I agree with Jud.
The 1920 deed calls for the natural monument. That is the intent and not the distance. The 'perfect' rectangle was just used to sell the piece but the littoral boundary was the intent.
A somewhat similar case was here awhile back but on a navigable river where the confluence with Lake Pontchartrain.
> > (1) I don't think that would fall within the scope of my duties as a surveyor to try to determine whether the rise was man made or natural without doing a full blown forensic survey of the whole lake.
> >
> Precisely why it is important for surveyors to gather the necessary evidence to locate a boundary "during" the survey. It certainly is within the scope of a surveyor's duty to determine boundary locations. There is no other profession given the necessary skills, knowledge or expertise to determine boundary locations. The current laws give us the answers; we simply need to gather the evidence necessary to determine the facts, then apply the law like we do with any other boundary.
> >
> > Plus I couldn't do that without being privy to information such as original full pool elevations and the like. If I had been commissioned to only resurvey the lot itself. How big is the lake? How do I "know" the rise was an act of man? All I would know for sure is the deed's intent was to border on the "edge of the lake". Something I can locate where it is when I survey it. The 400' was just the distance at the time of the original deed.
> >
> The above statements and concerns are right on the money! Yes, a surveyor "can't" determine the boundary until he's researched the above evidence. Too often we will, rather than take the time necessary to gather the evidence, analyze the evidence, and determine the facts, we would rather just jump to conclusions and not put forth the effort necessary to determine the boundary.
> >
> > I wouldn't feel wrong for releasing the plat showing the site as it is now. I would put a notation on the plat stating the discrepancies in the distances now as opposed to some earlier distances. But, no way would I try to explain those differences by the plat.
> >
> That's the most-often chosen course. I assume that there are more than enough other surveys to be performed to take the time necessary to complete this survey. After all, for around $20k to $30k, the owner could get a judge to tell him where he thinks the boundary is...
> >
> > (2) All this, I have no way of knowing:-D.
> >
> Too true. I wish more surveyors would realize that's the position they're taking when they don't take the time to gather the evidence necessary to determine the boundary. Maybe we should start writing that at the end of our certification on the "final" survey. ;o)
>
> I'm not trying to pick on whoever the person was that wrote this post (I can't see who's it was). I'm just using it to make the point that we too often give up way too easily when the easy answers don't come.
>
> JBS
JBS, first of all, I wrote that post. And secondly, you, or no other posters here qualify as someone who reserves some right to "pick on" another surveyor's thoughts. That's a pretty damned arrogant statement you made there. But, whatever, no offense taken.
Having said that, I will say there is always a starting point to any survey and they are all different in some way. When there are problems with them different approaches have to be taken to resolve those problems. In the case the OP presented the first step to resolving it, imo, would have to be releasing a plat that showed the existing conditions and stated the conditions that had existed at an earlier date. Now, you may call that, as you appear to so often state, the "easy way out", but fact is if I'm commissioned to survey a 100' by 400' lot that calls the boundary to the edge of a lake that's what I'm going to initially do. If there's a problem afterwards that requires more surveying, and my client agrees to the higher fees, then I'll be glad to accomodate them. I don't know what world you live in, but around here every survey with problems isn't attempted to be solved by "surveying the world" up front.
Based on reading your past musings on some perfect surveying environment where all problems are taken care of by case law and spending enough time up front and charging thousands of dollars that your client may not have, I'm going to guess you won't see my point at all. Which is fine with me. And I hope I'm not coming off as being defensive here, but I've been doing this long enough to know that every survey "is what it is". I have never looked back or lost sleep over any of the work I've done in this profession. (except for when I was doing that nasty yucky construction layout stuff:-)
Take care,
Ed
Kris,
I completely agree. Doesn't take a dissertation to come up with the best way to solve it.
The natural monument defining the lake edge in the second sale may be considered different from the natural monument in the first sale. It will boil down to what the intent was. I guess intent would rule, and unless the vendor paid taxes or did some other thing to show definitively that he wanted to keep it, he would not own it.
Ed, the point of my statement was to make it clear that I wasn't singling out you or anyone else. No arrogance intended either. Thanks for not taking offense. How could I have said that better?
I don't believe that every survey problem needs to be resolved immediately by the survey at hand. However, the line of work that I'm in, I see way too many opportunities that are missed by surveyors because they either, 1) don't think they have a role in the resolution process, or 2) don't think their client can afford to pay to fix it. What I see is problems that are passed on until the client has paid $10's of thousands of dollars to attorneys fighting with a neighbor over a problem that could have been fixed when it was discovered for much less money (and more money for the surveyor).
JBS
> > I would think it would go against the person changing the boundary. (But that is just my speculation. I don't know the answer.)
My point in this thread, and a very few others have made, is there is a question of if it's the surveyor's role to plat the lot based on the deed and supporting evidence found, or is he from the git go to start surveying so as to "prove" the boundary was changed due to an act of man. I'm not saying there is any easy answer to this question. But for sure, any answer you read here will be based on an opinion.
As well it should be. And remember, ALL opnions are reached based on far ranging and many varied facts that the one with the opinion holds to.
Take care,
Ed
Ed,
You posted:
but fact is if I'm commissioned to survey a 100' by 400' lot that calls the boundary to the edge of a lake that's what I'm going to initially do.
You weren't. You were commissioned to show them the extent of their domain. Elevating what is said in their deed to fault-less status and placing those calls on the ground is deed technician work.
but I too adhere to the K.I.S.S. axiom when compared to the scope of the service requested of me.
If you were hired to survey their property boundary, then again, you were hired to show them what they own.
My point in this thread, and a very few others have made, is there is a question of if it's the surveyor's role to plat the lot based on the deed and supporting evidence found, or is he from the git go to start surveying so as to "prove" the boundary was changed due to an act of man.
You are stating a false "either / or" statement. It is always the surveyors role to plat the lot based on all of the evidence. That includes the deed and everything else, and yes, if necessary, the disposition of current lake levels, meaning current and past levels and causes of sudden changes.
Any deed technician can plot a drawing showing deed geometry placed on some found monuments. That is not what boundary surveys are usually for. They are for a client to see what they own, where their property boundaries are. They have the problem of having incomplete knowledge of their domain. They have the problem of uncertainty. Solve their problem for them, or else you are irrelevant to them.
Stephen Calder
I would need to read the actual property descriptions and review the history of this to give an absolute answer/opinion of where the boundary is due to lake level changes.
From what is given, my current opinion stands because it appears that at the time the parcel was created that it fell at the waters.
The actual wording of the call that placed this parcel's limits there is what will shed more light on the subject.
The study of other lots along thee lake will show more as intent.
One important question I have is "what does the description of the lake boundary say"
I surveyed a 2ac tract that stated "beginning at stake for corner 150ft from NEC at the water's edge of Caddo Lake". The interesting point is that it is a natural lake whose water level changes more often than the seasons do.
A new description was made and agreed upon by present owner and adjoiners to change the beginning point that was located at the present vegetation line of the lake and was made to stay at that point by a direct bearing and distance tie from known monuments not dependent upon the lake level.
>
> Any deed technician can plot a drawing showing deed geometry placed on some found monuments. That is not what boundary surveys are usually for. They are for a client to see what they own, where their property boundaries are. They have the problem of having incomplete knowledge of their domain. They have the problem of uncertainty. Solve their problem for them, or else you are irrelevant to them.
>
> Stephen Calder
Stephen, this whole thread has become a kind of 'he said', 'he said' circular debate for me. But, it's been very enjoyable, civil and even educational if for no other reason than it's represented the broad range of opinions surveyors over large areas have as to solutions to these kind of little problems that crop up from time. I've found a few of the replies a little disconcerning due to their directive and authoritative tacks, but hey, that's just surveyors being surveyors. I've met very few of them that didn't give off an air of knowing just about everything under the sun.{tongue in cheek}
As to your quote I cited above, I think one aspect that's not been considered in this little dicussion is that if your client has a "problem of uncertainty" then his neighbor most likely has the same problem. So it becomes their problem, not mine. Sure, I can help solve their problem. That IS my job. But, it's NOT my job to immediately set out surveying the world and come back with my findings, my directive or my "ruling" and say, "Ok, this is where this boundary is and there is nothing y'all can do about it. That's my final say on the matter and here's my $10,000 bill for your 100' by 400' survey you ordered." No, it just doesn't work that way. Least not around here. Around here that kind of practice might lead to a lot of dead surveyors. I want to do good work and I do. If I can't for whatever reason, i.e. too little money negotiated up front, the adjoiner threatens to shoot me because he says I'm on his property when I'm pretty damned sure I'm not or, say, my client's side line distances on the ground are in conflict with a deed call to what was a natural boundary at the time of the deed he bought by and he can't understand what all would be involved, extra field work and cost wise, both LEGAL and surveying, to try to prove somebody built on to a dam to steal 20' by 100' of 'his' property, well, I walk away from that crap. It's written into my standard contract and my clients understand that up front.
I don't feel that my job is to be the surveying police. So, I hope that helps to clear up any misunderstandings anyone in this thread might have had as to my commitment to providing competent and quality professional surveying services for my clients in my community. 🙂
Take care,
Ed
It also can get more complicated when dealing with manmade lakes. For instance, was the water in 1920 at a level because of a Dam at that time? And then there's the ramifications of the boundary location. Some courts have held that use is only over the portion of the lake included within the parcel boundary.
Interesting project and I wouldn't count on any commonly known generalizations about littoral boundaries being applicable.
Well, in response to your initial question. No, Bad Bob only purchased what he relied on in the deed and the attached plat. Reliance is a key term in that answer. Did they also rewrite the deed to reflect to 20' shortness? That would make it even more binding on Bad Bob.
The original owner could still own a 20' strip by doing things this way even if not intended.
Things I would check though.
The call of 400' is pretty specific so hopefully you can go the distance and find irons out in the lake impoundment.
I would check other lots as a raising of the spillway would have impact everyone of the lots abutting the lake. Are they all now short? That would be good piece of evidence to support the theory that the spillway or dam was raised.
Are there any owners who can recite parol evidence supporting the raising of the spillway?
Maybe they didn't own the lake but were allowed to use the lake so perhaps at some point the dam/spillway was raised to make the lake more usable year round. More acre feet equals less loss during the summer months. Maybe it was done with the knowledge of all those on the lots at the time. Just ramblings but stuff to think about.
And might have some luck checking the shoreline since it's a lake. Unless it's been many years then you might still find evidence of the old shore line although this might have to wait until a very hot summer when the lake is at it lowest. This would be one of the lesser weights for me though.
But what if they just copied the deed with the 400' and the wording to the lake and then attached a conflicting plat that shows 380' to the lake?
Natural boundaries are held pretty highly in Oklahoma and term like to the thalweg, to the edge or water and such are held as pretty definate terms in our courts. They are something that a laymen can easily understand. My property goes until my feet gets wet sort.
Just some thoughts.
> Well, in response to your initial question. No, Bad Bob only purchased what he relied on in the deed and the attached plat. Reliance is a key term in that answer. Did they also rewrite the deed to reflect to 20' shortness? That would make it even more binding on Bad Bob.
>
Deral,
JB pointed out the well settled principle that unless the Grantor expressly/specifically reserves the 20', it still passes with the title. It's no different than a boundary that adjoins a highway or railroad that is only an easement. There the title passes to the center of highway or railroad unless there is an express reservation of the property between the right-of-way and the center line, even if the description calls for the right-of-way as a boundary line and the survey is drawn that way too. It makes sense, because the strip would be of no use to the Grantor anymore.
Like others, I would like to research the origin of the lake and its' title, which to me would be the key to definitively answering all subsequent questions.
Okie might just a bit different Glenn. We have people that leave out a 1' strip around subdivisions to keep anyone else from tying in to their roads and such. It's no longer allowed but it was common back years ago to keep a strip so that if any takings happened later for a road widening or such then it had to come from the original holder.
Been there and have dealt with many of these over the years.
Like you though I would like to see the actual deeds and their specific wording.
I was just tossing out some other food for though.
>
> I don't feel that my job is to be the surveying police. So, I hope that helps to clear up any misunderstandings anyone in this thread might have had as to my commitment to providing competent and quality professional surveying services for my clients in my community. 🙂
>
> Take care,
> Ed
Ed, if nothing else, this is a philosophical problem with some "given"s. The original thread said "The lake levels rise because someone dammed the outfall making the water rise by a couple of feet so that the north-south dimension of the tract is now only 380 feet instead of 400."
This is not a policing job...it is a boundary job. The "monument" is a senior call and I read the monument to be the edge of the lake. If the called-for monument was a rebar and I had (strong) reason to believe someone moved the rebar, I would not hold it. In the case above it is stated that someone did move the edge of the lake. It is given. I take it to mean that the surveyor had irrefutable evidence to believe it moved. I am not using the word "stealing" just that the movement in the natural boundary was a sudden change because of an action by a human.
Note I am only arguing the philosophical case. I am not here to argue with whether the poster actually knows whether the lake moved or anything else. Nor am I assuming you are a bad surveyor or personally attacking you.
I am taking his statements of fact as facts for the sake of discussion. It is my opinion that, regardless of the precise wording of the contract, the owner wants his/her property staked; and at the end of your survey the owner will more than likely rely on your stakes(/monuments). I think that the general reliance of the landowner on the survey he is paying for, gives you a much higher order of responsibility than to just say that any ambiguous evidence is a problem for the courts and between him and his neighbor.
more, it is about reading comprehension
and staying on task 😉
Deral,
Yes, spite strips happened here too. Just like Okie, they're illegal now in Texas. I understand the food for thought idea.
BTW, I've noticed that a colleague of mine has had his Okie license for about a year and a half. I think we're gonna have to revoke his Texas license for that.
> Deral,
>
> Yes, spite strips happened here too. Just like Okie, they're illegal now in Texas. I understand the food for thought idea.
>
> BTW, I've noticed that a colleague of mine has had his Okie license for about a year and a half. I think we're gonna have to revoke his Texas license for that.
You-all go and revoke licenses when the applicant shows s/he's just too smart to survey in your neck of the woods do ya?
Surveyors continuily misunderstand the function of the deed here in the US. We need to understand the rights and responibilities of the land owner, (our own rights, if we own land). If you don't know what your own rights and responsibilities are, how can you function in a profession who's responsibility is to help the average citizen to protect their rights?
The only function a deed has for the surveyor, is to define the initial area of search.
Boundaries are fixed by physical evidence, either original or subsequently set and honored by the owner(s).
Our land records bear no resemblance to England's 'Doomsday Book' in that there is no basis for the belief that, once set, boundaries can never change. Check Lucas's Dec. 2010 article in POB for an example of initial record error.
My quote of Wigmore's caution regarding record descriptions is nothing new, a similar warning appears in all the accepted legal references, including Corpus Jurist which was compiled when latin was the language of the law, (before Hadrian built the wall in what became England).
Our opinion regarding legal boundaries IS A LEGAL OPINION and we are not practicing law without a license because knowledge of land law is part of our professional responsibility. There is no 'special language' that sets platting law apart from the balance of any particular state's statutes.
Deed staking is not the professional practice of land surveying, deed interpretation is.
Ignorance, especially willful ignorance, of the law is no excuse!
In the subject hypothetical, a working knowledge of your state's riparian law is necessary before any clear decision should be developed.
Richard Schaut
