paden cash, post: 328900, member: 20 wrote: Another surveyor I've known for years asked me to help him with a survey. He had promised an old friend he would provide some answers to this friend and a neighbor that have been squabbling over a fence line. As the months have flown past this surveyor friend of mine has been unable to get a crew out to his friend's place. I told him we could help out with the field work, and he would take it from there.
He emailed me the descriptions and it is pretty apparent the answer rests in the location of the center of section. We hit the ground yesterday and scoured up all the evidence we could find. I started looking through it early this morning and noticed immediately the crew DID find a capped pin at the center of section. Although its location is more in favor of the neighbor than the friend of my friend, it's not in a real good spot geometrically. A more modern bearing-bearing intersect would place the center of section in favor of my surveyor buddy's friend.
Guess whose cap is on the center of section pin?? My surveyor buddy.
I called him up early to give him the news. There was silence on the phone until he said "You gotta be kidding me..." He apparently had done the work years ago and didn't ever remember working in there until I told him we had found his pins. I emailed him what we had found yesterday and it's up to him to hash it out and for his client.
So it's up to him now to explain to his client how the neighbor is apparently "correct"....because of a pin he set himself years ago.
He didn't see any humor in it, but I did. I wished him luck and sent him an invoice for the crew.
You should have helped your friend out and beat his cap off the pin and then not told him who's it was.
Tom Adams, post: 329435, member: 7285 wrote: Throwing out the term "relied on" at random and for all circumstances can be trouble. Even if you have case law, your particular set of circumstances might be different that the surrounding circumstances in the case law study.
Example; if two adjoining properties relied on a particular Center of Section, some other property may have relied on a mathematically more correct center of section for their point of beginning and they might have done that before the [hl]"bogus"[/hl] corner was set. That bogus C1/4 might be the Center of section for those two adjoiners and not for anyone else.
The surveyor needs to look at all circumstances and evidence before he makes blatant and quick assumptions in my opinion.
Tom:
You said "bogus."
Are you channeling Keith? :-D:-D
NotSoMuch, post: 329479, member: 988 wrote: Tom:
You said "bogus."
Are you channeling Keith? :-D:-D
Haha, hmhm, hmm, mmmm, haha.hmhmm...he said bogus!
Tom Adams, post: 329435, member: 7285 wrote: Throwing out the term "relied on" at random and for all circumstances can be trouble. Even if you have case law, your particular set of circumstances might be different that the surrounding circumstances in the case law study.
Example; if two adjoining properties relied on a particular Center of Section, some other property may have relied on a mathematically more correct center of section for their point of beginning and they might have done that before the "bogus" corner was set. That bogus C1/4 might be the Center of section for those two adjoiners and not for anyone else.
The surveyor needs to look at all circumstances and evidence before he makes blatant and quick assumptions in my opinion.
EXACTLY!!!! The two owners down the line cannot be required to hold a bogus monument just because the two property owners corner that it marks have "relied on" it.
Tom Adams, post: 329435, member: 7285 wrote: Throwing out the term "[hl]relied on[/hl]" at random and for all circumstances can be trouble. Even if you have case law, your particular set of circumstances might be different that the surrounding circumstances in the case law study.
Example; if two adjoining properties relied on a particular Center of Section, some other property may have relied on a mathematically more correct center of section for their point of beginning and they might have done that before the "bogus" corner was set. That bogus C1/4 might be the Center of section for those two adjoiners and not for anyone else.
The surveyor needs to look at all circumstances and evidence before he makes blatant and quick assumptions in my opinion.
Tom - with all due respect, I was using the same wording that has been in numerous textbooks and the 'Manual' for several publications now. Brown's and Wattle's used that term many times and it was always with a proviso. I agree we should look at the all of the evidence before us and give our expert opinion - not our "blatant and quick assumptions" - IMHO.
Mapman, post: 329590, member: 6096 wrote: Tom - with all due respect, I was using the same wording that has been in numerous textbooks and the 'Manual' for several publications now. Brown's and Wattle's used that term many times and it was always with a proviso. I agree we should look at the all of the evidence before us and give our expert opinion - not our "blatant and quick assumptions" - IMHO.
Agree!! The Arkansas cases I posted were for Jim's reference to 'reliance' by the surveyor. Pointing out Surveyor's opinion vs. Owner's establishment.
DDSM:beer:
Mapman, post: 329590, member: 6096 wrote: Tom - with all due respect, I was using the same wording that has been in numerous textbooks and the 'Manual' for several publications now. Brown's and Wattle's used that term many times and it was always with a proviso. I agree we should look at the all of the evidence before us and give our expert opinion - not our "blatant and quick assumptions" - IMHO.
You're right, of course, and, although your post prompted my response, it wasn't really directed @ you (per se) so much as being a general cautionary statement. I hope it wasn't taken as a personal affront. Reliance is a very strong argument, but we always need to remember that not every boundary "relied" on the bogus (snicker, snicker) corner, and that an additional "relied-on" corner may be out there.