My interesting week

The fact that some of originals were 30' off makes me wonder if STJ ever found the originals, or didn't have the same information as to know to look for the ones you found. I have seen you mention in other posts that you rarely use a total station anymore since you have gotten this Javad and if it works as well as it seems I can see why. Locating corners in trees like that is remarkable!

Nate The Surveyor, post: 371026, member: 291 wrote:
This is an interesting survey. What you can see in this first pic, is a 5/8" rebar, and the Javad and pole is on a 1/2" rebar, set by a "Superior Tripod Jockey" (STJ) What happened, was this developer, went and bought some 170 acres, in around 1978. Then, cut timber, and sold it. Then, he'd hire the lowest priced surveyor, that money could buy. He hired a guy with a compass and tape. (We will call him C&T) And a pile of pinch top pipes, and whatever metal he could buy from the local scrap metal yard. So, this 170 ac got cut into 3 or so acre pieces, by C&T.
Well, as it works out in Arkansas, the plat got recorded, in 1979.
THEN, lots were sold by description, with no mention of the plat. The way it worked, is $ 75.00 down, and $ 75.00 a month That could take 150-250 months to pay for. Depending. If you missed 3 payments in a row, then he reposed it. And, you STARTED OVER with payments. And, all past payments were considered rent. This mechanism of selling by description kept the developer from paying a higher tax rate, on his remaining unsold lots. (VEWY IMPOTENT!) Keep taxes down!

Well, the MARKS seen on the ground were set and seen by the buyers. These were the ones set by C&T (That's Mr Compass and Tape) and were used, as boundary marks. Errors were either in the 2-3 foot vicinity, OR in the 30-50' vicinity. Most are in the 2-3 foot variety. (That's were measurements actually happened)
Fast forward, to 2004. Along comes STJ. He finds the ORIGINAL survey marks, and REJECTS them, and sets his own markers. That's where my pole is sitting above.
Here is another pic, same point, but different angle. It's about 5.4' between the STJ corner, and the C&T survey. The 5/8" rebar is an original C&T corner.

I am holding the C&T survey points, because they were SET at the time there was ONE owner on ALL sides of that line/corner. Therefore, they are the markers people SAW when the signed the contract for 75 down, and 75 a month. And, they have been there a long time.

Another interesting anecdote is that I did this survey WITHOUT Glonass. What had happened is that I got excited, and moved up to the TESTING version of JAVAD, and for that period of time, GLONASS was not functioning, from the base corrections. (I was warned that it could have bugs, and to continuously check things) So, I have to live with that. It's fixed now. As soon as I found it, Javad got me going the next day, with GLONAS and all. I was actually becoming discouraged, with the Javad, on this job, as I thought it was "Really doing poorly since leaves came out". Then we found the problem. (Thanks !)

BUT I was ABLE to get serious shots here, even without glonass. It took about 30 minutes to 45 minutes per shot. What saved the day was PPK Post Processed Kinematic. That is, I had RAW data to confirm that I was on the right point. And, I had taped between them, when there were 2 points a few feet apart.

But, this whole idea, of continuous correction of "Previous Surveyors Errors" is not a healthy surveyors practice. It's where we get pincushions. and where we get multiple punch marks, on a cap.

America is built, with FIXED non moving markers. The old Biblical injunction "Not to move the old landmarks" definitely comes to play here.
Document, and revise the descriptions, not the markers.

What's funny is that STJ above YIELDED to many other original surveyor marks around this same neighborhood, but rejected those ones. That is, it was not a consistent application of "Fix the mess". Other surveyors in this neighborhood also seem to try to "Fix some, and accept others" without a consistent pattern...

When a corner is SET at the time of ONE OWNER in all directions, that is the ORIGINAL marker. And, they were SET at the direction of that ONE owner.
IF it is a marker set along the BOUNDARY of the 170 acres above, then it only binds on the interior line, it may be shortened, or extended, to be on the EXTERIOR title line, or SUPERIOR title line. Much like a closing corner, along the northerly and westerly side of a Township.
O well.

Happy Pin Accepting, and Pounding, and Researching so you know when to do what!

🙂

N

This post is a classic, a masterpiece.

Nate The Surveyor, post: 371026, member: 291 wrote: When a corner is SET at the time of ONE OWNER in all directions, that is the ORIGINAL marker. And, they were SET at the direction of that ONE owner.

I can't say it any better than this.

First, that is a really pleasant looking piece of woods and I really wish I had spent my week in such a place.

Second, I'm not so sure I'm not with STJ. I mean, there were monuments placed and a map prepared by C&T and all, but do we really know that the buyers were aware of it and understood the ramifications? There is a a thing called informed consent. Do we know that the buyers and the seller perambulated the bounds and viewed the monuments at the time of sale? Four corners of the deed and all. I can see this going either way. A good final solution would be a replatting.

Third, it is amazing that you are getting positions in woods like that. Forgive me for being skeptical. Have you spot checked a few such positions to confirm their veracity? And with 45 minute occupations at every corner would a traverse been more economical?

David, it's kind of like retracing GLO. The US Govt (GLO) contracted surveyors to run the original lines in USA. There are "Errors of measurement, but not errors of monument". Wherever we find original GLO corners, they are the corner. We should NEVER get into GLO correcting.... But I have seen where the GLO corrected their own work.... Kinda funny! If the landowner owns in all directions, and commissions a surveyor, then THAT is the original survey! IF he corrects it, BEFORE selling, then the correction binds.

I wish I had known all this years ago...

N

Mark, as I said, I was getting discouraged with the Javad, on this job. 30-45 mins is without GLONAS.
IF Glonass had been working... maybe 10-15 mins per corner. That would be 2-3 shots, (All in close agreement) along with raw data, and post processing to compare against. I still cannot shake my old habits... reshoot all corners, in multipath environments. Multiple times. At the time of corner set, I also rechecked some of them. Typical error was in the few hundredths.
When we understand that the description is to assist you in finding the corner marker, NOT to define where to move it to... we are on the right track. If I find a corner, a tenth off of my calc coord, I hold the marker.
N

Another thing, Mark, When we first moved to Arkansas, from Calif, by way of Texas, we actually WALKED many of these tracts, to see if we wanted to buy one. The year was 1980. The lines were all flagged. There were signs all over, 48/49. Sales plats in ziplock bags, stapled to trees.
If you wanted to look it over, grab a plat (Reduced size plat of the original) and go walk it. Then call the developer, and meet him in his office, sign the papers, and give him 75 bucks... my folks did the math... decided that although the pay rate was low, that the TOTAL cost was too much... so we did not buy one. But, we had PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE of this project.

N

At the time lots were being sold, the corners and lines were HEAVILY marked. Even had numbers attached to trees, along the lines.
Corners were flagged. Very well flagged. I think Mr Developer hired a maintenance guy, with a case of flagging, to enhance the lines, for sales purposes.
N

Nate The Surveyor, post: 371035, member: 291 wrote: When we understand that the description is to assist you in finding the corner marker, NOT to define where to move it to

In this case, as I understand it, we have:

a) monuments placed by very sketchy methods, I would think well below the generally accepted standards of the day,

and

b) an unrecorded map - meaning that we can't really be sure if any buyer ever saw it and if they did we can't be certain they understood what they were looking at. Recording of maps and other documents puts buyers in constructive notice of their existence. Failing to record means that such notice must be proven by other means. You can't just assume that the buyer knew about it,

and

c) a description that does not call for monuments when the subdivider knew that monuments existed. This could be argued to mean that the subdivider did not intend to hold the monuments, that he didn't like the monuments for some reason (ie/ he knew the C&T was a jackleg and didn't trust his work for any more than a rough approximation) and intended to sell to some other limit. Which was described within the four corners of the deed,

and

d) no evidence of occupation.

Put these together and you have STJ as the original surveyor.

Plat is recorded. 1979.

And, STJ yielded to all exterior of the original tract corners. Even though they were all set via non BLM standards.
He was not consistent.

It surely seems amazing/impossible that you can get a GPS unit if any type to work under that much canopy. Once they get real time to work in this setting that'll be all...

As for the corners I think it's pretty easy to state corners should be held if you hold the information you do. To me it just gets dicey when you have an uncalled for old pipe you want to accept and then run out a 100' course and find a brand new pin set the day before that only measures 99.6' by accepting that pin with no other evidence to verify you are giving control to that pin and shortening to distance on the plat. I think that situation is where more pincushion appear from instead of rejecting known original corners.

All of this stuff gives me the heebee-jeebies.

Nate, I always love your posts. They are always informative, and make me a little homesick as well. Keep em coming!

Sales sheets were shrunk versions of the recorded plat. The plat was USED to sell them.

Nate, this sounds all too familiar, by chance were these guys from California?

I ask because during that era, a similar marketing plan was in operation across NE Texas at $40 down, $40 per month per 3 acres parcels.

It has been very difficult to get much of the world to understand that they are not purchasing exactly 10 acres of land, unless the intent of the deed says that, instead they are purchasing all that 10å± acres of land that lies between the existing monuments.

Mark, I respectively disagree.

"a) monuments placed by very sketchy methods, I would think well below the generally accepted standards of the day,"

"Sketchy methods" of placing original monuments are NOT a valid reason to reject original monuments. I can show you original GLO lines and monuments that were definitely set with "sketchy methods", are we allowed to reject them for the same reason? I think not.

"b) an unrecorded map - meaning that we can't really be sure if any buyer ever saw it and if they did we can't be certain they understood what they were looking at. Recording of maps and other documents puts buyers in constructive notice of their existence. Failing to record means that such notice must be proven by other means. You can't just assume that the buyer knew about it,"

The existence or non-existence of an "unrecorded map" or a "recorded map" are not valid reasons to move or reject original monuments. A plat or record of survey are merely graphical representations of what was done on the ground, and are not controlling over the actual full scale "map" that exists on the ground. When a plat or map is in conflict with what was done on the ground, the plat or map is subordinate in control.
Yes, recording a plat is "notice", but recording does elevate the map above what was done on the ground.

"c) a description that does not call for monuments when the subdivider knew that monuments existed. This could be argued to mean that the subdivider did not intend to hold the monuments, that he didn't like the monuments for some reason (ie/ he knew the C&T was a jackleg and didn't trust his work for any more than a rough approximation) and intended to sell to some other limit. Which was described within the four corners of the deed,"

The presumption is that the grantor and grantee had a "meeting of the minds" on the location of the boundaries of the parcels, that means unless you have pretty darn good evidence that both the grantor and grantee agreed that the boundary lines were NOT at the monumented locations, the original monuments control.

"d) no evidence of occupation."

Occupation can be evidence of agreement and/or acknowledgment of the location of the boundaries, mere lack of occupation is NOT enough evidence to overcome the presumption stated above.

McKinley v Hilliard, 454 S.W.2d 67 (1970) Supreme Court of Arkansas:
"In Clark on Surveying and Boundaries, 3rd å¤ 9, the surveyor's function is stated in this language:
"As has been pointed out heretofore it is not the surveyor's responsibility to set up new lines except where he is surveying heretofore unplatted land or subdividing a new tract. Where title to land has been established under a previous survey, the surveyor's duty is to solely locate the lines of the original survey. He cannot establish a new corner, nor can he even correct erroneous surveys of earlier surveyors. He must track the footsteps of the first."
Prior sections in Clark refer the reader to the Bible, Deuteronomy 19:14 and 27:17."

Tyson v. Edwards, 433 So.2d 549 (1983):

More simply put the question is:
In the event of a discrepancy as to subdivided land lot lines, do you go with what the original surveyor intended to do as shown by the plat or do you go with what the original surveyor did by way of laying out and monumenting his survey on the ground?

Surprisingly, because of surveying principles based on established surveying practices, the correct answer is that what the original surveyor actually did by way of monumenting his survey on the ground takes precedence over what he intended to do as shown by his written plat of survey.

The difficulty with the problem is that the role and practice of the surveyor and his function in solving a surveying problem of the type in this case is misunderstood. Lawyers, architects and design engineers are accustomed to achieving objectives by first conceiving of abstract ideas or plans, then reducing those ideas (intentions) to paper, and then using the written document from which to construct a physical object or otherwise tangibly achieve the original goal as written. When this is done, the written document is always considered authoritative and any deviation or discrepancy between it and what is actually done pursuant to it is resolved by considering the deviations and discrepancies as being defects or errors in the execution of the original plan to be corrected by changing the physical to conform to the intention evidenced by the writing. In only one situation does the surveyor play a similar role and that is when he, in the first instance, lays out boundaries in the original division of a tract which has theretofore existed as a single unit. Thereafter the surveyor's function radically changes. It is not the surveyor's right or responsibility to set up new points and lines establishing boundaries except when he is surveying theretofore unplatted land or subdividing a new tract. Where title to land has been established under a previous survey, the sole duty of all subsequent or following surveyors is to locate the points and lines of the original survey. Later surveyors must only track and "trace the footsteps" of the original surveyor in locating existing boundaries. They cannot establish a new corner or line nor can they correct erroneous surveys of earlier surveyors, even when the earlier surveyor obviously erred in following some apparent original "over-all design" or objective. T

The reason for this lies in the historic development of the concept of land boundaries and of the profession of surveying. Man set monuments as landmarks before he invented paper and still today the true survey is what the original surveyor did on the ground by way of fixing boundaries by setting monuments and running lines ("metes and bounds"), and the paper "survey" or plat of survey is intended only as a map of what is on the ground.

The surveying method is to establish boundaries by running lines and fixing monuments on the ground while making field notes of such acts. From the field notes, plats of survey or "maps" are later drawn to depict that which was done on the ground. In establishing the original boundary on the ground the original surveyor is conclusively presumed to have been correct and if later surveyors find there is error in the locations, measurements or otherwise, such error is the error of the last surveyor. Likewise, boundaries originally located and set (right, wrong, good or bad) are primary and controlling when inconsistent with plats purporting to portray the survey and later notions as to what the original subdivider or surveyor intended to be doing or as to where later surveyors, working, perhaps, under better conditions and more accurately with better equipment, would locate the boundary solely by using the plat as a guide or plan. Written plats are not construction plans to be followed to correctly reestablish monuments and boundaries. They are "as built" drawings of what has already occurred on the ground and are properly used only to the extent they are helpful in finding and retracing the original survey which they are intended to describe; and to the extent that the original surveyor's lines and monuments on the ground are established by other evidence and are inconsistent with the lines on the plat of survey, the plat is to be disregarded. When evidence establishes a discrepancy between the location on the ground of the original boundary survey and the written plat of that survey the discrepancy is always resolved against the plat.

Nate, it's funny, we were just out on one of these Friday. It was a series of tracts done in the 1970's,,,,,,I think using stadia.

Almost all the pins are recoverable but they are sloppy to say the least. 585' measures 577' that kinda thing. But they are the original monuments, you have to use them, there is no way to make it all "fit" record to the plat, not going to happen. The big problem I have is when they are missing, trying to calculate where they should be is about impossible. The 50' wide road becomes 48' and 52' in places.

Sales sheets were shrunk versions of the recorded plat.