Not enough

If one of the corners of a tract is a Section corner then the only question is where is the section corner located. There is no mythical other property corner, I've never seen that in a primary authority.

Dave, to be concrete about what could turn into a long discussion let's make up an example.

Say 25 years ago someone didn't find the SW corner of sec 31 (township corner) and put a mon at their best guess while surveying the SE 1/4 SW 1/4.

Today you go out to break down the NW 1/4 NE 1/4 of sec 1 in the diagonally adjacent township.?ÿ You can't find the quarter corners but do find the original township corner mon that the old guy missed, and find fences at his erroneous corner.

Should the fences move to the original mon??ÿ I don't think so in most states.

Which corner mon do you base your breakdown on?

The owner you are surveying for was not a party to any decision to accept and fence to the erroneous township corner monument.?ÿ Did his 1/16?ÿ corner move by the decisions made by the others?

Dave,

I think you may be trolling, but if not, how would you handle the two properties in the opening post?

The establishment doctrines usually require uncertainty. ?ÿIf the Deeds call for a monument which is existent then it is difficult for the owners to claim they are uncertain. The other possibility is Adverse Possession but then the "erroneous" monument is still a boundary corner of the AP tract, if that is possible under State law.

Under the establishment doctrines nothing has moved, the "erroneous" township corner monument is the corner. This is to avoid the statute of frauds.

I've seen a case where a truly lost corner was single proportioned by the County surveyor. 60 years later the Surveyor called it a "property corner" but not the "PLSS Section Corner" because it should've been double proportioned. I think that is a misunderstanding of how boundary law works and a misapplication of it. The SP monument is the Section corner, anything else would be advocating a solution which is illegal, that is an unwritten conveyance. Even IBLA has refused to move an improperly reset corner monument after several decades.

Dave makes an excellent point. Rejecting monuments over technical errors is wrong. At some point we have to allow the owners some stability. Moving lines over minor incompetencies doesn't do that.

The actions of the owners in the first post likely establish their common line. Any encroachment onto others not involved in the implied agreement of the fence would be unaffected. The original monument controls for breakdowns...

Further elaborating on Billƒ??s scenario, I would ask how strong is the evidence of the original corner? To overcome a previous reset it should be clear and convincing evidence such as a marked post or stone or bearing trees with visible scribing. As it becomes more of a matter of opinion I think that the reset can be respected in place.

Posted by: Dave Karoly

The establishment doctrines usually require uncertainty. ?ÿIf the Deeds call for a monument which is existent then it is difficult for the owners to claim they are uncertain. The other possibility is Adverse Possession but then the "erroneous" monument is still a boundary corner of the AP tract, if that is possible under State law.

Under the establishment doctrines nothing has moved, the "erroneous" township corner monument is the corner. This is to avoid the statute of frauds.

I've seen a case where a truly lost corner was single proportioned by the County surveyor. 60 years later the Surveyor called it a "property corner" but not the "PLSS Section Corner" because it should've been double proportioned. I think that is a misunderstanding of how boundary law works and a misapplication of it. The SP monument is the Section corner, anything else would be advocating a solution which is illegal, that is an unwritten conveyance. Even IBLA has refused to move an improperly reset corner monument after several decades.

Uncertainty can exist even if the monument exists, if the land owners are unaware of its existence. Some states are much more liberal with their establishment doctrines then others.

Most state courts would struggle to overturn a 40 year old fence corner that had been agreed to, and no state has law that would allow that corner to move the boundary of a third party.?ÿ

A thorough proffesional surveyor will point out the difference between the original corner and the occupied corner. In some cases that difference is beyond the scope of the surveyor to resolve, but even if it is not, the inconsitanty needs to be identified to prevent mistakes like in the original example, although if you are in a state like AR it may not matter, because land surveys become instantly obsolete.

Whether it is an agreed boundary or AP, or something else, we all know that sometimes property corners are no longer in the position the original surveyor created. In some cases the distinction between the true corner and the property corner are philosophical, but in the cases described above the difference matters.?ÿ

I have never understood how anyone can make a claim of adverse possession across original grant boundaries.

The title to lands on either side of the grant boundaries is guaranteed by the crown and can not be denied and the only way to pass title is by deed transfer or other actual intended transfer of land.

Posted by: Dave Karoly

Further elaborating on Billƒ??s scenario, I would ask how strong is the evidence of the original corner? To overcome a previous reset it should be clear and convincing evidence such as a marked post or stone or bearing trees with visible scribing. As it becomes more of a matter of opinion I think that the reset can be respected in place.

I agree with everything you say here, but it doesnt apply to Bill's scenario because he is doing a "new" break down. Mistakes in surveying the property in the other section will not affect Bill's clients unless they were already used by the land owners themselves or a second erroneous survey.

This is different than the situation in Longview Fibre Co., where the question was between maintaining an established corner between the two parties and moving that corner.?ÿ Here we are discussing a third party who did not rely on the corner with the error.?ÿ

I disagree that a lack of standards are the solution.?ÿ The problem is the PLSS system itself.?ÿ The best solution would be to transition to meets and bounds and just embrace the chaos instead of constantly pursue perfection.?ÿ

The PLSS was a great way to distribute land but its reliance on competent stewards makes it a failure in practice.?ÿ Increased regulation or greater penalties and enforcement will not magically transform a selfish man into an altruistic man.?ÿ A system that allows the mislocation of a single point or a non contiguous boundary to negatively affect POBs or boundaries thousands of feet away is fundamentally flawed.?ÿ The best systems are those that minimize or compartmentalize damage.?ÿ The PLSS does the opposite.

?ÿ

Discarding the systwm under which title was created and maintained is not a solution.

It's not a solution that you like, but it is a solution and a somewhat simple one at that. Making another regulation is putting lipstick on a pig and much farther from a solution than the ideas I present.?ÿ I tend to think that PLSS surveyors have it worse than most Colonial surveyors in that you have to locate the subject parcel as well a remote section line.?ÿ In hindsight from my previous post, there is a great deal of room to debate the least bad method of either allowing an individual parcel to stand on its own, regardless of the position of non-adjoining boundaries, or elimination of a requirement to reset section corners and/or use them for anything more than a non-binding aid to find the actual corner of the parcel being surveyed.

I understand that many parcels would still need to be retraced using PLSS principles, but title would be better secured with a focus solely on the individual parcel. I'll accept that combating our innate resistance to change would likely make my solution less achievable than convincing a pencil pushing surveyor that we need a new definition of what a minimally qualified surveyor should be.

Aliquot was more than likely just letting of some steam from having to spend extra effort fixing a problem that shouldn't have been. However, the instinct to jump to the conclusion that it's somehow due to not enough regulation is naive and possibly harmful depending on how far the individual is willing to take his conviction of righteousness. I say harmful because the best and brightest tend to assume malice whenever they run across situations in which they have success where others have failed. There will always be surveyors who just do it to make a living and don't have the passion or intellect to solve the problems that the best of the best can solve. Acceptance that you might be ahead of the curve might feel like conceit but it also might be closer to the truth than assuming the guy before you was a hack and deserving of punishment.

Can anyone here think of a system that is benefited by the ability of one error to expand to other areas of the system?

Posted by: Murphy

I disagree that a lack of standards are the solution.?ÿ The problem is the PLSS system itself.?ÿ The best solution would be to transition to meets and bounds and just embrace the chaos instead of constantly pursue perfection.?ÿ

The PLSS was a great way to distribute land but its reliance on competent stewards makes it a failure in practice.?ÿ Increased regulation or greater penalties and enforcement will not magically transform a selfish man into an altruistic man.?ÿ A system that allows the mislocation of a single point or a non contiguous boundary to negatively affect POBs or boundaries thousands of feet away is fundamentally flawed.?ÿ The best systems are those that minimize or compartmentalize damage.?ÿ The PLSS does the opposite.

?ÿ

Interesting theory but I haven't found that to be the case.?ÿ Same thing happens in NY.?ÿ Tie into something far removed such as a great lot corner mentioned in a deed.?ÿ Measure deed distance and set a staub.?ÿ

Problem is investigation takes time and hence money.?ÿ Folks think a survey is a commodity so search for lowest price.?ÿ Lowest price ends up doing most of the work in the area and that leads to corners cut and occasionally evidence missed.?ÿ Fortunately, most of the time it seems, things are cut and dried so no problem.

In the case at hand, deeds referring to the section corner are referring to the stone, unless there's evidence the deed was written after the erroneous corner record and evidence the conveyance was tied to the erroneous corner.?ÿ

Establishment isn't an issue because the erroneous surveyor 2 retracement opinion has only been in place a couple years.?ÿ It's not an original survey so no need to consider the above.

No liability for surveyor 1 and 2 because everyone's entitled to their expert opinion.?ÿ In NY that includes non-licensed techs who are able to testify as expert surveyors in court even without a license or a degree (presumably one would need to at least know how to set up a tripod and plot a deed, but not sure now with GPS and deed plot technology).?ÿ

Surveying is a strange occupation.

Assuming Surveyor 2 is the original surveyor of the 2.5 acres, the POB does not change. Having more information than Surveyor 2, Surveyor 3 describes the parcel with ties to the true section corner and to Surveyor 1's erroneous section corner. Hopefully the POB still is on the Section line. Hopefully the 2.5 acres is fully within the Section. If not did the same owner also owner also own the adjacent section. Hopefully Surveyor 2 set 4 corners, hopefully 2 are on the section line. Hopefully Surveyor 3 locates the other Section corner to find the section line.

Questions:

Can Surveyor 1's Corner Record kink the Section line?

Can Surveyor 2's POB monument kink the?ÿSection line?

Was the 2.5 acres created 60 years prior to Surveyor 2 setting the POB wrongly and 20 years before Surveyor 1 set the Section Corner wrongly?

Does Aliquot have facts to establish his questions or is he making it up without first creating a rational timeline.

Paul in PA

Paul,

I thought the timeline was clear. The deed for the 2.5 acre parcel was 60 years old. The fence corner was at the original stone 60 years ago. 40 years ago the new fence corner appears. 2 years ago surveyor 2 uses the 40 year old fence corner as the section corner.?ÿ

Your other two questions dont make sense. The POB is the section corner. The corner record position claimed to be at the section corner. A section corner is an endpoint of a section line, so it cant be a kink.

The section line is immovable. There is federal statute that says that. Property lines are not immovable. There is state law that says that.

?ÿ

Posted by: Murphy

It's not a solution that you like, but it is a solution and a somewhat simple one at that. Making another regulation is putting lipstick on a pig and much farther from a solution than the ideas I present.?ÿ I tend to think that PLSS surveyors have it worse than most Colonial surveyors in that you have to locate the subject parcel as well a remote section line.?ÿ In hindsight from my previous post, there is a great deal of room to debate the least bad method of either allowing an individual parcel to stand on its own, regardless of the position of non-adjoining boundaries, or elimination of a requirement to reset section corners and/or use them for anything more than a non-binding aid to find the actual corner of the parcel being surveyed.

I understand that many parcels would still need to be retraced using PLSS principles, but title would be better secured with a focus solely on the individual parcel. I'll accept that combating our innate resistance to change would likely make my solution less achievable than convincing a pencil pushing surveyor that we need a new definition of what a minimally qualified surveyor should be.

Aliquot was more than likely just letting of some steam from having to spend extra effort fixing a problem that shouldn't have been. However, the instinct to jump to the conclusion that it's somehow due to not enough regulation is naive and possibly harmful depending on how far the individual is willing to take his conviction of righteousness. I say harmful because the best and brightest tend to assume malice whenever they run across situations in which they have success where others have failed. There will always be surveyors who just do it to make a living and don't have the passion or intellect to solve the problems that the best of the best can solve. Acceptance that you might be ahead of the curve might feel like conceit but it also might be closer to the truth than assuming the guy before you was a hack and deserving of punishment.

Can anyone here think of a system that is benefited by the ability of one error to expand to other areas of the system?

I hope you didn't interpret "not enough" to mean not enough regulation. What I was trying to say is that meeting state minimum standards is not enough to create a proffesional product that provides our clients with what they expect, a boundary determination that is robust enough to be relied on. I dont think more regulations would help this.

As for your criticism of the PLSS, it's a very imperfect system, but the problems you complain about, and the problem in my example exist in the metes and bounds system too. Just as often as in the PLSS you have to determine a corner of a long ago parent parcel to determine the corner of your clients parcel. How is it any better?

?ÿ

Posted by: Murphy

It's not a solution that you like, but it is a solution and a somewhat simple one at that. Making another regulation is putting lipstick on a pig and much farther from a solution than the ideas I present.?ÿ I tend to think that PLSS surveyors have it worse than most Colonial surveyors in that you have to locate the subject parcel as well a remote section line.?ÿ In hindsight from my previous post, there is a great deal of room to debate the least bad method of either allowing an individual parcel to stand on its own, regardless of the position of non-adjoining boundaries, or elimination of a requirement to reset section corners and/or use them for anything more than a non-binding aid to find the actual corner of the parcel being surveyed.

I understand that many parcels would still need to be retraced using PLSS principles, but title would be better secured with a focus solely on the individual parcel. I'll accept that combating our innate resistance to change would likely make my solution less achievable than convincing a pencil pushing surveyor that we need a new definition of what a minimally qualified surveyor should be.

Aliquot was more than likely just letting of some steam from having to spend extra effort fixing a problem that shouldn't have been. However, the instinct to jump to the conclusion that it's somehow due to not enough regulation is naive and possibly harmful depending on how far the individual is willing to take his conviction of righteousness. I say harmful because the best and brightest tend to assume malice whenever they run across situations in which they have success where others have failed. There will always be surveyors who just do it to make a living and don't have the passion or intellect to solve the problems that the best of the best can solve. Acceptance that you might be ahead of the curve might feel like conceit but it also might be closer to the truth than assuming the guy before you was a hack and deserving of punishment.

Can anyone here think of a system that is benefited by the ability of one error to expand to other areas of the system?

Eliminating the system under which titles were created and maintained solves nothing. All it would do is take away the majority of the information that makes boundary identification possible. The idea that we have a choice between this or additional regulation is wrong as well.

Posted by: aliquot

Paul,

I thought the timeline was clear. The deed for the 2.5 acre parcel was 60 years old. The fence corner was at the original stone 60 years ago. 40 years ago the new fence corner appears. 2 years ago surveyor 2 uses the 40 year old fence corner as the section corner.?ÿ

"Surveyor 2 records a survey of a 2.5 acre lot cut out from the SW1/4. The parcel was created by a 60 year old metes and bounds deed. The point of beginning is a point on the section line that bears xxx' east along the section line from the section corner. Surveyor 2 sets a two bit monument at the POB and shows a tie off xxx' west to a point labeled ƒ??SW corner of the SW1/4 of section xxƒ?. No further information provided."

Your other two questions dont make sense. The POB is the section corner. The corner record position claimed to be at the section corner. A section corner is an endpoint of a section line, so it cant be a kink.

The section line is immovable. There is federal statute that says that. Property lines are not immovable. There is state law that says that.

Your timeline is not clear. As I get it now the 60 year old 2.5 acre survey has a tie Point of Commencement from the 1901 corner. Surveyor 2 came?ÿalong recently and staked out the 2.5 acres from the erroneous corner. The POB is not the Section Corner. A new honored section point aledgely on a Section Line could create a kink.

Paul in PA

Posted by: Duane Frymire

Posted by: Murphy

I disagree that a lack of standards are the solution.?ÿ The problem is the PLSS system itself.?ÿ The best solution would be to transition to meets and bounds and just embrace the chaos instead of constantly pursue perfection.?ÿ

The PLSS was a great way to distribute land but its reliance on competent stewards makes it a failure in practice.?ÿ Increased regulation or greater penalties and enforcement will not magically transform a selfish man into an altruistic man.?ÿ A system that allows the mislocation of a single point or a non contiguous boundary to negatively affect POBs or boundaries thousands of feet away is fundamentally flawed.?ÿ The best systems are those that minimize or compartmentalize damage.?ÿ The PLSS does the opposite.

?ÿ

Interesting theory but I haven't found that to be the case.?ÿ Same thing happens in NY.?ÿ Tie into something far removed such as a great lot corner mentioned in a deed.?ÿ Measure deed distance and set a staub.?ÿ

Problem is investigation takes time and hence money.?ÿ Folks think a survey is a commodity so search for lowest price.?ÿ Lowest price ends up doing most of the work in the area and that leads to corners cut and occasionally evidence missed.?ÿ Fortunately, most of the time it seems, things are cut and dried so no problem.

In the case at hand, deeds referring to the section corner are referring to the stone, unless there's evidence the deed was written after the erroneous corner record and evidence the conveyance was tied to the erroneous corner.?ÿ

Establishment isn't an issue because the erroneous surveyor 2 retracement opinion has only been in place a couple years.?ÿ It's not an original survey so no need to consider the above.

No liability for surveyor 1 and 2 because everyone's entitled to their expert opinion.?ÿ In NY that includes non-licensed techs who are able to testify as expert surveyors in court even without a license or a degree (presumably one would need to at least know how to set up a tripod and plot a deed, but not sure now with GPS and deed plot technology).?ÿ

Surveying is a strange occupation.

Gotta agreed with this.?ÿ It always comes down to money and the tendency to avoid expense if possible.

?ÿ

I do think that that PLSS enabled the avoidance of expense to a great degree.?ÿ The system was set up as a protracted system to avoid gaps and overlaps. Pure to begin with, bastardized to the greatest degree later as it enabled further subdivision without doing any "expensive" surveying later.?ÿ Also ignorance that the system of "perfect" squares was an illusion caused descriptions without any measuring to be written that never fit the math from day one.

?ÿI have no experience outside the PLSS so can't say if it is better or worse.?ÿ The answer is with the law which is developing and at various stages in the different states.?ÿ In the end it comes down to what landowners do, and have done for ages and how the law has developed in the state.?ÿ In Utah we are getting there, you occupy the land for twenty years and treat some visible thing as the boundary and it becomes the boundary, uncertainty not required.?ÿ This is per the Supreme Court but we are a long way from making the occupation and the deeds in alignment.?ÿ Not simple for sure.?ÿ Either Court, agreement, or mostly just ignore it until a later day.

?ÿ

You can't just do away with the PLSS though.?ÿ Everything is based on it in the history of ownership, many more things than just where boundaries are or were supposed to be.