Brian Allen, post: 371229, member: 1333 wrote: The problem seems to be that too many surveyors rely solely on the "deed", and their erroneous ideas that they can never leave the deed if the description mathematically makes sense. They tend to forget about latent ambiguities, extrinsic evidence, and the establishment doctrines.
If their is no ambiguity in the description then extrinsic evidence is not admissible. There is no ambiguity in these descriptions until you try to force the plat into it. The plat is not called for in the descriptions, so just why, exactly, do you insist that it has to be followed?
I agree with you on the matter of establishment doctrines. I've mentioned them a couple of times. A major issue here is that no such establishment has taken place.
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
Lots of good comments in this thread. Unfortunately, I doubt STJ performed as much analysis as many here are doing. Reads like the typical case of find a few/couple monuments; hold them and calc. the rest from the plat/descriptions; go out and set the rest and ignore any nearby that would muddy the waters and require time, money, and analysis. I would not hold any of the STJ junk, just on general principles. If I had to defend the older monuments I would feel very comfortable doing so, without any more information than posted. This is so because STJ can't possibly have any rational explanation for what they did. If you're going to reject them as not counting, then you have to reject them all. It's either a retracement or it isn't. Can't have it both ways.
Duane Frymire, post: 371237, member: 110 wrote: I would not hold any of the STJ junk, just on general principles.
[USER=291]@Nate The Surveyor[/USER]
Nate,
What was the date on the STJ surveys? Have the owners accepted STJ's work and made improvements based on these surveys?
Post some of the STJ plats too.
DDSM:gammon:
Brian Allen, post: 371229, member: 1333 wrote: Nearly all of the descriptions and plats prepared prior to 1980 that I retrace, never mention monuments, but some do have monuments. Does that mean that all of the thousands of boundaries in this area are "non-established" and should be moved to their correct mathematical position? Good luck with that.
I think you are engaging is hyperbole here. If there has been nothing done along those boundaries, if there are thousands of boundaries in your area that are nothing more than mathematical constructions with survey pins - no fences, no mow lines, no logging limits, nothing, then yes, those boundaries are subject to resurvey.
It isn't the act of surveying and placing pins at corners of properties created by description only that gives those pins their dignity. It is the acts of recognition of the property owners that does so.
This is different from monuments placed for a plat (and sold with reference to said plat). Those monuments gain their dignity by being called for in the conveyance.
There is the hybrid case where monuments are placed at the time of conveyance but not called for, but may be said to have been part of the conveyance. That is the case I'm sure you are thinking this is. I would usually hold such monuments, as would you, I think. In every such case I can think of the initial sale was closely followed up by some acts of occupation on the property, so that is always a consideration. But it does appear to me that, in this case, as I have said, the developer made a special effort to avoid the use of such monuments, and later doubled up that effort by having a second survey done (Nate didn't say who commissioned STJ, I'm assuming it was the developer because it doesn't seem that anyone else would be in a position to do so).
Mark Mayer, post: 371236, member: 424 wrote: If their is no ambiguity in the description then extrinsic evidence is not admissible. There is no ambiguity in these descriptions until you try to force the plat into it. The plat is not called for in the descriptions, so just why, exactly, do you insist that it has to be followed?
I agree with you on the matter of establishment doctrines. I've mentioned them a couple of times. A major issue here is that no such establishment has taken place.
Really? Nice try. I have NOT insisted the "plat" should be followed. I have stated the ORIGINAL MONUMENTS as placed by the ORIGINAL SURVEYOR, having been recognized by the grantor and grantee(s) as the boundary corners should be held as controlling.
As for ambiguities, I would suggest you read a bit about latent ambiguities. Maybe start with this:
Slipp v Stover, 651 A.2d 824 (1994):
"Latent Ambiguity
The doctrine of latent ambiguity is central to this case. "A latent ambiguity in a deed is created when, in applying the description to the ground, facts extrinsic to the document controvert or in some way render unclear the deed's apparently unambiguous terms." Taylor v. Hanson, 541 A.2d 155, 157 (Me.1988) (emphasis added). In Taylor, extrinsic evidence that two roads denominated as parallel in a deed were not, in fact, parallel, was admitted to reveal the latent ambiguity. See also Tyler v. Fickett, 73 Me. 410 (1882) (latent ambiguity developed from inability to locate road to which deed referred); Kratzer v. Kratzer, 595 S.W.2d 453, 455 (Mo. App.1980) (deed conveying land to "Erwin J. Kratzer" instead of "Erwin K. Kratzer" due to scrivener's error created latent ambiguity). A latent ambiguity is "an uncertainty which does not appear on the face of the instrument, but which is shown to exist for the first time by matter outside the writing when an attempt is made to apply the language to the ground." 23 AM.JUR.2D å¤ 314 Deeds (1983). Extrinsic evidence may be admitted to reveal a latent ambiguity in an otherwise clear and unambiguous deed.[2] Taylor, 541 A.2d at 157."
"I think you are engaging is hyperbole here. If there has been nothing done along those boundaries, if there are thousands of boundaries in your area that are nothing more than mathematical constructions with survey pins - no fences, no mow lines, no logging limits, nothing, then yes, those boundaries are subject to resurvey."
OK, next week I have to "resurvey" a 56 lot subdivision in which have no improvements along the interior boundaries, I suspect over 90% of the original monuments are there, just how far off are they allowed to be so that I can accept them as the original monuments?
"It isn't the act of surveying and placing pins at corners of properties created by description only that gives those pins their dignity. It is the acts of recognition of the property owners that does so."
Did you read the part of Nate's posts that said the grantor and grantees viewed the lines and corners? Doesn't that count?
"There is the hybrid case where monuments are placed at the time of conveyance but not called for, but may be said to have been part of the conveyance. That is the case I'm sure you are thinking this is. I would usually hold such monuments, as would you, I think."
Isn't this the case here?
An assumption isn't a fact.
Well, ok, here is the Recorded Plat. Nearly 100% of the monuments were set, in this subdivision. 
The first 2 photos, are the NW corner of Lot 48.
I really did not want to post this plat, and the geographic location, because that will give life to this thread, in a way, that I had not anticipated. In other words, this thread will become linked forever to this subdivision, and any future surveyors who work in here, who do not have awareness of this: https://surveyorconnect.com/threads/my-interesting-week.326675/page-5
Will want to have read about this area, as a part of their research. In other words, Surveyorconnect.com, is now a place to research on preparing to survey, and it seems that is simply beyond what I had considered. My recorded plat will contain a brief story of what I did, and that will clue many into what my history reveals. But, to have an online, interactive thread, that is permanently linked to the survey work, of James O Tallent, RLS No. 48, who drew the above plat, was not in my mind, as I started this thread.
I don't mind posting my own, work, for discussion, but I hesitate to post somebody else's work, Especially with the somewhat known fact, that he performed his work via compass and tape, which was an accepted local standard. Mr Tallent is now deceased. And, was in the process of buying a total station, at the time he passed. He was grandfathered in, but was hanging around the better surveyors, and seeking to develop his practice into a true professional. Mr Tallent's work is WELL monumented, and very retraceable. He was seeking to become what we all dream of... doing it right, and being 100% reliable. So, Here is Mr. Tallents work, and right here, I'd like to speak a few words in his behalf. Mr. Tallent was using older tools, but would be an asset to our profession, if he were alive today. About 90% of the monuments in this quasi subdivision are 1/2" Pinch Top Pipes, set in rock piles. The rock piles are covered over with patina, and likens, and moss, and are findable. The rest of the monuments are random pieces of metal.
It is classic James O Tallent work. I did call another surveyor, and discussed this project with him, before I made my decisions, (This other surveyor had retraced Mr. Tallent many times in the past) and, he told me that "The 1/2" pinch top pipe, is a signature monument, set by Mr. Tallent". They came from some source, related to the horse racing track, and were taken to the scrap yard, cut with a pinch cutter, and placed in barrels, and Mr. Tallent monumented most of his work with these. So, hat's off to a surveyor that LEFT PLAIN MARKERS, and was seeking to do good work.
Nate
Well, ok, here is the Recorded Plat. Nearly 100% of the monuments were set, in this subdivision.
The first 2 photos, are the NW corner of Lot 48.
I really did not want to post this plat, and the geographic location, because that will give life to this thread, in a way, that I had not anticipated. In other words, this thread will become linked forever to this subdivision, and any future surveyors who work in here, who do not have awareness of this: https://surveyorconnect.com/threads/my-interesting-week.326675/page-5
Will want to have read about this area, as a part of their research. In other words, Surveyorconnect.com, is now a place to research on preparing to survey, and it seems that is simply beyond what I had considered. My recorded plat will contain a brief story of what I did, and that will clue many into what my history reveals. But, to have an online, interactive thread, that is permanently linked to the survey work, of James O Tallent, RLS No. 48, who drew the above plat, was not in my mind, as I started this thread.
I don't mind posting my own, work, for discussion, but I hesitate to post somebody else's work, Especially with the somewhat known fact, that he performed his work via compass and tape, which was an accepted local standard. Mr Tallent is now deceased. And, was in the process of buying a total station, at the time he passed. He was grandfathered in, but was hanging around the better surveyors, and seeking to develop his practice into a true professional. Mr Tallent's work is WELL monumented, and very retraceable. He was seeking to become what we all dream of... doing it right, and being 100% reliable. So, Here is Mr. Tallents work, and right here, I'd like to speak a few words in his behalf. Mr. Tallent was using older tools, but would be an asset to our profession, if he were alive today. About 90% of the monuments in this quasi subdivision are 1/2" Pinch Top Pipes, set in rock piles. The rock piles are covered over with patina, and likens, and moss, and are findable. The rest of the monuments are random pieces of metal.
It is classic James O Tallent work. I did call another surveyor, and discussed this project with him, before I made my decisions, (This other surveyor had retraced Mr. Tallent many times in the past) and, he told me that "The 1/2" pinch top pipe, is a signature monument, set by Mr. Tallent". They came from some source, related to the horse racing track, and were taken to the scrap yard, cut with a pinch cutter, and placed in barrels, and Mr. Tallent monumented most of his work with these. So, hat's off to a surveyor that LEFT PLAIN MARKERS, and was seeking to do good work.
Nate
Nate The Surveyor, post: 371026, member: 291 wrote: 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!
Keep this in mind.
Nate The Surveyor, post: 371251, member: 291 wrote: Well, ok, here is the Recorded Plat. Nearly 100% of the monuments were set, in this subdivision.
The first 2 photos, are the NW corner of Lot 48.
I really did not want to post this plat, and the geographic location, because that will give life to this thread, in a way, that I had not anticipated. In other words, this thread will become linked forever to this subdivision, and any future surveyors who work in here, who do not have awareness of this: https://surveyorconnect.com/threads/my-interesting-week.326675/page-5Will want to have read about this area, as a part of their research. In other words, Surveyorconnect.com, is now a place to research on preparing to survey, and it seems that is simply beyond what I had considered. My recorded plat will contain a brief story of what I did, and that will clue many into what my history reveals. But, to have an online, interactive thread, that is permanently linked to the survey work, of James O Tallent, RLS No. 48, who drew the above plat, was not in my mind, as I started this thread.
I don't mind posting my own, work, for discussion, but I hesitate to post somebody else's work, Especially with the somewhat known fact, that he performed his work via compass and tape, which was an accepted local standard. Mr Tallent is now deceased. And, was in the process of buying a total station, at the time he passed. He was grandfathered in, but was hanging around the better surveyors, and seeking to develop his practice into a true professional. Mr Tallent's work is WELL monumented, and very retraceable. He was seeking to become what we all dream of... doing it right, and being 100% reliable. So, Here is Mr. Tallents work, and right here, I'd like to speak a few words in his behalf. Mr. Tallent was using older tools, but would be an asset to our profession, if he were alive today. About 90% of the monuments in this quasi subdivision are 1/2" Pinch Top Pipes, set in rock piles. The rock piles are covered over with patina, and likens, and moss, and are findable. The rest of the monuments are random pieces of metal.
It is classic James O Tallent work. I did call another surveyor, and discussed this project with him, before I made my decisions, (This other surveyor had retraced Mr. Tallent many times in the past) and, he told me that "The 1/2" pinch top pipe, is a signature monument, set by Mr. Tallent". They came from some source, related to the horse racing track, and were taken to the scrap yard, cut with a pinch cutter, and placed in barrels, and Mr. Tallent monumented most of his work with these. So, hat's off to a surveyor that LEFT PLAIN MARKERS, and was seeking to do good work.
Nate
I try not to get drawn into debating; I did a little bit, though.
Nate The Surveyor, post: 371251, member: 291 wrote:
I don't mind posting my own, work, for discussion, but I hesitate to post somebody else's work, Especially with the somewhat known fact, that he performed his work via compass and tape, which was an accepted local standard.
That only makes sense if there is some reason why the low quality of Arkansas surveying in rural areas like that one should not be generally known. Keeping it a secret hardly seems smart.
About 90% of the monuments in this quasi subdivision are 1/2" Pinch Top Pipes, set in rock piles. The rock piles are covered over with patina, and likens, and moss, and are findable. The rest of the monuments are random pieces of metal.
So, in fact the older existing markers in the subdivision are consistent as to type and configuration. That leaves roughly 10% as questionable. Just out of curiosity, what method do you follow for connecting them with the other 90% as the work of the same surveyor? Are there old marked lines that allow that?
Kent, I would not come on a public forum, and play the porcupine to you, on work, I was not familiar with, in Texas. You are quite simply out of your league, to question my judgement, on Arkansas work, that I am familiar with, and you are not. You are out of your league. You are obviously a quite pedantic, and determined surveyor, however this is not the forum to act in a non professional manner, about things you are not professionally aware of. This is not to say you are not altogether a worthwhile guy. Just to say you "Got over the line". You come on this forum, talking about things you don't know anything about, taking positions you do have the facts to support, and questioning items beyond your sphere of knowledge. It is not appropriate.
God Bless You,
Nate
My previous post here stating my anxieties about the opening post was truthful.
Since then, the following posts have contained conjectures, suppositions, and presumptions with arguments and lines being drawn by various posters. Some comments are based on personal bias to other posters while some have been made to pursue a beneficial discussion on the topic.
Yes, we know that original monuments are considered somewhat inviolable in boundary law. But with the plat filing, sales brochures, written descriptions etc., then this develops into a grey area related to the laws of evidence.
So to follow NateÛªs narrativeÛ? the old school, grandfathered-engineer surveyor surveys C&T to do the original s/d in 1978 to allowable standards despite slope chaining... It appears that he sets his signature pinch-top pipe at numerous corner locations.
Plat is filed in 1979. Plat (shrunken) is used to sell lots by the developer (developer should be used very lightly). I guess the filing makes it all look legit to the potential $75 down buyers
2002, STJ arrives to sort out the mess. He uses a Û÷pick and chooseÛª method to winnow the corners to fit his work. Really canÛªt point a finger because it is not known what problems were encountered but he set some corners. Notice in NateÛªs picture he is setting a corner in disagreement with a 2-bit rebar and not the so-called original pinched pipe. To repeat, we really donÛªt know where he is coming from for his survey. Maybe he got spun around or maybe he was onto something solid.
Step ahead to 2016... The Javadista surveyor and his cube conjure coordinates in canopy with the help of Russian satellites and software. With best available evidence and local knowledge along with the button pushing data, he starts to winnow out existing monuments much like the STJ did in 2002.
To give a historical context to this post, one must remember the late 1970Ûªs. Yes, rural property in Arkansas was ridiculously inexpensive in cost.
Mortgage interest rates were sorting to climb over the 10% mark. In a few years, they would be reaching 16-18%. Not very attractive to buyers. So a lot of ÛÏcreativeÛ and ÛÏshadyÛ land deals were about. Owner financing, balloon notes, low or no down payment deals. The state of Arkansas had a usury law dating back to the Depression that capped loans at 10%. The banks or other credible loaning could not do loans at 10%. Math was too simple. A lot of developers were from out of state like Texas and California but there were plenty of Û÷righteousÛª Arkansans too.
So this so-called developer was looking to make money in a bad real estate market. Plus a lot of these low cost rural tracts cost had problems with construction, i.e. road access, water availability etc. You see the slope in Nates pictures.
Plus this developer was using the s/d to tax dodge.
All this is why the post gave me the heebee-jeebies
I moved to Arkansas in summer of 1979. Bought a piece of property and was forced to hire a local respected attorney to deal with the scumbag realtor that I was dealing with who was married to a weasel attorney partner. These were the kind of people that checked obits then descended like vultures to profit.
I studied and surveyed in Arkansas and was licensed there. Uncalled monuments were common and one was very wary of them for a variety of issues. Included would be sleazy sellers, land owners etc. There were some surveyors who developed the Cardinal direction, 1320Ûª from a fence post and ignore any effort to research or follow the original GLO surveys. To make matters worse, they would take jobs as a low baller many, many miles from their office to rural areas where that thought it wouldnÛªt matter in the grand scheme of things.
One thing for certain, Nate is not getting paid enough to sort this out. Same was true of the C&T guy and the STJ.
Great analysis there, Robert! Funny too! Thanks!
🙂
N
Robert, I will say, GLONAS was NOT working that day. That's why it went so slow, in those woods.
N
Nate
You've made a solid case. The signature pinch top pipes remove any uncertainty that may have existed with the connection between the map and points in the ground.
Thanks for sharing!
[USER=291]@Nate The Surveyor[/USER]
Nate,
I thought posting links to assorted plats in the subject subdivision would aid in the discussion. Looking forward to examples of descriptions
DDSM
http://geostor-plats.geostor.org/Montgomery/236057.pdf
http://geostor-plats.geostor.org/Montgomery/236199.pdf
http://geostor-plats.geostor.org/Montgomery/236222.pdf
http://geostor-plats.geostor.org/Montgomery/239022.pdf
Well, stj's survey is apparently not recorded online. I have a copy, but he is deceased.
Nate The Surveyor, post: 371328, member: 291 wrote: Well, stj's survey is apparently not recorded online. I have a copy, but he is deceased.
Nate,
Simply post a copy of Plat Book 2, Page 158 of the PUBLIC RECORDS of Montgomery County, Arkansas
DDSM
Here is bk 2, Pg 158
