Note on plat

Run with it. Your opinion is far better than most anyone else can come up with.

Stacy,

The note makes since to me and I understand what you are saying.
Especially if I had a copy of your Plat while conducting work at or near the subject property.

I suppose the question/s one needs to sift through the filter of certifying a field survey concerning existing monuments in the ground;

Do the monuments represent the Deed?
Would another surveyor see it the same way?
What if another surveyor did not have a copy of your Plat?
-Would he come up with a different solution?

Your note sounds like it should be expanded into a narrative telling all. I use notes to clarify graphics where needed. Do you show the discrepancy between what you hold and the record? In order to make corrections in the record, the details need to be known. You may have already addressed those things, but I don't feel that a note can do the job of a narrative.
jud

Jud,

The note is a narrative of what is shown in a detail. I didn't feel like the detail could convey enough info, so I added the note to further clarify what was going on.

It may do to explain a little more fully how you resolved the "deed lines".

Stacy,

If I had your plat with that note on it, I could very easily follow your survey. As a matter of fact, I just finished a resurvey of an existing one acre parcel where the deed calls and existing monumentation differed a few feet. All the monuments appeared to be undisturbed and original, and fit occupation lines well.

Sometimes it is what it is.

Jimmy

makes sense to me.

are you showing both the occupied area and the original area described graphically on the plat?

I don't really like the note, but I'm not sure why. I like the first line, but not the last two lines. I think it is just enough to say the deed doesn't agree with the monuments.

> I'm working on a survey and have come across a discrepancy between and old plat (1966) and existing monuments. I'm not asking for help resolving the problem, so there's no need in offering opinions. Without getting into all the details, I would like to know if the note I placed on the plat is sufficient in describing what I did and why. Here is the note:
>
> Deed Lines (from deed book XX page YY and plat book AA page BB) shown on the Willis tract do not conform to existing monumentation and long standing lines of occupation. None of the monuments appear to have been disturbed and appear to have been relied upon and honored as original for a substantial amount of time. This survey holds the long standing lines of possession.

I understand that the deed lines do not match the existing monumentation and the long-standing lines of occupation, but do the existing monumentation and the lines of occupation match each other? Does you survey hold the existing monumentation as well? That might be clarified in your statement; but maybe it is clear on the rest of you map.

I wanted it to be clear when someone looks at the plat and compares the bearings and distances from the adjoining plat to the corresponding lines on my plat and sees a difference.

That is a good note, but I agree with others that a multi-page report of survey is needed, not just for the client, but for you to use in the future to refresh your mind on why you held what you did.

I would note whether or not they appear to be ORIGINAL, then the rest is cool.

Note on plat--COME TAKE YOUR WHIPPIN !!!

umm , how can you say the monuments have been relied upon for some time then you piss on your own shoes and chose to accept the lines of occupation--WRONG, IN FACT DEAD WRONG ! If i saw your survey and your note i would concur your survey isn't worth a crap--screw your note --its a wishy-washy statement that says you don't have an answer, it will be costly to get the right answer or you are just doing a dis-service to your client not wanting to stir up the neighborhood--oh poor baby, you now have a survey that challenges your intellect and skill and what do you do--DROP TO YOUR KNEES AND ACCEPT A LAWN MOWER SURVEY ! prove the deeds, prove or disprove each monument, is this the monument fairy's fault ??/ YOU MY FRIEND ARE THE PROBLEM NOT THE SURVEY--THE SURVEY HAS A SOLUTION "FIND IT" OR GIVE IT TO A REAL SURVEYOR THAT WILL FOLLOW THE FOOT STEPS--IF YOU WERE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD I'D BE BOILING TAR AND STRIPPING FEATHERS OUT OF MY PILLOWS-- NO MEELEY MOUTHED STATEMENT WILL DETER ME FROM EXPECTING A SURVEY NOT A GRAPHIC MAP THAT MATCHES A POLAROID---TDD

Note on plat--COME TAKE YOUR WHIPPIN !!!

Ted, tell us how you really feel. 🙂

Man it's good having you back!

Note on plat- JIMMY

IT IS WHAT IT IS, WHEN YOU PROVE WHAT IT IS !!!

NO BULLCRAP STATEMENT WILL MAKE ME THINK I GOT MY MONEYS WORTH OUT OF MY SURVEYOR--

SOUNDS LIKE "THE PRESIDENTIAL" SURVEY AT EARL SCHEIB SURVEY--LOTS OF LIP SERVICE, PLENTY OF LIP , DAMN LITTLE SERVICE----TDD

> I wanted it to be clear when someone looks at the plat and compares the bearings and distances from the adjoining plat to the corresponding lines on my plat and sees a difference.

Your intent isn't clear to me from reading your note. Did you accept the existing monumentation as well? Do the lines of occupation match the existing monuments? Maybe it is clear on your map as a whole.

Note on plat-GUESS A CYA STATEMENT

IS A SUBSTITUTE FOR DOING A DRIVE BY SURVEY AND ACCEPTING THE LINES AS LAID OUT MY MR. JOHN DEERE...HORSEHOCKY, TDD

WOULD EUGENE BUY THIS WHOLE THREAD ?? I REALLY DOUBT IT--ANY REAL SURVEYORS BALL SACK WOULD SHRIVEL UP--

Note on plat-GUESS A CYA STATEMENT

> --ANY REAL SURVEYORS BALL SACK WOULD SHRIVEL UP--

Taking all those steroids will do the same thing, Tedd 😉

Note on plat--COME TAKE YOUR WHIPPIN !!!

He didn't indicate there was any discrepancy between the monuments and occupation. Just between those and the deed description.