Maine Acquiescence article

Great article. How would you like to be the surveyor that staked a prorate solution, and come up against Knud's letter, for the other side?

Just think about it.

Knud's approach was professional. He told what he did, and why he did it. AND he KNEW what the difference was between his solution, and the other solutions that may exist.

The one that bothers me is the one where they acquiesce, and DON'T know where other solutions may be. Even hundereds of feet away, here in rural Arkansas.
IF you decide to go "the knud way", I think you should KNOW the difference, and be able to define this difference. Just my thoughts.

Nate

Well, there's an awful lot of holes in that fairy tail in my view. But whatever it takes to convince the surveyor to hold the wall in that example is good. For me, acquiesence would be a fallback position but I would be arguing the wall is the best evidence of the original line. There's no way that wall builder got that close to a prorated solution by using monuments several hundred feet away, there must have been something on site or close marking the boundaries at the time.

But I agree the courts will use any and all theories needed to overrule a proration that interferes with longstanding improvements. It would seem to be common sense, and there's a plethora of cases to prove it, and yet we still see it on a fairly regular basis.

From the sample report in the article:

"The current surveying technology and education of the surveyor far exceed those of the earlier surveyors."

True, the technology has vastly improved over even twenty years ago, but the education part, that is tough to agree with. Many modern surveyors still have not grasped the simple concepts outlined by Cooley 130 YEARS AGO!!!!

Yeah, that's kind of a mixed bag. Surveyors for large tracts and important people were the best educated people around. But they had troops of axe men, guides, chainmen, etc. that did the bulk of the physical stuff. When the big important projects were over, these laborers became the surveyors of the smaller stuff (relatively speaking). Hundreds of acres, and hundred acres, and 10 acre tracts were surveyed by these surveyor helpers, many of whom probably could barely read, write, or do the most basic math. The licensing laws have eliminated the worst, but certainly not elevated the profession to a standard that the best and brightest in todays world would want to persue. Too much mediocrity and hence not enough money in it. Plus, much of what the best surveyors did has been taken over by engineers, environmental consultants, geodisists, attorneys, real estate people, etc. because the profession did not step up to the plate.

Thanks Cee Gee, I appreciate your taking the time to share that link. Knud's writings were quite informative during my preparations for the exam in the "Pine Tree State". When my wife and I looked at a few properties up in "The County", I noticed some of these rock walls along the property lines. The concepts of how to deal with these walls on a survey has intrigued and perplexed me since I come from a much more modern barbed wire fence PLSS state. I recall having a discussion with my wife about those rock walls along property lines that afternoon since they are so uncommon in Florida.

I like the article although I don't like the letter too much.

I prefer to talk to people first; you never know what they might say about the rock wall.

I agree, Dave. The problem I have with the letter is that the surveyor appears to have already made up their own mind about the boundary location in spite of the owners' thoughts on the matter. I much prefer, after having derived my professional opinion as to the location of the boundary (whether on the wall or on the "deed line") and still being confronted by the conflict between the physical monument and the written evidence, to sit down with the owners, explain the conflict, and allow them to determine the appropriate course of action to resolve it. Once they've agreed on a resolution, I'm there to document it.

In the examples suggested, the surveyor has instead expressed their opinion, documented their opinion, and left the scene with the conflict intact. No one remains to assist the landowners to properly resolve the problem. As the letters point out from the onset, "I have established" and "I have determined." That denotes a finality in the surveyor's decision and usurps the landowners' ability to decide for themselves. The letters then wrap up with "you are, of course, at liberty to reject my opinion" and "I believe you would be wise to consult with legal counsel." Both recommendations leave the owners with little or no reason to trust the surveyor's decision and, instead, encourage a land dispute to occur.

If the surveyor "would be foolish to predetermine where a court would place the boundary," then perhaps the surveyor shouldn't be expressing any opinion whatsoever. Isn't the surveyor's opinion that the boundary is at the prorated position just as open to challenge as an opinion that the boundary follows the physical wall? It sounds to me as if the letter is being written to justify the surveyor's decision while taking the typical cut-and-run solution to the problem.

JBS

Yeah there's something to BSing with the good old boy neighbors sometimes.

A humble attitude helps too.

Riding into town with an "I'm the Surveyor and I know best!" attitude is a sure way to alienate the neighbors.

I have one I'm working on right now; I approached the neighbor as he was about to ride off on his Harley. We talked for five minutes and at the end he said "I trust you guys." "You guys" is the fire department. I hope to encounter him again to explain some of the issues and why I think what I think.