Lighten up TDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
>I'm not asking for help resolving the problem, so there's no need in offering opinions.
Stacy solved the problems that exist, so what's with all the rooster banter you have been crowing?
I'm sure Stacy knows whats up. How about some professional courtesy Ted.
Lighten up TDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
Come on Paul,
Ted is just spicing things up little
Come on - we need a little color on this board
Since Gene is not here,
everybody and anything's a target
-
Lighten up TDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
> Ted is just spicing things up little
Ohhh..well...I think KFC needs a cook, someone let the cat out of the bag on the secret recipe, so says the web 😉
Lighten up TDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
> Come on Paul,
>
> Ted is just spicing things up little
>
> Come on - we need a little color on this board
>
> Since Gene is not here,
> everybody and anything's a target
>
> -
A little color is one thing. Personal attacks are another, especially when the attacker seems to have a reading comprehension problem. I read "the note" as meaning the monuments and lines of occupation agree with each other, but not the old deed. Maybe I'm wrong, but I won't attack a fellow professional over it, either way.
PS I don't think the note to be sufficient, if "professionals" don't understand what is being said.
Note on plat--COME TAKE YOUR WHIPPIN !!!
TDD, the monuments fit the lines of occupation perfectly. It's when you throw those pesky deed bearings and distances in there that things don't fit.
I think the note helps clarify what I'm showing on the plat. The monuments fit with occupation but the deed fits nothing. I held the monuments/occupation.
The note makes sense as written, assuming there is more info on the drawing. However, since you were looking for comments, I'd suggest you start with your statement about the monument found being accepted as original monuments. That is what you want people to remember. You can then follow with the comments about the deed description not matching. I'm not sure I'd use "conforming". Not sure why, it just seems to raise unnecessary red flags in my mind. If you know why the deed description doesn't match you might state your theories, are the differences minimal, is there an error in the deed, were the distance in the deed paced, etc. That would just answer any natural questions the reader would have. I usually try to write such that basic questions the landowner/attorney might ask are answered, rather than just address other surveyors' possible questions.
We usually write pretty extensive narratives on plats in Oregon and Washington. Might be different in other parts of the country.
Lighten up VANISHING
IF HE SAID THE MONUMENTS WERE LONG STANDING THEN HE SHOULD HAVE HELD THEM, MONUMENTS HAVE A PURPOSE--THEY WERE NOT SET FOR GIGGLES---BUT DON'T WEASEL WORD A STATEMENT ESSENTIALLY SAYING JOHN DEERE IS THE BETTER SURVEYOR--THIS WHOLE SURVEY AND ISSUE IS AN ABOMINATION AND PRECISELY WHY JOHN Q. PUBLIC AND DEWEY ,CHEATHAM AND HOWE ARE OUT TO SMEAR THE SURVEYING PROFESSION AS A DART BOARD PROFESSION WHOSE ANSWERS CHANGE WITH EVERY DART THROWN---TDD
Stacy,
I think when you say the "deed" does match the found property lines, it as if you are saying that the metes control the location of the conveyance.
You could show deed vs measured. I don't think you need a note, everyone will know you read the deed (by your comparisons), and as an expert in finding the location of lines in a conveyance, you found them in actuality to differ from the theoretical. Happens every day, right?
I don't want to go through the whole survey detail by detail. The deed to the adjoining property does not fit the monuments OR lines of possession. The adjoining lot was created in 1966. The surveyor set axles according to his plat. The corners we found were all axles and appear to be undisturbed. The fences are from the early '70s and go from monument to monument throwing the deed dimensions out the window. The adjoining lot is small and came from our tract originally. Our tract is fairly large so I had a hard time putting explanations on the plat where they needed to go and still be able to read them. So, I opted for an additional note to clarify. It takes both the map and the note to understand what is going on. I hope this makes more sense than the first post. I sure didn't want to have to go through the whole story, but I've almost done that now.
i think you have done your duty to "paint your footsteps" so the next surveyor can follow them. you do not need to publish a narrative on the face of the plat describing all of the problems you found with the title to the subject property.
i do agree with the others who have recommended writing a narrative for yourself if nothing else. it will help you when (not if) you have to explain your thought process in the future.
Stacy,
Sounds like you found the lines.
I think that note would vapor-lock a wet-behind-the-ears-lawyer or title person.
They might even ask you to describe "the triangles" of supposed overlaps and gaps to quit-claim.
Don't help them stumble into that.
You found the lines of their title. There is no conflict. Grown-ups (like us surveyors) understand that property lines don't always agree with a protracted metes and bounds, which sounds like the case.
OH I GET IT MORE SMOKE AND MIRRORS TO UNDERSTAND YOUR SURVEY--
THE PLAT IS YOUR CHANCE TO EXPLAIN, MAP AND DOCUMENT YOUR SURVEY, IF YOUR NOT GOOD AT IT --TAKE SURVEY DRAFTING 101, USING CHRONOLOGY, LEADERS, REFERENCES, PICTURES AND STATEMENTS TO PROVE YOUR POINT FOR NOT HOLDING ALL OR CERTAIN MONUMENTATION---TDD
Well, I'll be!
I generally agree with the note... for about 3 surveys out of a thousand.
And, Ted is probably right.... about a few surveys that would be an abuse of such a note.
But, I live in arkansas.
Plutae lives in CA.
And, Ted lives in Commerado, and New England for part of the yr.
I do think that there is room for such a mealey mouth note, on about one out of 500 surveys.
N
ok by me...especially if the monuments match the possession..
Well, I'll be!
Dang, Nate...
"I found the stobs...some had Nate's number...some fit the fences...none fit the deeds (them that I saw at the Courthouse)...I saw the difference between the deed's description numbers, what Nate's survey said, the fences, what the owners and neighbors told me, and what I measured with my sophisticated tools...based upon what I figger is the ORIGINAL footprinted lines, HERE BE THE BOUNDARY AS SHOWN BY THE THICK BLACK LINES on this here plaque"
lol,
DDSM
> ok by me...especially if the monuments match the possession..
Same here. Sounds like Stacy found some , umm Ted, pay attention OK?
ORIGINAL MONUMENTS
and folks built to them..what a novel idea 😉
Stacy
Out of curiosity, just how far out were the deed dimensions to the monuments?
> 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.
this part of your note is very passive (mealy-mouthed). Maybe consider: In my professional opinion, the monuments found are undisturbed originals, and have been relied upon and upheld as original....
say it if you mean it, don't say "it appears" - just my 2 pennies
Stacy
Please post a video of you washing your car..I want to tell you how it can be done better and point out what you are doing wrong...i.e. Do your suds slide north or west..it does make a difference you know 😉
