Nate The Surveyor, post: 371344, member: 291 wrote:
Here is bk 2, Pg 158
LMAO... I'm accepting the "point" in the legend and rotating all on that.
Mark Mayer, post: 371243, member: 424 wrote: 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).
I directly disagree. What ESTABLISHED those points, (My above survey) was the EMPLOYMENT of the Surveyor, James O Tallent. BY the common owner. They were FIXED AT THAT TIME.
Consider this thought process:
Joes Spit:
Farmer Joe Owns 100 acres. He goes out, with his neighbor, Bill, to SELL him 3 acres of land, in a square. Farmer Joe chews tobacco. Farmer joe is 6' tall, with long legs. He steps off a generally square figure, with Bill, and Bills 16 yr old son. Joe SPITS his tobacco, on the dirt, and tells Joe, "That's your corner". Bill places a rock there. They do this at all the corners. The next day, Bill tells his son to go and "pound these iron pipes in at those rocks, we set yesterday". He does so. The deed that Joe signed to Jim reads "3 acres in a square". Joe now gets it surveyed. Turns out that what they stepped off was 3.5 acres, and it is approximately square.
This goes to court. Bills son tell the story to the court. Joe is an honest guy, and says "that's about how it happened"
Thus, Joes spit becomes record title. Bill never understood the paper he signed. He remembers the spit, and the rocks, and his son remembers the pipes he set.
The Pipes are the corners.
That's it. Forever.
If you have adequate evidence, of Joe's spit, that is.
Game over.
Nate
Nate The Surveyor, post: 371271, member: 291 wrote: You are quite simply out of your league, to question my judgement, on Arkansas work, that I am familiar with, and you are not.
Hey, settle down. It was a simple question. Surveyors don't make judgments based on ESP. The information you provided was that the old rebar you thought to be the work of the 1978 surveyor was unlike 90% of the monuments in the subdivision, the shear-cut pipe that are considered to be typical of his work.
So the question was simply what clues there were that led you to conclude that the atypical marker was the 1978 surveyor's as well. I was just guessing that you found that it fell on a marked line that showed age consistent with having been made in about 1978. If you didn't, was there anything else other than just the fact that there was this rebar there? Just askin'.
Nate The Surveyor, post: 371348, member: 291 wrote: The deed that Joe signed to Jim reads "3 acres in a square". Joe now gets it surveyed.
Game over.
Nate
Nate,
Who is Jim? Was he the fellow who built the fence between the monuments Joe's surveyor set?
https://surveyorconnect.com/threads/retracement-surveying.303078/#post-303234
DDSM:whistle:
Nate The Surveyor, post: 371348, member: 291 wrote: Farmer Joe Owns 100 acres. He goes out, with his neighbor, Bill...
What you have described is a boundary by agreement, memorialized by the setting of monuments and the recording of a deed. And I agree that in that situation the monuments are the boundary, no question. We may have such an agreement in your C&T/STJ situation, but that has to be proven, not just supposed.
Brian Allen, post: 371246, member: 1333 wrote: 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 stand corrected on that one, Brian.
Proven? I don't know what you need. I'm satisfied. My stamp is on the plat. Here is my plat.
Nate The Surveyor, post: 371367, member: 291 wrote: Proven? I don't know what you need. I'm satisfied. My stamp is on the plat. Here is my plat.
Nice plat Nate!!!
And of course the burden of proof is on the rejector, not the acceptor
Mark Mayer, post: 371363, member: 424 wrote: What you have described is a boundary by agreement, memorialized by the setting of monuments and the recording of a deed. And I agree that in that situation the monuments are the boundary, no question. We may have such an agreement in your C&T/STJ situation, but that has to be proven, not just supposed.
Usually, a boundary by agreement, requires an uncertainty or dispute in the location of an existing line. When the parties are creating a new parcel, there is no uncertainty or dispute, they are establishing the location of the line for the conveyance.
Granted, some courts have ruled that such circumstances are an agreement, but generally, on appeal they are overturned.
See Reid v Duzet, 94 P.3d 694 (2004):
"As a result Vedder and Caldero cannot be said to have resolved an uncertain boundary by their agreement ÛÓ they were simply marking part of Vedder's property to be traded to Caldero. Consequently, the district judge erred in relying on the doctrine of boundary by agreement."
"Where the seller and the buyer go upon the land and there agree upon and mark the boundary between the part to be conveyed and the part to be retained by the seller, the line thus fixed controls the courses and distances set out in the deed executed to effectuate the division agreed upon."
Brian Allen, post: 371371, member: 1333 wrote: Usually, a boundary by agreement, requires an uncertainty or dispute in the location of an existing line. When the parties are creating a new parcel, there is no uncertainty or dispute, they are establishing the location of the line for the conveyance.
Granted, some courts have ruled that such circumstances are an agreement, but generally, on appeal they are overturned.
See Reid v Duzet, 94 P.3d 694 (2004):
"As a result Vedder and Caldero cannot be said to have resolved an uncertain boundary by their agreement ÛÓ they were simply marking part of Vedder's property to be traded to Caldero. Consequently, the district judge erred in relying on the doctrine of boundary by agreement.""Where the seller and the buyer go upon the land and there agree upon and mark the boundary between the part to be conveyed and the part to be retained by the seller, the line thus fixed controls the courses and distances set out in the deed executed to effectuate the division agreed upon."
For decades the California Courts used the agreed boundary doctrine for almost every bad surveying issue that came up then in 1994 they declared it a "residual" doctrine LOL.
Nate The Surveyor, post: 371367, member: 291 wrote: Here is my plat.
Some suggestions for future projects: stick to the facts when you report on a survey.
For example:
This property was originally owned by W.R. Keadle, who hired James O. Tallant, RPLS No. 48, to survey it into lots.
The Recorded Plat of this was recorded August 13, 1979.
Factual statement: The Real Property Records of Montgomery County, Arkansas, reflect that on August 13, 1979 when the plat of what is known as CADDO HILLS ESTATES was recorded, W.R. Keadle was the record owner of the land shown subdivided into lots on the plat.
That plat, recorded in Bk. ___ at Pg. ____ of the Montgomery County Plat Records indicates that it was prepared by James O. Tallent, RLS No.48. I have concluded that Mr. Tallent's plat reflects a survey that he made upon the ground to lay out the various roads and lots shown upon the plat, including placing survey markers at certain corners within the subdivision shown upon the plat. This conclusion is based upon conversations with ______________ who I believe to be credible and knowledgeable about the surveying history of this subdivision, borne out by surveys that I have myself made that recovered lengths of pinch-top pipe in the positions of corners reportedly marked by Mr. Tallent.
After surveying it, tracts were sold by legal description, with a contract for deed.
When they were paid for, the deed was given to the buyer.
This mechanism was done, to avoid higher land taxes for Mr. Keadle, for the remaining unsold lots.
Factual statement: The deeds executed by W.R. Keadle, including that to the subject property recorded in Bk._____ at Pg. ____ of the Montgomery County Deed Records, do not describe the land conveyed by reference to the plat of CADDO HILLS ESTATES of record, but only by metes and bounds. According to my information, this practice was commonly followed as a means for a subdivider to avoid paying property taxes at a higher rate upon the unconveyed balance of this land, even though it had been surveyed into lots and might, as subdivided land, be subject to that higher rate.
Factual statement: I concluded from examining the metes and bounds descriptions made a part of the deeds recorded in to the subject tract and those adjacent that the metes and bounds descriptions were most likely prepared from the survey data appearing upon the subdivision plat of record. I find no other plausible explanation for the nearly exact correspondence between the two.
I am of the opinion that original subdivision corners, when found where originally set, should be maintained as the proper corners for the boundaries between these lots.
Factual statement: My opinion is that the implication of the correspondence between the metes and bounds descriptions means that the tracts described are those shown upon the plat. My opinion is also that while that plat gives no call for any corner of the subject property having been marked, that in fact a survey was performed by Mr. Tallent prior to the recordation of the plat. This opinion is based upon ______________. Given that this evidence indicates that Mr. Tallent did actually place markers at various corners of the subject property prior to the recordation of the plat, and that the metes and bounds descriptions made a part of the various deeds both to the subject property and those adjacent were actually derived from the plat, I have concluded that the plat should property be considered as evidence of the locations of the tracts as conveyed, including the markers in existence at the time.
The James O. Tallent Survey represents the "Original Survey" of this land and is thus definitive for title, especially for the interior of this quasi subdivision.
Factual statement: The markers shown upon this map and labeled ___________ are of a type that is locally recognized among land surveyors as characteristic of the markers that Mr. Tallent set in 1978 when this subdivision was reportedly laid out. In the vicinity of corner __________, I made a diligent search for any other marker in place that might have been more likely that placed by Mr. Tallent and found none. My opinion is that the markers shown upon this map as being the corners of the subject tract are in fact the same markers placed by Mr. Tallent in 1978 prior to the recordation of the plat of CADDO HILLS ESTATES. I regard them as fixing the terminals of the lines bounding the subject tract as represented upon the record plat and, by implication, the terminals of the lines as described by course and distance in the metes and bounds description evidently prepared from that plat.
Kent McMillan, post: 371357, member: 3 wrote: Hey, settle down. It was a simple question. Surveyors don't make judgments based on ESP. The information you provided was that the old rebar you thought to be the work of the 1978 surveyor was unlike 90% of the monuments in the subdivision, the shear-cut pipe that are considered to be typical of his work.
So the question was simply what clues there were that led you to conclude that the atypical marker was the 1978 surveyor's as well. I was just guessing that you found that it fell on a marked line that showed age consistent with having been made in about 1978. If you didn't, was there anything else other than just the fact that there was this rebar there? Just askin'.
I don't know, but, maybe an apology would go much farther considering your past behavior?
MightyMoe, post: 371059, member: 700 wrote: 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.
Shoot, we've got a guy over here that retired last year that was STILL using stadia. I retrace a recent survey of his and he missed a distance on a line 200 feet long by 9 feet, and between the monuments was a flat, mowed yard.
Kent McMillan, post: 371257, member: 3 wrote: 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.
Now, Kent there are smart people, who do not feel the need to prove themselves. Refrain from casting dispersion, on Arkansas folks, as a generality. That's not professional. And, then to call me stupid, er, exact words "Hardly seems smart". I was not trying to be smart. I was being factual. Anyway, Kent, your last post, with suggestions is more in keeping with the general spirit of professionalism, that I would expect from someone as smart as you are. And, I will remind you, Also, it seems that there are TEXAS surveyors that cannot seem to find a way to set a precise survey mark at a fence corner, Other than a nail.... So, Kent, Humility will outlast all human pride... An old Book of mine says "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall."
I'd like to skip that trip. And, spare others.
Anyway, thanks for your last post...
Good thoughts there.
I have a few more thoughts on this whole thread, but they don't go here.
N
Mark Mayer, post: 371130, member: 424 wrote: 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.
Do you have proof the monument moved?
roger_LS, post: 371190, member: 11550 wrote: Not to say that you can't hold a monument out by more than a few feet, but, we did have a lot better ability to measure in 1978 than we did with the public lands surveys, mostly done with compass.
Measuring ability has nothing to do with this.
Nate The Surveyor, post: 371416, member: 291 wrote: Now, Kent there are smart people, who do not feel the need to prove themselves. Refrain from casting dispersion, on Arkansas folks, as a generality.
Actually, the point was that if the quality of surveying in rural Arkansas has evidently been historically low, doesn't pretending otherwise work against a realistic assessment of the actual ordinary errors of surveys? If the Tallent surveys were customarily executed by substandard means, such as taking slope measurements without reducing them to the horizontal, that would be pretty important for posterity to know. The factors at work in Arkansas, i.e. low land value, difficult terrain, and clients without much money, would not be entirely specific to the state, and I doubt that the substandard practices (which were not uncommon in 19th-century elsewhere) would be, either.
Tommy Young, post: 371414, member: 703 wrote: Shoot, we've got a guy over here that retired last year that was STILL using stadia. I retrace a recent survey of his and he missed a distance on a line 200 feet long by 9 feet, and between the monuments was a flat, mowed yard.
I did quite a bit of stadia for topo......there is no reason to see 200feet miss by 9 feet, but that's kinda what I'm seeing also. I always figured those points were a single tie from stadia control and it compounded the errors somehow
Kent McMillan, post: 371422, member: 3 wrote: Actually, the point was that if the quality of surveying in rural Arkansas has evidently been historically low, doesn't pretending otherwise work against a realistic assessment of the actual ordinary errors of surveys? If the Tallent surveys were customarily executed by substandard means, such as taking slope measurements without reducing them to the horizontal, that would be pretty important for posterity to know. The factors at work in Arkansas, i.e. low land value, difficult terrain, and clients without much money, would not be entirely specific to the state, and I doubt that the substandard practices (which were not uncommon in 19th-century elsewhere) would be, either.
The point being, who gives a rip if the "the quality of surveying in rural Arkansas has evidently been historically low" and if past surveys were "executed by substandard means", your unsolicited, and ESP based opinions of such matters doesn't change the location of the boundaries, does it? And it certainly doesn't give you just cause to spread your not-so-veiled insults at anyone who crosses your path.
Brian Allen, post: 371429, member: 1333 wrote: The point being, who gives a rip if the "the quality of surveying in rural Arkansas has evidently been historically low" [...]?
Well, since you apparently want to consider every piece of iron you find anywhere near a boundary corner as "original" I can see how the question of how surveys were actually made and what is plausible as a survey result might be inconvenient. Elsewhere, when the question is whether some survey mark is consistent with some prior survey or not, the expected errors of that survey are something a surveyor should consider in assessing (a) the presence of gross error and (b) likely disturbance of the marker.
In the hills of rural Arkansas, a different set of standards would apply than in other places where surveys were more carefully made. Why sugar coat that fact?