On a different note...

I hear your frustration. Has a new owner taken over the whole subdivision or is it bank owned?
Can the county agency require the current owner to complete the monumentation in whole, prior to being allowed to sell lots?

But you seem to be making a problem in another area, when there is none.

You state: "Wherein we now have junior-senior rights within a subdivision that was intended to eliminate this issue."

In NO WAY are junior-senior rights involved here! The lots were all created simultaneously.
Just because there may be future ROS's filed for each individual lot, does not imply or elevate a lot to have senior rights against another within the subdivision.
Junior-Senior Rights is not an issue here.

Jim, I feel your pain. We could have easily had those same situations here. Idaho does not allow a plat to be recorded without the pins being set. There were instances where pins could not be set due to weather(snow) or adjacent construction when the going was good.

The counties allowed a "Plat Copy" to be recorded as long as the developer bonded the lots in the subd and the exterior boundary was set. Then after the interior pins were set the bond would be lifted and we would record the "official" plat.

Statutes also allow us to reset a monument without a Record of Survey as long at it's in a recorded subd. But in your instance the monuments were never set...?...

Does a bank own the land? If so, could they bond, have a contract with you to set the monuments and maybe have the county "sign off" with an onsite inspection? Thus avoiding a 100 ROS subdivision.

Agree epoch but another question. Since the recorded plat and perhaps some exterior corner monuments are all that exist, is the Plat considered the original survey and that record must be held? Is it Record over monuments as far as lot lines go, not talking about ownership and occupation ripening into title only platted lots.
jud

The bond issue is a good point, you could approach the town about the liability issues and possible pick up the project of setting the monuments and being paid from the bond amount.

Typically, I hold off setting the monuments until the lot construction is mostly complete so they don't get destroyed by the individual lot site grading.

So how will the surveyor of the last vacant lots deal with the excess/deficiency? We know that none of the prior surveyors will have resurveyed the subdivision boundary and pro-rated every lot. Surveyor A will set some monuments for Lot 20 measured from the nearest monumented exterior line. Surveyor B will set monuments for Lot 22 measured from some other monumented exterior line. Surveyor C will have an excess or deficiency when he surveys Lot 21. How is he to deal with a deficiency where Lot 20 seems to be staked 2 feet into Lot 21? Are you saying there is no senior right for Lot 20?

The surveyor played by the rules. It's not his fault that the developer went under.

In no way do I, nor should anyone, expect a surveyor to go out and set monuments and not get paid.

Sounds like the landowners should get together and pay the surveyor to finish. Or they'll all pay separately, as needed, in the future. Buyer beware.

Sounds a little like the situation we often find ourselves in here in the colonies............

This issue is not a senior right.
Rather it is: Have the owners of Lot 20 and the other staked lots relied on and utilized the lines so staked on various ROS's.

Remember a subsequent survey is only the opinion of the LS as to where the true lines were originally run. OOPS, they were never run, but on paper alone.
Just because a later surveyor only takes off one side of the subdivision and stakes a lot, files a ROS...
Does that action solidify his opinion as senior in right to a subsequent lot survey next door. I think not.

That's why I was wondering if the current owners could be required (by the local governmental agency) to stake the subdivision prior to sale of lots. Even in phases if necessary.

"This issue is not a senior right.
Rather it is: Have the owners of Lot 20 and the other staked lots relied on and utilized the lines so staked on various ROS's."

In some cases there are fences, landscaping, even block walls. That would seem to create a senior right. In the cases where it is still all raw land I agree, there is no junior/senior issue.

"That's why I was wondering if the current owners could be required (by the local governmental agency) to stake the subdivision prior to sale of lots."

Extraordinarily doubtful - they won't even enforce their own codes in some cases.

"The surveyor played by the rules."

No, the surveyor did NOT play by the rules. To a court, the plat is a record of the field work performed. ALWAYS - for hundreds of years. If he had monumented the lot corners prior to recording the plat, pursuant to State statutes, the situation would not exist.

The surveyor should have been paid for the work required to set the lot corners. Therefore, he should set them, even if the new owner may wish to revise the platted arrangement of lots and blocks and streets and such. That is a replatting situation, not a platting situation.

I've never set subdivision monuments prior to at least the road being built.

The plan gets approved and recorded, but I might not be out setting monuments till 2-3 years later. Actually, in some cases, other surveyors have been hired to do it.

Must be a lot different in AZ. And must be a mess, what with monuments getting knocked about while they're constructing roads.

What's your actual complaint here, then? You know that the guy didn't get paid - but you're mad because he didn't set monuments. Send your client his way, and then he'll get paid to do so.

>In some cases there are fences, landscaping, even block walls. That would seem to create a senior right. In the cases where it is still all raw land I agree, there is no junior/senior issue.

Jim, what's your best guess on how the fences, wall and landscaping were laid out? Is it possible that a surveyor came out during home construction or were the improvements started on raw land put in casting all care aside?

Theoretically let's say a surveyor could set the pins (per record) on a bond contract. Maybe instead of 100+ ROS's, a handful of Lot Line Adjustments would be in order over a junior/senior issue....?....

> The surveyor should have been paid for the work required to set the lot corners. Therefore, he should set them, even if the new owner may wish to revise the platted arrangement of lots and blocks and streets and such. That is a replatting situation, not a platting situation.

I would have to agree with this comment, but what if the surveyor wasn't paid?

On the other hand, said surveyor should not have sealed the plat, which would have prevented it from being recorded. If a new client had a new surveyor seal it, that surveyor would be on the hook.

> What's your actual complaint here, then? You know that the guy didn't get paid - but you're mad because he didn't set monuments. Send your client his way, and then he'll get paid to do so.

Not to speak for Jim, but it appears his actual complaint is that a surveyor failed to meet state statutes for Jim's area - i.e. said surveyor broke the licensing laws. Thus making future work in the area a mess for any other surveyor following behind the incomplete work. After all, Jim did state "If he had monumented the lot corners prior to recording the plat, pursuant to State statutes..."

I realize that it varies by jurisdiction, but Kentucky finally had to address this issue in the latest revisions to the standards of practice specifically because some surveyors did not care if their plat indicates non-existent monuments or not. If you release a plat that has a legend indicating a monument set, then there should be a monument set at that point.

Per Kentucky standards:
"All monumentation shall be set prior to the time the plat of survey, or record plat is
issued by the surveyor. The signing and sealing of a survey plat is certification by the professional land surveyor that all corners shown on the plat are set on the ground."

I could not even begin to count the number of times I have followed behind another "survey" only to find that the monuments shown as set were in fact never set.

Here in Oregon this would be a "post monumented plat". A note is placed on the plat that the interior monuments will be set by a certain date. The County Surveyor takes a deposit for the cost of setting the monumnets. If the owner backs out, there is money to get these monuments set.

Joe

In New Jersey the outbound monuments must be set before recording the subdivision plat, but the interior monuments may be set after the completion of improvement provided a bond has been given to the municipality. The problem is getting the municipality to use the money from the bond, if the developer defaults, for monuments. A new playground at the park gets more votes at re-election time then setting monuments.

The exterior boundary is the 'parent parcel', and its boundary would be a retracement of the parent parcel. Unless that boundary was cut out of an even larger parcel of land. In that case, the outer-boundary that is not adjacent to senior or junior lines would be "original" survey marks.

The outer boundary is the control for the interior boundary, similar to how a section is laid out with only the section and 1/4 corners being original monuments. I would consider this situation still to be a simultaneous conveyance. To property set the interior corners, you need to proportion them in. That might mean setting a lot of new control to work your way down to your subject lot. And I agree, that this can cause some problems if it's not done correctly. I would treat the interior corners much like I would treat interior section corners, and I would respect the first one (properly) set as being the one to accept and prorate from. It's still simultaneous in that I would prorate from the found "first" monument to my new subject lot, and not go exact plat distance.

Okay...that's the way I see it anyway.

You definitely have to pin all corners in a subdivision plat before it can be recorded in Arizona.
It doesn't matter if all the pins are going to get graded out,they physically have to be set,with a cap on every one,I might add.
The surveyor who recorded ,(and who's stamp is on the plans),of the subdivision plat ,would be the person responsible for setting the pins.
It would seem to me that if a subdivision plat was recorded,that the said surveyor must have been already compensated for the work,or at least a percentage of the work,thus creating a binding contract and obligation to adhere to the statutes and complete the work,regardless if all construction work seized to a halt.
Bottom line is,that if your stamp is on the plans,you better have proof that you fully monumented the plat.
And how did I come up with this theory?
My arms are still aching from the thousands of 2' and 4' rebar's that I pounded in the ground,only to see them plowed under,then having to do it all again.
🙂

Carry on...