This is super interesting. The whole plat it then sell the parcels by description thing seems very contradictive. Was the only function of the plat to have a pretty picture of the property to include in the sales sheets? I assume the individual parcel descriptions match the plat?
I agree with your evaluation of what to hold so long as you can make the determination that what you're calling the C&T monuments are actually the original monuments. Were these "pinch top pipes, and whatever metal he could buy from the local scrap metal yard" monuments physically described on the plat? If not you might be the only surveyor in the world qualified to call them originals having personally seen them in 1980 very close to when they were originally set.
Thanks for sharing, loved the story!
Once again, it isn't Nate's duty to prove each and every monument is "original" before it controls. The opposite is true - one must prove they are not the original monuments before they do not control. The mere fact that each and every one isn't called for in the descriptions or on the plat doesn't not raise a presumption that they are not original.
Yes, it would be great if the map and the descriptions precisely describe each and every monument set, and precisely show where they were set with exact, precise measurements, but, as surveyors we need to let go of this expectation in most cases. Reality is usually far different than what we "would have done" or "what we expect to find". Our job is to find the boundaries where they were established, not "correct" old mistakes or inaccuracies.
Nate, was the original subdivider named Garfunkel by chance?? :-O
We have case law that says the plat is evidence of the survey and the monuments don't have to be individually called for. A couple of the cases are from Santa Barbara.
The two critical things are:
1. Agreement (set by the subdivider, accepted by the buyers).
2. Notice...the monuments are visible and the plat itself.
I have absolutely NO doubt that they are original.
To quote another surveyor, "if you find 1/2" pinch top pipes, that is practically like finding a cap, with C&T's LS number on it."
However, he would get all his monuments at the Cooks Scrap Metal... So this was not absolute.. A few other pieces of metal mixed in. I have searched much of this quasi subdivision. About 80 to 90% of the markers are 1/2" pinch top pipes.
N
Maybe I'm wrong but I can't imagine getting good gps results in this canopy. I mean even if it gets a "fix" and you shoot it several times, how are you certain to not be gathering multipath error. And if it takes 45 min to get a shot is it really saving that much time over a traditional total station traverse.
Just my 2 cents, I use gps in the wide open only and am cautious in everything I do, I am absolutely no gps expert.
I agree with all your legal take if the legal description matches the plat calls more or less. If it's completely contradictory to plat and field I think it would muddy the water.
Robert Hill, post: 371047, member: 378 wrote: All of this stuff gives me the heebee-jeebies.
Yeah, but this is ARKANSAS. If you stop paddling for moment, you can probably even hear the banjos. :>
Basically, the question, if I understand it, is whether a plat executed by a grantor controls over a deed executed by same grantor without reference to said plat. If this were anywhere other than Arkansas, and something valuable were involved, there are arguments both ways to be made.
Dave Karoly, post: 371077, member: 94 wrote: We have case law that says the plat is evidence of the survey and the monuments don't have to be individually called for. A couple of the cases are from Santa Barbara.
But I take it in Nate's case the actual conveyance made no reference to any survey (no calls for monuments) or any plat. If I've understood what Nate has posted, even the plat makes no calls for the rebars marking the lot corners.
Lugeyser, post: 371084, member: 1249 wrote: Maybe I'm wrong but I can't imagine getting good gps results in this canopy. I mean even if it gets a "fix" and you shoot it several times, how are you certain to not be gathering multipath error. And if it takes 45 min to get a shot is it really saving that much time over a traditional total station traverse.
Just my 2 cents, I use gps in the wide open only and am cautious in everything I do, I am absolutely no gps expert.
.
From above:
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 !)
There is a systematic device in the Javad, that goes through all the GPS signals, (864 channels) and weeds out the bad signals. If it's working right, it's the bomb. (As I said above glonass was disabled) one satellite can give 50 or so signals... In a multipath environment. The 864 channels let's it analyze on a level that nothing else presently can. I'm sure that the other manufacturers will catch up, but to my knowledge, Javad is presently the best for woods work. But, that's my opinion.
Normal woods work like this, gets 3 verified shots, that are very close to each other. But this gets into data analysis, and that could take a bit. The short answer is you can get pretty close to total station accuracy with it. But you have to be patient. And your verticals will be poorer.
The more time, the more accuracy.
I could say more, but, it's stuff you have to learn.
Kent McMillan, post: 371085, member: 3 wrote: Yeah, but this is ARKANSAS. If you stop paddling for moment, you can probably even hear the banjos. :>
Basically, the question, if I understand it, is whether a plat executed by a grantor controls over a deed executed by same grantor without reference to said plat. If this were anywhere other than Arkansas, and something valuable were involved, there are arguments both ways to be made.
No, the basic question is whether the original monuments set by the original surveyor, having been represented by the grantor to the grantee(s) as the boundary lines of the conveyed parcels control over the measurements as shown on a plat or stated in the descriptions, even if the plat and/or description do not exactly describe the original undisturbed monuments?
It is actually a rather simple question, about a rather simple concept, with a rather obvious answer. What controls, the actions and intentions of the landowners as obviously expressed by placing monuments on the ground (you know, landowners, they are the people that actually own the land), or the pedantic, erroneous, and illogical opinion of a deed staking technician?
If one has trouble understanding the basic concepts that Nate has brought up in this thread, it is quite likely that they are in the wrong profession. If we, as professionals, cannot grasp these simple concepts, maybe this "profession" should fade into the dust-bin of history. I really cannot understand anyone even thinking that original monuments as set and used in the OP, do not control. Are we really this lost?
Brian Allen, post: 371102, member: 1333 wrote: No, the basic question is whether the original monuments set by the original surveyor, having been represented by the grantor to the grantee(s) as the boundary lines of the conveyed parcels control over the measurements as shown on a plat or stated in the descriptions, even if the plat and/or description do not exactly describe the original undisturbed monuments?
Not really. Whether the piece of rebar Nate found is original or not is a question of evidence. Where the original conveyance makes no reference to the rebar or the plat and the plat, which is of record, makes no reference to the rebar, the evidence is very thin. Even Nate cannot (presumably) testify that the rebar he found is definitely the lot corner stake that was in place at the time of the sale, still undisturbed. Since Nate claims that scrapyard steel was used for markers, I assume that means that it would take extensive resurveying just to demonstrate that some of them have common characteristics. He's just concluding that it probably was even though it isn't anywhere very close to where it was described in the deed. The salvation in this matter is that the land is probably worth so little that no one is likely to litigate a boundary.
Fast forward thirty years. None of the original purchasers are around and nothing can be proven unless something is in the meantime entered into the public record that would put subsequent purchasers and their surveyors on notice of the peculiar history of this subdivision. As things stand, any lot owner could presumably move any of the stakes by five or ten feet and no one would ever know. There is no way to prove that any of them are undisturbed.
In other words there are original monuments and there are original monuments. At some point the level of effort necessary to attempt to prove the originality of a monument exceeds the benefit. At that point, what is the practical value of the doctrine of original evidence?
Brian Allen, post: 371102, member: 1333 wrote: No, the basic question is whether the original monuments set by the original surveyor, having been represented by the grantor to the grantee(s) as the boundary lines of the conveyed parcels control over the measurements as shown on a plat or stated in the descriptions, even if the plat and/or description do not exactly describe the original undisturbed monuments?
It is actually a rather simple question, about a rather simple concept, with a rather obvious answer. What controls, the actions and intentions of the landowners as obviously expressed by placing monuments on the ground (you know, landowners, they are the people that actually own the land), or the pedantic, erroneous, and illogical opinion of a deed staking technician?
If one has trouble understanding the basic concepts that Nate has brought up in this thread, it is quite likely that they are in the wrong profession. If we, as professionals, cannot grasp these simple concepts, maybe this "profession" should fade into the dust-bin of history. I really cannot understand anyone even thinking that original monuments as set and used in the OP, do not control. Are we really this lost?
It's quite clear that the burden of proof is on the person rejecting a monument. The monument is presumed original, it's up to you to PROVE it's not when you reject it. And yes we are lost:whistle:
MightyMoe, post: 371113, member: 700 wrote: It's quite clear that the burden of proof is on the person rejecting a monument. The monument is presumed original, it's up to you to PROVE it's not when you reject it.
I guess if you want to use "original" in some sense other than a monument in place at the time of the original conveyance that created the boundary, sure, knock yourself out. However, if you want to use "original" in its proper sense of something that is connected to and was in view at the time of that original conveyance, then the fact that there is some piece of junk iron somewhere in the vicinity of where the corner is expected to fall doesn't pass the laugh test.
In the case of Nate's example, the most damaging facts are that (a) the 1979 plat apparently did not call for any markers having been set and (b) what is in the ground is such a motley assortment of scrap that you'd be challenged to even demonstrate that they were the product of one surveyor.
Kent McMillan, post: 371111, member: 3 wrote: it isn't anywhere very close to where it was described in the deed.
Please show us; what is the definition of "very close"?
RADAR, post: 371119, member: 413 wrote: Please show us; what is the definition of "very close"?
For a survey made in 1979, the standards of the day would apply. If errors of 5 ft. to 50 ft. were normal in Arkansas at the time and there were no minimum standards that applied, then 5 ft. to 50 ft. would be close 'nuf. I would expect that they weren't.
The vast majority of Deeds in States other than Texas have descriptions that don't call for the monuments. Our Courts have made it clear, where there is evidence of a Survey the monuments will control. There is a few cases where they invoked the un-called for monuments rule but that is because it was determined that they weren't intended by the parties to control the Deed and the monuments were out of position by a much larger number than just what the Surveyor could've measured if he wasn't an incompetent boob. We even have a case where they rejected a CALLED FOR monument because holding it would've increased the tract size by 40%; the monument was the high water mark (tidal) of the Noyo River in Fort Bragg.
RADAR, post: 371119, member: 413 wrote: Please show us; what is the definition of "very close"?
I think this comes down to:
"I know it when I see it"
per. Keith Williams and Justice Potter Stewart...
B-)
Loyal
For example, if the land in Nate's example is classified as the lowest grade of Arkansas land, Class "D" property, a relative positional error of +/-1.5 ft. (deviation from calculated position) would be acceptable under Arkansas minimum standards. If it is Class "C" rural property, i.e. land that actually has some use (which in Arkansas would mean agricultural activities like raising wild boars or growing hemp), then a relative position error of +/-0.75 would be considered business as usual.
In other words, the Arkansas standards are very slack but not so slack as to consider errors of 5 ft. to 50 ft. the ordinary errors of surveyors.
Dave Karoly, post: 371122, member: 94 wrote: The vast majority of Deeds in States other than Texas have descriptions that don't call for the monuments. Our Courts have made it clear, where there is evidence of a Survey the monuments will control.
Yes, and presumably the "evidence" of a survey was the plat of record that doesn't mention any sort of markers having been set, if I understood the facts Nate described. So, is the platting of land with no mention of a survey, in modern practice evidence of a survey?
The contrary argument would be that the parties had the theoretical picture of the subdivision in view which was confirmed by the metes and bounds description. Absent any definite proof to the contrary, the markers in place are understood as being some attempt to locate the lot on the ground made at some unknown time by unknown parties and upon which the reliance is questionable.
MightyMoe, post: 371113, member: 700 wrote: ... the burden of proof is on the person rejecting a monument. The monument is presumed original...
I can't quite buy that. By that logic if I am looking for a section corner in the middle of Wyoming the first likely looking stone I spot becomes the section corner. No, there must be some other supporting evidence. Such as a specific description of the character of the monument. Long standing occupation. Or measurements to reference objects or adjacent proven monuments. We don't have any monument descriptions or occupation in Nate's case and the measurements are very sketchy. So the question of whether the C&T monuments are original and undisturbed, in my mind, is very much in play.
The Plat is presumed to be the result of a Survey.
The Courts are able to make the obvious logical leap to "there must be monuments out there" if there is a survey.
Why shouldn't the Boundary Surveyor?
