Monuments vs Record

Rich., post: 396211, member: 10450 wrote: This is an old area, platted in the early 20s, however many of the houses already existed at the time. Many houses, including all in this block, mention the roads in the descriptions, but do not use the lot numbers as designated by the subdivision (which shows small little sliver lots and has no dimensions) the deeds all are metes and bounds.

Well, the obvious question is whether the fact that various houses existed prior to the filing of the subdivision plat in the 1920s means that the parcels upon which those old houses are situated had already left common ownership. If so, did all of the record owners join in executing the plat or was it recorded by some stranger to their titles for some reason?

Skipping ahead, what would you guess is the vintage of your "star" object that you refer to as a "monument? Have you ruled out the possibility that it's a property owner's goat stake that was driven near where some actual survey marker was placed? Is it obviously of a type that had to have been set long after the 1920s and long after the house and garage that you show on your sketch were constructed? For example, is it a modern rebar of a type that was only made after 1947 whereas the structures obviously predate that?

I would be tempted to call the point off, especially due to the fact that holding the point would leave parcel B eight tenths short of record. Where disregarding this outlier allows for near record dimensions.

The preponderance of the evidence as you have described it is against the star monument.

It was that blasted rodent from the movie Caddyshack that moved the monument. He hit it digging one of his tunnels. So, he dug beside it enough to shove it over out of his tunnel's path. Then he "reroofed" the tunnel such that no one could tell the monument had been shifted. I'm sure that's what happened.

Kent McMillan, post: 396214, member: 3 wrote: Well, the obvious question is whether the fact that various houses existed prior to the filing of the subdivision plat in the 1920s means that the parcels upon which those old houses are situated had already left common ownership. If so, did all of the record owners join in executing the plat or was it recorded by some stranger to their titles for some reason?

Skipping ahead, what would you guess is the vintage of your "star" object that you refer to as a "monument? Have you ruled out the possibility that it's a property owner's goat stake that was driven near where some actual survey marker was placed? Is it obviously of a type that had to have been set long after the 1920s and long after the house and garage that you show on your sketch were constructed? For example, is it a modern rebar of a type that was only made after 1947 whereas the structures obviously predate that?

I don't have a picture but this is from Google Earth street view. It's unmistakably a survey marker.

My grandfather had an atlas of the area and it had all the monuments on it. Then he penciled in ones he found that weren't in it. This particular wasn't penciled in, but I'm sure it was there then. He just hadn't surveyed either of the adjoiners.

He was working back in the 50s so I would venture to say these were installed much earlier than that.

Holy Cow, post: 396241, member: 50 wrote: It was that blasted rodent from the movie Caddyshack that moved the monument. He hit it digging one of his tunnels. So, he dug beside it enough to shove it over out of his tunnel's path. Then he "reroofed" the tunnel such that no one could tell the monument had been shifted. I'm sure that's what happened.

I definitely do not want to cross paths with any rodent that could move this thing

Dave Karoly, post: 396231, member: 94 wrote: The preponderance of the evidence as you have described it is against the star monument.

Yes could be. Although one thing I will say is when you parallel the street as located by the northerly monuments and they run right through both found on the southern side of the road, the angle point on the north side of Lot B (no monument found) would be just about the record distance from angle point to mysterious monument. Using the other side of the road parelled the shortage seems to occur between the North West corner of Lot B to the angle point.

Rich., post: 396259, member: 10450 wrote:

A couple of questions come to mind from looking at the photo above.

(1) Is the theory that the road was constructed after the stone marker was set and, if so, is the protrusion of the stone above grade consistent with that theory?

(2) Is the size and type of the stone identical to others more consistent with the pattern of the lot layout? Likewise any station mark in the top of the stone.

(3) Do all of the other stone markers protrude above grade by similar amounts?

My concern from afar is to wonder whether all of the stones are essentially identical in type, dimension and details of installation or whether there are features of the stone in the photo that are different from the rest of the group.

Rich., post: 396261, member: 10450 wrote: Yes could be. Although one thing I will say is when you parallel the street as located by the northerly monuments and they run right through both found on the southern side of the road, the angle point on the north side of Lot B (no monument found) would be just about the record distance from angle point to mysterious monument. Using the other side of the road parelled the shortage seems to occur between the North West corner of Lot B to the angle point.

FrancisH will be along soon to tell you how to adjust all the monument locations so everyone gets their exact acreage.

FrancisH will be along soon to tell you how to adjust all the monument locations so everyone gets their exact acreage.

well here I am, the fact that you could not decide what/which monuments to hold with the presence of several existing monuments that don't fit, points to the quality of land surveyors in america.

while I was on the other thread, I was almost convinced that US land laws are different. but I then thought ,,,,what's the purpose of the land law whether in US or in Singapore?. Isn't it to provide clear delineation on the ground of what every land owner really owns?

you keep on saying ..."that's the law" but then you forget that those laws were based on survey records of your own surveyors. courts had to make a decision based on faulty survey work over the years that keeps on propagating because of your "legal" mindset in doing an "engineering" survey.

if through all these centuries, the land boundaries in the US is in disarray between actual & written boundaries then it points to only one thing. US surveyors suck big time in their boundary work.

Rich., post: 396261, member: 10450 wrote: Yes could be. Although one thing I will say is when you parallel the street as located by the northerly monuments and they run right through both found on the southern side of the road, the angle point on the north side of Lot B (no monument found) would be just about the record distance from angle point to mysterious monument. Using the other side of the road parelled the shortage seems to occur between the North West corner of Lot B to the angle point.

Interesting. I was initially perplexed at how, when paralleling the monumented line on the North side of road it would produce such a difference, if, as you mentioned, all the black squares are all within a pattern fitting record to a tenth. But I think it must be due to it being such a flat angle that small differences are getting amplified when things are offset over. It's also interesting that you are getting near perfect distance across the street... makes you think this is, where this point has always been. Good luck!

Rich., post: 396261, member: 10450 wrote: Yes could be. Although one thing I will say is when you parallel the street as located by the northerly monuments and they run right through both found on the southern side of the road, the angle point on the north side of Lot B (no monument found) would be just about the record distance from angle point to mysterious monument. Using the other side of the road parelled the shortage seems to occur between the North West corner of Lot B to the angle point.

If I'm understanding that, it suggests that the street lines were laid out first and the starred monument set in relation to a marker at the angle point in the street line on the same side of the street. In retracing and reconstructing old surveys, it's always a good idea to consider how the survey was actually made. In this case, I assume that would be by transit/tape methods, probably by running centerlines of the streets and turning angle bisectors at angle points in the centerlines to mark the angle points on opposite sides.

Here's another question that comes to mind: If the houses predate the plat of the subdivision, were some or all of the streets most likely laid out BEFORE the plat was prepared? Is there some separate record of the layout of the streets that would suggest that the subdivision layout was really made after the streets were in place and their lines marked?

FrancisH, post: 396272, member: 10211 wrote: ...if through all these centuries, the land boundaries in the US is in disarray between actual & written boundaries then it points to only one thing. US surveyors suck big time in their boundary work.

I'm sorry, but you really should except out Texas from your statement. In this Country a lot of States have their own State laws, and licensing is per state. And most of us from States outside of Texas have humbly ceded our inferiority. I suggest a "correction statement" which serve as a retroactive change in your original statement.

Thank you.
Tom (a humble servant from Colorado)

Remember that barns and buildings are monuments too.

FrancisH, post: 396272, member: 10211 wrote: well here I am, the fact that you could not decide what/which monuments to hold with the presence of several existing monuments that don't fit, points to the quality of land surveyors in america.

while I was on the other thread, I was almost convinced that US land laws are different. but I then thought ,,,,what's the purpose of the land law whether in US or in Singapore?. Isn't it to provide clear delineation on the ground of what every land owner really owns?

you keep on saying ..."that's the law" but then you forget that those laws were based on survey records of your own surveyors. courts had to make a decision based on faulty survey work over the years that keeps on propagating because of your "legal" mindset in doing an "engineering" survey.

if through all these centuries, the land boundaries in the US is in disarray between actual & written boundaries then it points to only one thing. US surveyors suck big time in their boundary work.

Wow. What a serious lack of understanding as to the role of surveyors in the US. We have 400 years of guidance from the courts regarding boundary location to reference. Have there been, and are there still many, surveyors who did not understand their roles or the rules which guide their work? Yes. Are there many conscientious surveyors who apply the local laws to their work? Of course. If you cannot comprehend that in the US boundary surveying is about much, much more than measurements and precision, then we cannot have a relevant discussion about this topic.

Perspectives from around the world are very interesting and much appreciated, however, the denigration of thousands of professionals because you don't understand the role we play within the US cadastre has no place among fellow professionals.

With all of the "modern" earth moving equipment out there, it is incredibly easy to trench or shove earth in any direction. It may have been done years ago and that allowed for everything to settle back to "normal" with an undisturbed appearance.

We often assume the case that the monument was undisturbed. But in the same vein we can't say for sure it wasn't. All we have in the end is whether or not there is harmony with similar monuments. Any outliers need to be re-examined for evidence of possible disturbance.

The fact that the improvements were in harmony with the record lines indicates a possible disturbance of the monument. Finding evidence of that is now a matter of asking the owners of any knowledge of earth moving near the area. Utilities often run lines along fences and wall without regard to our monuments.

Evidence, evidence, evidence. Observe and record. It's our burden, our duty and I love it.

roger_LS, post: 396221, member: 11550 wrote: I would be tempted to call the point off, especially due to the fact that holding the point would leave parcel B eight tenths short of record. Where disregarding this outlier allows for near record dimensions.

I would knock on the door and ask Parcel B if they know where their NE corner was located? If he walks you to the big a** monument and says "Here!" I would accept it. Also, I would see if the bearing on the garage match the N/S line, to perhaps prove it was built with a the rear line of Parcel B in mind.

As another has said, "So to hold the monument would give the monument precedence as it is clearly visible and inmistakable as to what it represents" I think the jury would agree.

Why set another monument? The ones by the wall are off by 0.5' but you will accept them due to the division wall? I am sure Parcel A and B accept the monument as their corner and they both know it's there. Accepting it and moving on will probably not upset anyone. Just put a kink in the line, that's what they are living by?

Rich., post: 396259, member: 10450 wrote: I don't have a picture but this is from Google Earth street view. It's unmistakably a survey marker.

[INDENT]Speak with your client and the neighbors. Show them what you found and ask their recollection of the monument. Are they honoring it? You may open a can of worms, but in my experience some people could care less about 8 tenths when you speak with them. They may tell you that something hit the monument and they stood it back up.[/INDENT]

YES, buildings are pretty much immovable monuments. Have you considered that the star monument may have been intentionally set inside the Lot B line? I would then note it as off or as within Lot B.

It is definitely a Monument to the Corner, but that does not make the middle of it the corner.

Surveyors have to consider the preponderance of the evidence. I believe you have indicated enough evidence that it is not an original corner.

Paul in PA