How does that corner that is in question, fit within the neighbors other property corners?
Brian Allen, post: 372940, member: 1333 wrote: What "stupid ranking system" are you referring to?
You know exactly what I am referring to. Actually there are two that are nearly the same, one is the priority of calls. And another is what some call the priority of evidence (different terms, but often the same exact list)
It should almost never come to that. I definitely believe if you find an original monument in its original position you should hold it. I also tend to accept an uncalled-for monument if all the other evidence supports it. But the hasty discount of distance calls I don't agree with and pushing it off on its rank (you mentioned rank, and I apologize if you take offense to me calling it "stupid" I said it to make a point. I was responding to your post, hence I know you knew what "ranking system" I was referring to.) You should always consider if a monument has been moved. Wen they say original artificial monuments hold over distances, you don't just accept it and move on. Just because an owner moves it and the other owner doesn't know he did, doesn't mean they have acquiesced to it, or that adverse possession has ripened.
Dan B. Robison, post: 372938, member: 34 wrote: QAVK YK TNKBVZ GZ YK TGHMO, ZHK YK FYZFDVR, RFZVNJ NKT RAGHO.
TTRJ :beer::beer::beer:
Dan's got the best solution.....LOL.
Hey Dan, I noticed I have the same beard your avatar does.....I just need to grow a longer mustache.
Tom Adams, post: 372967, member: 7285 wrote: Dan's got the best solution.....LOL.
Man, I am struggling with that one.
The last word is "shout".
Tom Adams, post: 372953, member: 7285 wrote: You know exactly what I am referring to. Actually there are two that are nearly the same, one is the priority of calls. And another is what some call the priority of evidence (different terms, but often the same exact list)
It should almost never come to that. I definitely believe if you find an original monument in its original position you should hold it. I also tend to accept an uncalled-for monument if all the other evidence supports it. But the hasty discount of distance calls I don't agree with and pushing it off on its rank (you mentioned rank, and I apologize if you take offense to me calling it "stupid" I said it to make a point. I was responding to your post, hence I know you knew what "ranking system" I was referring to.) You should always consider if a monument has been moved. Wen they say original artificial monuments hold over distances, you don't just accept it and move on. Just because an owner moves it and the other owner doesn't know he did, doesn't mean they have acquiesced to it, or that adverse possession has ripened.
Come on Tom, you know what I meant.
Most often referred to as the rules of construction. You are correct, they are not NOT set in concrete. If you notice, in my post I qualified with "generally".
I have never said to hastily discount measurements or brg/dist calls in descriptions. On the contrary, they are EVIDENCE which should be considered, but as we all know, in a retracement survey, our job is find where the boundary is/was established. Many times this will have very little to do with measurements, other than reporting what was found. Measurements DO NOT establish boundaries, they may be evidence of boundaries.
As I have said time and time again, far too often we ONLY look at the measurements and far too many surveyors make far too many decisions based only on measurements and try to shoe horn a retracement opinion based on some arbitrary rule that tries to finally define "how far is too far".
Accusing a landowner of fraud (knowingly moving a boundary marker) based ONLY on few measurements is really jumping the gun.
As to the original post, at this point there isn't enough evidence to say exactly what has happened, that is why I listed the 4 steps I would go through if I faced that situation. I did not say to ignore the measurements.
Tom Adams, post: 372967, member: 7285 wrote: Hey Dan, I noticed I have the same beard your avatar does.....I just need to grow a longer mustache.
Tom,
All you need now is a MORION to perfect the de Soto look.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morion_(helmet)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hernando_de_Soto
DDSM:beer::beer::beer:
Holy Cow, post: 372984, member: 50 wrote: The last word is "shout".
and it rhymes.
Brian Allen, post: 372991, member: 1333 wrote: Come on Tom, you know what I meant.
Most often referred to as the rules of construction. You are correct, they are not NOT set in concrete. If you notice, in my post I qualified with "generally".
I have never said to hastily discount measurements or brg/dist calls in descriptions. On the contrary, they are EVIDENCE which should be considered, but as we all know, in a retracement survey, our job is find where the boundary is/was established. Many times this will have very little to do with measurements, other than reporting what was found. Measurements DO NOT establish boundaries, they may be evidence of boundaries.
As I have said time and time again, far too often we ONLY look at the measurements and far too many surveyors make far too many decisions based only on measurements and try to shoe horn a retracement opinion based on some arbitrary rule that tries to finally define "how far is too far".Accusing a landowner of fraud (knowingly moving a boundary marker) based ONLY on few measurements is really jumping the gun.
As to the original post, at this point there isn't enough evidence to say exactly what has happened, that is why I listed the 4 steps I would go through if I faced that situation. I did not say to ignore the measurements.
I know what you meant. And if it comes down to it I agree with you more than it would appear in our online discussions. I do have a bit of a aversion to the infamous "rules of construction" for reasons stated. In retracement surveying, I prefer the approach to taking the complete description as a whole coupled with what I find on the ground. I can think of many examples where you would hold bearing and distances calls over some of the higher-rank calls in the rules of construction.
Scott Ellis, post: 372945, member: 7154 wrote: How does that corner that is in question, fit within the neighbors other property corners?
Exactly. If the pin was moved, and lets say the back line is 0.3 short, is one of the neighbors back lines 0.3ish feet long? With the typical corner marking the intersection of either three or perhaps even four property lines, there would be four distances that could be checked (four distances to the suspected marker). There would also be four bearings into that marker, each of which could be checked using either of two backsights (in my imaginary typical situation).
To do this "properly" (money being no object) I would do a quick and dirty search for all of the monuments of the subject parcel AND all of the monuments for every adjoiner, including the "just barely touching at the corners of the lots" adjoiners. I would then survey all those points by the quickest method that had sufficient accuracy and precision. I would then have what I needed to understand the expected positional and angular uncertainty of any pair of adjacent monuments, and the ability to see which monuments (including possibly the one in question) were CLEARLY out of position (thus likely to have been moved by a non surveyor). This might seem like "too much work and too many dollars" but sometimes it takes more than just the clients own monuments and documents to tell the tale.
Short of doing "everything", if the left back corner of a rectangular lot is moved a half foot (lets say) to the right, reducing the length of the rear lot line by a half foot, the neighbor to the left ought to suddenly have an extra half foot along the back of his lot. In other words, there is no escaping the fact that you have to make some effort beyond the affected parcel to know for sure what is going on. Doing that cheaply and yet with just enough proof to make your conclusions (and your resultant actions) rock solid is a true art.
Dougie,
From where I sit, I gotta wonder about the status of the pin in question. Set in concrete at a fence corner? I have seen this many times; the fence builder, be it the homeowner or whomever, dug a nice hole right where the 97 pin was and set the post and concrete around it further destroying any hope of finding 1912 evidence. Before the concrete setup the pin was reinstalled just like new. And up enough that they can now tie a string to it. Except it wasn't where it was or should be. Close enough for them though. You didn't say but is this a front or rear corner. I find that front corners are more likely to be disturbed.
The 97 survey and its pins are a resurvey of the 1912 plat. Are the monuments you are measuring from in 2016 original? Reset? The same as in 97? My opinion is clear. The point in question didn't meet the 97 surveyor's standards and shouldn't meet yours. That doesn't mean you set another but only report what you find on your record of survey (you are doing one right) and let the neighbors sort it out. I like the idea of moving out a lot or two for more evidence if that is possible but in most cases its not. We don't have the authority to trespass and often homeowners are not home when it is convenient for us. How many other lots depend on the location of this pin?
But really, how is it that you can be on the job site within a week of the telephone call? I need to send more work your way.
Dan B. Robison, post: 372938, member: 34 wrote: QAVK YK TNKBVZ GZ YK TGHMO, ZHK YK FYZFDVR, RFZVNJ NKT RAGHO.
TTRJ :beer::beer::beer:
I have a neice with Downs, I get texts from her on a regular basis. The only thing I can be certain of is that the first letter will match the name of the person or subject she is talking about or to. If she uses the subject letter a lot she is upset.
John Wetzel, post: 374467, member: 11747 wrote: Exactly. If the pin was moved, and lets say the back line is 0.3 short, is one of the neighbors back lines 0.3ish feet long? With the typical corner marking the intersection of either three or perhaps even four property lines, there would be four distances that could be checked (four distances to the suspected marker). There would also be four bearings into that marker, each of which could be checked using either of two backsights (in my imaginary typical situation).
To do this "properly" (money being no object) I would do a quick and dirty search for all of the monuments of the subject parcel AND all of the monuments for every adjoiner, including the "just barely touching at the corners of the lots" adjoiners. I would then survey all those points by the quickest method that had sufficient accuracy and precision. I would then have what I needed to understand the expected positional and angular uncertainty of any pair of adjacent monuments, and the ability to see which monuments (including possibly the one in question) were CLEARLY out of position (thus likely to have been moved by a non surveyor). This might seem like "too much work and too many dollars" but sometimes it takes more than just the clients own monuments and documents to tell the tale.
Short of doing "everything", if the left back corner of a rectangular lot is moved a half foot (lets say) to the right, reducing the length of the rear lot line by a half foot, the neighbor to the left ought to suddenly have an extra half foot along the back of his lot. In other words, there is no escaping the fact that you have to make some effort beyond the affected parcel to know for sure what is going on. Doing that cheaply and yet with just enough proof to make your conclusions (and your resultant actions) rock solid is a true art.
That is a fine procedure, but if that is all you are basing your ultimate opinion on, I believe you have more work to do.
Is your measurement analysis conclusive that that the monument has been "moved"? No, it can't be. The only thing it would be conclusive on is that the monument is question isn't exactly "where it should be", and the only problem with "where it should be", is that that has absolutely nothing to do with a retracement survey. The problem we must solve in a retracement survey is "where is the boundary" now?
The hypothesis of your measurement analysis could just as likely be that the original surveyor mis-measured that monument, and if so, its original position is the legal corner, and you have no right to "correct" the mis-measurement without the express consent of all affected parties.
Lets say you ask the neighbor if he moved the monument, and he definitively tells he that did, then with the permission of all affected owners, you can then put it "back" to the position where all owners agree to, and then you document all of what happened and what you did and why.
The main question that needs to be investigated and answered is one of reliance, not measurement.
You've measured the client's lot. How does it measure from the possibly disturbed pin to the next lot corner beyond?
From the information given you have not surveyed the adjoiners lot to compare said aledged errant pin/cap from the other lot's record corners.
Second you have not said exactly where the fence post was located. My first thought is that the fence builder put the fence post at the corner location marked by the pin and cap and since the pin/cap was the neighbors he reset it on the neighbors side.
Without doing both the above you are unable to answer what goes where.
Paul in PA