larger rural and farm properties but try to pull something like this for residential properties either lots or acreage and you will be laughed at icreduolously followed by a dose of scorn.
Clients here rely (and pay) on your expertise to establish or recover a boundary. If they want to enter into a BA then that is there right as owners.
Shawn Billings, post: 365655, member: 6521 wrote: On his plat and in his description, should the surveyor call for the posts as found or set?
In Texas, and I assume other States, these are the only two options and each monument must be identified as one or the other, Found or Set.
Actually, what the applicable rule of Texas practice says is:
"(e) Boundary monuments found or placed by the land surveyor shall be described upon the survey drawing. The land surveyor shall note upon the survey drawing, which monuments were found, which monuments were placed as a result of his/her survey, and other monuments of record dignity relied upon to establish the corners of the property surveyed."
Since a fence post that was used to mark a newly created boundary was not a boundary monument that was either found or placed, the rule doesn't apply. On the other hand, when retracing a description that calls for a fence post as a boundary marker, then, clearly practice dictates that it be identified as something that was found in place.
Example: "THENCE N16å¡45'15"E, 681.54 ft. to the Center of the Base of an old 6" x 8" Railroad Tie Fence Post found marking the Northwest corner of the 20.45 acre Clampitt tract and taken for the identical "Fence Post" described at the corner in the Deed to Ellie Mae Clampitt et al recorded in Vol. ___ at Pg. ___ of the Possum County Deed Records."
Somewhat similarly, monuments such as waterways and trees can be described as found:
Example: "THENCE with the meanders of Outhouse Creek as found on January 1, 2016 the courses numbered (20) through (71), inclusive, in sequence as follows"
Example: "and from which a 24-inch Live Oak with old scar on Southeast face bears N45å¡48'W, 12.04 vrs., same taken to be the same tree described as "12-inch Oak marked X bearing N45å¡W, 11 vrs." referencing the North corner of the Jethro Clampitt tract as described Vol. ___ at Pg. ___ of the Beverley County Deed Records."
My post above relates only to the creation of new internal boundaries, not external boundaries. When the owner of a tract wants to divide it in a certain way, they can do so (except in areas with idiotic demands by bureaucrats). The external boundaries must comply with history but the new, internal lines are up to them or a combination of buyer and seller if there is a buyer at the time. We do this type of survey routinely. Many times it is a survey for mortgage purposes only. The property owner wants to mortgage only the house and a few acres instead of the entire tract. We set the internal lines anywhere he prefers but advise using common sense just in case he ever sold/lost the house and kept the remaining land. We probably do as many or more splits than we do simple existing boundary surveys.
We don't really do boundary agreements. The description is whatever it is. If adjoiners don't like where the divide line falls they can pay us to create a tract to be conveyed from one to the other. It may only be the South 2.4 feet of Lot 17, Block 24, Jones Second Addition or something similar, but it's an entirely new tract and taxed as such. Lot 17 in 1884 is still Lot 17 in 2016. But a fraction of it now belongs to someone else.
Kent McMillan, post: 365888, member: 3 wrote: Actually, what the applicable rule of Texas practice says is:
"(e) Boundary monuments found or placed by the land surveyor shall be described upon the survey drawing. The land surveyor shall note upon the survey drawing, which monuments were found, which monuments were placed as a result of his/her survey, and other monuments of record dignity relied upon to establish the corners of the property surveyed."
Since a fence post that was used to mark a newly created boundary was not a boundary monument that was either found or placed, the rule doesn't apply. On the other hand, when retracing a description that calls for a fence post as a boundary marker, then, clearly practice dictates that it be identified as something that was found in place.
Example: "THENCE N16å¡45'15"E, 681.54 ft. to the Center of the Base of an old 6" x 8" Railroad Tie Fence Post found marking the Northwest corner of the 20.45 acre Clampitt tract and taken for the identical "Fence Post" described at the corner in the Deed to Ellie Mae Clampitt et al recorded in Vol. ___ at Pg. ___ of the Possum County Deed Records."
Somewhat similarly, monuments such as waterways and trees can be described as found:
Example: "THENCE with the meanders of Outhouse Creek as found on January 1, 2016 the courses numbered (20) through (71), inclusive, in sequence as follows"
Example: "and from which a 24-inch Live Oak with old scar on Southeast face bears N45å¡48'W, 12.04 vrs., same taken to be the same tree described as "12-inch Oak marked X bearing N45å¡W, 11 vrs." referencing the North corner of the Jethro Clampitt tract as described Vol. ___ at Pg. ___ of the Beverley County Deed Records."
This part of the rule seems to apply: "...which monuments were placed as a result of his/her survey..."
The question is not whether a fence post was actually set in the ground, but rather whether a land boundary monument was created in the course of the survey or whether it was found and used as evidence of retracement. For instance; thence to an "X" penciled on the top of an existing fence corner post...... or thence to a fence corner post as it existed on such and such date and being located (ties to set accessories), and being intended by the parties to monument the new boundary against the advice of this surveyor...
Our standards:
4. Monuments shall be labeled as "found" or "set" with a sufficient description of the monument. The description shall include but not be limited to the size and type of material, and relevant reference markers, if any, along with their position in relation to the corner.
E. When in the professional land surveyor's opinion, special conditions exist that effectively prevent the boundary survey from meeting these standards of practice, the special conditions and any necessary deviation from these standards shall be noted upon the drawing
In my case of using the fence post in boundary agreements, I will use section "E" above to deviate from the "set or found" portion of section 4 but I will describe them.
I haven't determined the exact language but something like "center of an existing 2-1/4" galvanized fence post set in concrete as the agreed upon boundary corner" For the second part of section E, I will put on the plat "In this surveyors opinion neither term set or found is applicable."
Duane Frymire, post: 365898, member: 110 wrote: This part of the rule seems to apply: "...which monuments were placed as a result of his/her survey..."
The question is not whether a fence post was actually set in the ground, but rather whether a land boundary monument was created in the course of the survey or whether it was found and used as evidence of retracement. For instance; thence to an "X" penciled on the top of an existing fence corner post...... or thence to a fence corner post as it existed on such and such date and being located (ties to set accessories), and being intended by the parties to monument the new boundary against the advice of this surveyor...
Yes, I agree that the purpose of the rule is to identify the marks of prior surveys described in some instrument of writing upon which the surveyor based his or her opinion of the shape and location of the tract surveyed. Given that boundary monuments placed by Texas registrants are to have certain characteristics (including professional identification) that few fence posts will have unless modified, part of the task is to explain why the registrant opted to choose a substandard thing like a fence post to mark a newly created boundary corner. I don't think that accomodating a client's desire to have a surveyor engage in some substandard practice is something that a land surveyor would want to memorialize in writing for posterity as prima facie evidence of incompetence. so some better explanation would be in order.
Kent McMillan, post: 365936, member: 3 wrote: Yes, I agree that the purpose of the rule is to identify the marks of prior surveys described in some instrument of writing upon which the surveyor based his or her opinion of the shape and location of the tract surveyed. Given that boundary monuments placed by Texas registrants are to have certain characteristics (including professional identification) that few fence posts will have unless modified, part of the task is to explain why the registrant opted to choose a substandard thing like a fence post to mark a newly created boundary corner. I don't think that accomodating a client's desire to have a surveyor engage in some substandard practice is something that a land surveyor would want to memorialize in writing for posterity as prima facie evidence of incompetence. so some better explanation would be in order.
You mean like setting a tack and tag with your name and license number in the fence post instead of a pencil mark?
I'm just not sure a regulatory board can interfere with the freedom to contract; constitutionally speaking. Regulatory boards and individual surveyors can council best practices, but I don't think we can demand them when it seems to interfere with the intentions of the parties. Of course it wouldn't interfere much, but how much is too much? Generally, no interference is allowed. And public policy has always favored the ability of free alienation of property. I agree a complete explanation should be given.
But the reason behind the rule is simply one of identification by subsequent surveyors for the purpose of stable land boundaries. Ultimately it should be up to the individual surveyor how to accomplish that in diverse and varying circumstances while helping the client carry out their intentions. If a regulatory rule is needed to address that, it again points to a failing of the licensing system in my view, rather than a need for a regulatory body to mandate how individuals can convey property.
People have a right to convey from tree to rock to fence post if that's what they want to do. I don't think a regulatory body has any right to deny them the services of a professional to help them describe what they've done based on the fact it's undesirable practice. But then, I don't have any problem with doctors helping terminally ill patients to die either. So I'm probably wrong again.