> Wow - I can only imagine what nightmares that causes!! It would generate a lot of survey work though...
Huh? How is determining and reporting the actual bearing and distance between two original monuments nightmare material? A line run in 1880 with compass and chain or in 1960 with transit and tape was typically run in relation to an essentially assumed North and it wouldn't be surprising if the chained distances as reported were in error by more than 1:500 and the taped distances by more than 1:2000.
So, the modern survey actually perpetuates the position of the land upon the ground in a way that will survive the destruction of such monuments as the 1960 surveyor left.
Now, I'm not going to claim that Texas is somehow immune to careless surveying mistakes. The shovels sold in Texas are not the miracle variety that always dig until the mark is found. Some of the surveyors in practice in the past have left work behind that is a genuine challenge to follow. But modernizing descriptions is on the whole a vastly preferable practice to just standing back and waiting until there is nothing left but guesswork.
> The owner can still place the survey on record with the Clerk and bring it to the attention of the Tax Assessor who will adjust the assessment map and assessment accordingly.
So, in other words, the landowner places a map of a resurvey of his or her land in the public records, but doesn't refer to it when the land is conveyed because he has no confidence in Vermont land surveyors? That's a novel concept. It sounds as if no one would ever be able to know where the boundaries of any of the adjoining properties were once enough time has passed to erase all of the original evidence of the boundaries as described in the early conveyances that have been used long past time for retirement.
"So, the modern survey actually perpetuates the position of the land upon the ground in a way that will survive the destruction of such monuments as the 1960 surveyor left."
That's absolutely correct! We all have to do whatever to make it happen. In Texas you are handicapped because surveys are not filed and there is no way to file them. So the work around is to improve the description in the title records. So as long as the new description doesn't mess with the original boundary location its probably a good thing.
But what if the surveyor gets it wrong (like accepting a fence or making a bad replacement of a missing monument - or a hundred other mistakes) and the new and improved description is a defective version of the actual boundary location? Then the records are mucked up even more. In a filing state where the title records and the survey records are separate the survey records don't directly affect title. Survey records can be referenced from a title document and all the info from a survey tied in and noticed. If a survey is defective its just another public filed liability for the surveyor and does not affect the title.
In a perfect world everything would match and sync up. We can always hope but don't bet the farm on it.
I understand what you need do in Texas. I'm just glad I don't need to do that in Utah. It's sort of sad that all the great work and artistically pleasing plats will rarely see the light of day nor be perpetuated for posterity in the public records of Texas (or other non-filing states).
Whats it like to survey over 1500 acres of land? Sigh...
> Whats it like to survey over 1500 acres of land?
Actually, it's just like surveying some postage-stamp-sized urban property except:
- there are deer, wild turkeys, feral hogs, and coyotes in addition to the cattle,
- there are no cars,
- it's about a half hour drive to the nearest public road,
- no retired guys show up to tell you about when they used to be a surveyor,
- the windmills are cooler looking, and
- while there may be a good barbecue joint in the nearest town, it takes too long to drive there for a lunch break.
Oh, and you're probably more likely to find projectile points made thousands of years ago.
It has nothing to do with the public confidence in surveyors. Much to the contrary, most folks will fight to the end to defend a survey they paid for, even if it can be easily proven incorrect. It's about the attorney, the one with the big professional liability policy, ensuring that his client isn't drawn into a mess created if, no matter how unlikely, the new description is wrong. If the client gets drawn in, his new attorney (a litigator) will advise the client to to sue the the other guy (as well as the surveyor, of course)because such a simple remedy was available that would have kept the client out of it. Frankly, I'm more than a little surprised that the Texas bar sees this otherwise.
As I'm new to this forum, and not at all familiar with how things are done out your way, can you clarify: is there no way to place a survey on the record without changing the description in the deed?
I'm not sure where you are coming up with this stuff.
Survey maps are evidence of title. Deeds are evidence of title. Filing gives notice, and may affect who's title is better in a given situation.
In NY a retracement or resurvey is not required to be filed. Subdivision maps are required to be filed. If a deed description mentions a new survey (retracement) then the deed can not be filed unless the map is also filed. Many retracement maps are filed anyway, even with no description change, but it is up to the client to decide if that would be in their best interest taking into consideration the advice of their surveyor and attorney. Not sure what they do in Texas.
Jumbo
I'll tell you that the same condition exists in Kentucky. There is no repository for a retracement survey. There are some very convoluted work-arounds such as filing it in the Miscellaneous books. The problem is that noone would be able to find it. Another surveyor fifteen years later is going to come in, look for obscure evidence from 100+ years as written, maybe or maybe not stumble across your monuments, probably not find the same evidence you found as it disappears alarmingly fast, and almost certainly come up with a different location for the boundary. Then the general public thinks the surveying profession is a bunch of misfits that can't come up with the same answer twice.
Writing and recording a new legal description (with plat) in the deed at present is the only way to preserve evidence. JB Stahl has really gotten me into some deep introspection on this issue. It comes down to preserving evidence vs preserving title.
> Survey maps are evidence of title. Deeds are evidence of title. Filing gives notice, and may affect who's title is better in a given situation.
>
I would disagree with the above statement. Boundary "location" and "title" (ownership) are two completely separate bodies of law. The ownership of property is proven through the title record by a proper chain of conveyances which meet the statutory requirements for transferring title (ownership) from one party to the next in succession. Probate laws and quiet title actions step in to remedy breaks in the process. Title law answers the question of "what" is the nature of the estate.
Boundary law defines the "where" of the estate. The boundaries define the extent of the estate but do nothing to affect its nature. Surveyors are adept at applying land boundary law for the determination of the "location" of the boundaries. The closest our involvement comes to "title" is determining what line type to use on our drawing to depict a fee title boundary differently than an easement or setback limit.
The filing of the survey, unless it is recorded in the title records, provides no constructive notice like a deed would. That's why most survey filing systems in the country are separate from the title record. The survey is nothing more than the opinion of the surveyor intended to perpetuate evidence of the boundary "location." That would include the perpetuation of monuments, the updated (modernized) measurements, or a newly computed acreage. The title record remains unaffected by the survey.
>>“Before further discussing the trial court's rulings with respect to the surveys we pause to state an established rule. It is that surveys merely establish boundary lines. They do not determine title to land involved. The subject of title is no concern of the surveyor.” Swarz v. Ramala, 63 Kan. 633, 66 P. 649; Wagner v. Thompson, 163 Kan. 662, 186 P.2d 278, 1901
> In NY a retracement or resurvey is not required to be filed. Subdivision maps are required to be filed. If a deed description mentions a new survey (retracement) then the deed can not be filed unless the map is also filed. ...
This would be a common issue it states that do not have separate survey filing repositories. Without a separate repository, there would be no way to perpetuate the rehabilitation of faded boundary evidence. Evidence of boundaries would fade into oblivion without some way to perpetuate the retracement survey evidence. To compensate for the lack of a repository, these states must follow the course of TX, NY and other primarily eastern states. In TX they rewrite the deed to "modernize" the boundary location evidence. In NY they require a copy of the survey incorporated with any title document which references it.
Because these states are allowing survey evidence to be incorporated into the title record, surveys are given the binding affect of constructive notice and become evidence which limits the extent of the title being conveyed. Its affect could result in severing claims to existing boundaries mistakenly located on the survey being referenced. A potential downside, but still a working system, albeit not a preferable one.
By keeping the systems separate, the title records define "what" is being conveyed and the survey records perpetuate "where" the boundaries are located. The surveyor is responsible for his boundary location opinion without potentially slandering the title, and the title record is left as originally intended by the owners who created the boundaries.
JBS
> It's about the attorney, the one with the big professional liability policy, ensuring that his client isn't drawn into a mess created if, no matter how unlikely, the new description is wrong.
Well, is land title insurance not common in Vermont? Most land transactions in Texas have a title insurer involved. As for boundaries, for a relatively small amount of money the insured can extend title insurance coverage to matters that would be disclosed by a careful survey, which includes boundary conflicts, among other things.
For a variety of reasons, it would be more negligent to convey land using some outdated, faulty description than using a corrected description of the land based upon a modern retracement of its boundaries.
Those that try to seperate title from boundary may end up with title to nothing and a boundary between here and there.
because monuments don't last forever.