Monuments mean things and landowners have a right to use them to plow the field, build the house and enjoy life without some better measurer coming along and telling them their boundary is not as they have thought for years.
Somebody, anybody point out some written textbooks, statute law, case law that states unequivocally that a ROW line is ONLY at the record bearing and distance.
And after that, point out some written textbooks, statute law, case law that states unequivocally that a senior line can NEVER be bent through a junior corner.
Then we can talk some more about land surveying.
I posted this below and it should be addressed in sincerity.
Anybody up for it?
Keith
I have read from a poster or posters that it is settled law about the ROW being exactly at the written direction; I want to see that settled law!
Keith
I will not believe that my questions are over the heads of the surveyors here, but it should also be clear that my questions are directly related to the issue of pincushion corners.
Lets see this settled law!!
Keith
Keith
You aren't seriously suggesting that any piece of iron driven by a surveyor or an employee of a surveyor or a brother-in-law of a guy that used to be a surveyor moves a senior line are you? Doesn't there need to be some kind of reliance by the parties affected by the location of the iron for it to gain some significance?
Steve
My questions are clear enough, at least to me?
A good example might be the hundreds of 1/16 sec. cor. monuments that I have set and I know darn well they are not set with the accuracy of a super measurer like Kent.
Yes, there needs to be reliance on the monuments in a private survey situation and in Carl's case, was it not there since the 50's? I would suppose it has been accepted as a boundary marker.
The idea that it controls the private side of the line but not the State ROW line is laughable. In my opinion of course.
I am looking for that settled law!
Keith
Keith
If push came to shove with the State, I would rather have my client acknowledge the State's monuments as defining the State's right of way than a pipe that creates a slight angle point in the State's line that was created before the pipe existed. If you wanted to take it to the Supreme Court and get the pipe accepted as an angle point in the right of way line, good luck.
Steve
All I am asking for is some sort of documentation to prove your point, not that it would be a tough fight to go up against the State. I realize that might not be a good option, but there must be some written settled law.
Keith
Steve
If the argument is simply that the surveyors do not want to go against the State, then that is your argument.
And Kent calls that settled law.
Keith
Please Note
Have you read any settled law yet?
Keith
Keith
Time not runeth against the king. That being said, the rowmcannot be anywhere other than where staked by the stat as 99 percent of the time,'the road is a senior line.
Please Note
I can't quote a "settled law" that states that a bearing and distance on a state right of way holds, or that the original marks hold over pins that aren't exactly on the right-of-way line.
However, Keith, are you stating any case law where a 50-year-old corner slightly off a right-of-way line held over a newer monument, correctly set, respecting both the right-of-way line and the property line?
Frankly, I doubt this has gone to any court, as the fact is, the State will still maintain inside the fence, and the landowner won't worry about 0.2' up against a highway right-of-way and will probably do anything s/he wants up to the fence.
A step further...If I were retracing rights-of-way lines for a highway survey, and found enough original marks to come up with the original alignment (in my opinion), I would show straight lines between the original marks and not show a bend at every property corner along the way.
If I were not able to find enough original right-of-way marks, and found something like that 50-year-old pipe that appeared to be correctly set, I would probably hold that pipe as one of my right-of-way marks and re-establish the missing marks holding its position.
I don't think you are getting a lot of responses because a lot of surveyors know that there are a lot of different circumstances and each case needs to be looked at for its own merit. Sometimes you accept a center of section corner monument and sometimes you don't. Your infamous Oregon case accepts a center-1/4 corner monumnet based on a specific set of circumstances surrounding that particular corner and a subdivision plat that came after the monument that the litigants proved had been based on that corner location. There are other cases where the intersection of opposing 1/4 corners prevailed.
Tom
Please Note
In our neck of the woods, the only thing that is certain is the road is junior to the original staking of the sections (if they ever were actually staked to begin with, lots of pencilwhipped GLO notes in our world) and more times than not, anything ever set got knocked out by road construction.
ALDOT monuments are usually and historically NOT set by surveyors, rather the low bidder on that contract item. They dig a hole, plant the monument, and get on with life. It might agree with where the pavement now exists, it may not. Any nodding acquaintance with stationing stamped and real world dimensioning between monuments is purely coincidental. The DOT guru for our area is more inclined to accept centerline position than ROW monuments.
Keith
What I am looking for is the written documentation that says that?
Keith
Tom
I would seriously doubt that there is a court case dealing with 0.14 feet under any circumstance, as they simply do not bother with finger nail distances; but there should be some general rule stated by a court that the ROW line is forever sacred and can NEVER be moved as some on here seem to believe.
That belief is expressed many times here, so there has to be some written documentation that states that.
Is that not questionable?
Keith
Keith
In Texas it would be Article 5517 that states "the right of the State shall not be barred by any of the provisions of the Title, nor shall any person ever acquire, by occupancy or adverse possession, any right or title to any part or portion of any road, street, alley, sidewalk, or grounds donated or dedicated for public use to any such town, city, or county by the owner thereof, or which have been laid out or dedicated in any manner to public use in and town, city, or county in this State"
What idiot would advise?
What idiot would advise their client to fight a state over a right of way location. In California it happens time and time again that monuments,usually set well after the right of way was acquired,do not agree with the deed. I would recommend that if the problem is large enough that the owner sit down with Caltrans and sort out the issue,come to some type of understanding and then memorialize that understanding within the four corners of a document that is recorded with the county recorder, so that the document will impart constructive notice.
if you want to hold the deed,or if you want to hold the monuments(which in Ca are generally uncalled in the written deed), then both positions are professional opinions and neither of them are conclusive on the parties.
