Yesterday while out looking for a center quarter corner called for on a plat, I found a more recently set corner and knowing what and who I know, I gave the surveyor a call and they graciously pointed me to their ROS after giving me some of the back story. The notes on which I found to not be what I am typically accustomed to seeing.?ÿ
interesting reading....
What does stubbed in mean?
Please tell me he wasn't using those notes to justify setting a mathematically correct center quarter corner and ignoring or removing a previously relied on center quarter corner. Is he really trying to argue since the original surveyors of the section didn't set the center quarter corner then any subsequent surveyor who sets that corner has no justification for an original monument because the original has to be at the intersection of the corners set on the exterior of the section?
He's trying really hard to make a point, I'm just not sure what his point is.
The notes are a tad disturbing without more information. A monument set 'incorrectly' absolutely can and will become a corner if the requisite fact pattern is met. The fractured collection of quotes combines federal instructions, out-dated ideas, and incomplete quotes as though they are all the same thing.
Much of what was said will apply in some limited cases but will be dead wrong in others. Even the BLM allows repose part of the time..
I interpreted "stubbed" to be the same as "bucking in". some call it "wiggling in". I may be wrong, but that's my interpretation.
I don't know what he's implying, if anything, about any evidence of possession, use or occupation in item 9, but those things I believe could certainly establish that "erroneously placed" corner as legal.
Please tell me he wasn't using those notes to justify setting a mathematically correct center quarter corner and ignoring or removing a previously relied on center quarter corner. Is he really trying to argue since the original surveyors of the section didn't set the center quarter corner then any subsequent surveyor who sets that corner has no justification for an original monument because the original has to be at the intersection of the corners set on the exterior of the section?
He's trying really hard to make a point, I'm just not sure what his point is.
I think you nailed it.
With regard to the ROS notes, "The surveyor doth protest too much, methinks."
In all of his reasoning in notes 4 through 9, he never actually cites statute, administrative code, or case law. The classic "Robillard pair" of boundary books and some Madson quotes are not exactly authoritative.
I interpreted "stubbed" to be the same as "bucking in". some call it "wiggling in". I may be wrong, but that's my interpretation.
I don't think so. I think he meant that the C 1/4 was just set by running in the protracted bearing and distance from one of the exterior 1/4 corners. So he may have traversed in and back, but he didn't break down the section.
he didn't break down the section.
Correct.
I find note no. 4 to be particularly dangerous in calling the cap location erroneous based on a conversation with the LS that set it then makes the assumption that the other Surveyor "stubbed in" and didn't check the location.
What's even worse is that this guy goes on to make statements and qualifies as facts of law. Sounds a lot like practicing law without a license.
If this "erroneous" cap was accepted by the adjoiners and improvements were constructed, the location of which were accepted by all involved, all of these book references and "facts of law" could be thrown out with the bathwater if it comes to a judge making a ruling to quiet title.
It seems to me that the whole intent of this particular note was an attempt to discredit another LS and hold his work out as superior. While it's great to be book smart and filled with theory, nothing written in those quoted books is the golden rule when it comes to practical application in our daily practice. Few real world situations are as are exactly as discussed in books and him making assumptions on how things were done when he was not there is just crazy.
@frozennorth this seems to be the classic example of a book smart person who may not have figured out how to practically apply generalized theory.
What do people think of Note 1 ?
1) BASIS OF BEARINGS FROM GPS OBSERVATION TAKEN AT SURVEY CONTROL POINT SHOWN HEREON
I see statements like this all the time. These statements and their intent don't make any sense to me. Surveyors translate, rotate, scale, calibrate, and muck up all sorts of things. GPS OBSERVATION really doesn't mean anything, even in this scenario, without a leap of faith.
If this survey is using State Plane Coordinates (Alaska Zone 4 5004), then the basis of bearing is grid north for said zone.
Am I missing something?
