Order of Importance of Conflicting Elements

Artificial Natural Monument.

Monuments are higher on the priority list because they are more certain than measurements (brg/dist) or calculations (area). An elevation is nothing more than a vertical dimension, therefore it would be classified on the same level as other measurements. Likely it would have less certainty than a horizontal distance as it would be more prone to error in the process of laying it on the ground. The hierarchy of evidence is based upon certainty. That's why its flexible, depending upon the specific evidence available.

JBS

> Artificial Natural Monument.

Natural Artificial Monument.

artificial natural adjoiner monument

I want to disagree with JB and my gut says an elevation / contour is a natural monument. The only drawback I see relates to the datum - what is it and when was it established. There was a question awhile back about the datums of some of the TVA lakes and I want to remember that the concensus was that you had to reestablish the local datum for the lake - probably related to the spillway. At that point I want to lean a little towards artificial monument. So maybe the description above as an "artificial natural monument" is a good description.

Hmmm...

A

"Artificial. As opposed to natural." Black's Law Dictionary.

I should have added that the reason monuments are more certain than measurements is because they are "visible." Anyone can see the creek, ridge, boulder, or tree (natural monuments) or the pipe, stone, fence or road (artificial monuments). They are physical in nature and have physical characteristics.

Elevations are not "visible." Contours are not "visible." Likewise, a datum is not "visible" either. They are made visible when they are laid out on the ground, then only as marked by physical monuments set at a measured position based upon a vertical dimension controlled by a datum.

A "high water mark," in contrast, is a visible natural monument.

Elevations, like bearings and distances are measurements, not monuments.

JBS

I agree with JB as a natural object would be like a rock outcrop that you can touch.

You can't touch a dimension like an elevation.

At least the way I see it.

Keith

wow, saw JB's post after mine and we are in tune!!

>
> Elevations, like bearings and distances are measurements, not monuments.
>
> JBS

:good:

DDSM:beer:

I was trying to be a bit funny, however, we just did one of these adjoining a reservoir. The elevation was the top of the spillway at I think 7522'. The water in the spring marks the elevation so we staked the monuments along the line, which is natural (water), artificial (spillway top), adjoiner (lake). You can see the elevation and touch it-at least for a few weeks in the spring.

It was striking how well it was visible along the ground.

I see 'call for monuments', but I don't see uncalled-for monuments anywhere on the list.

> I was trying to be a bit funny, however, we just did one of these adjoining a reservoir. The elevation was the top of the spillway at I think 7522'. The water in the spring marks the elevation so we staked the monuments along the line, which is natural (water), artificial (spillway top), adjoiner (lake). You can see the elevation and touch it-at least for a few weeks in the spring.
>
> It was striking how well it was visible along the ground.

Mighty, You're talking now about a "high water mark" that would be formed only if and when the water elevation would stand for a long enough period of time to form an escarpment or a line of vegetation change. That's definitely a visible monument, but still isn't an elevation contained in a written document.

JBS

> What I do not see on the list is a call for an elevation to be the property line. Is an elevation (such as that found along a flood control lake) considered:
>
>
> 1. Natural Monument?
> 2. Artificial Monument?
> 3. Adjoiner?
> 4. Something else placed on the list by its self?
>
> What say you?

I say that this is pretty much a no brainer. The call for an elevation contour expresses THE INTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES, which is paramount in interpreting deed descriptions.

The context of the grant was that the probable grantee was building a dam that would impound a lake and the nature of the grant was an easement to overflow the land in question up to an elevation that was most likely derived from the emergency spillway of that dam. So, in construing the grant, those facts must be front and center. Whether an elevation contour is natural, artificial, or something else is less important than how the parties intended that the elevation was to be determined, i.e. upon what datum. Once that is known, the call for the elevation contour is unambiguous.

Where the call gets interesting is in the case where substantial filling has occurred and the meanders of the elevation contour at the time of the original grant are shown to be much different than present conditions. That raises a different issue quite removed from the interpretation of descriptions, namely, the nature of the grant itself and whether filling was contemplated or not.

An elevation is a 1D Coordinate.

Or the Z of an X,Y,Z.

It's a record monument. As Kent mentioned, it expresses the intention but it's not visible and needs a bit of work to find it. In your list that would be call to an adjoiner.

Not really the high water mark, that is another foot above the deed elevation. But, are we not talking about some kind of artificially created water line. Larry mentioned flood control-that implies some kind of structure-in my case it was an elevation at the spillway.

Those deeds mentioned an elevation but further defined it as the spillway elevation which created a bench mark that was easy enough to locate and a well defined line on the ground at the static reservoir height. In Larry's case if it is just an elevation with no other clarification then that would be very low in the order of calls.

I see we have a pretty wide variety of thoughts on the matter.

To clarify for a couple that have asked for more specific information on the particular job on which I am working, this was an academic question only. There is no specific job. I used the flood control lake as the most common example I could think of.

I can recall only one real world example here in the county where I work. That particular deed has nothing whatever to do with lakes or water. My best guess is an attorney somewhere decided calling for a particular elevation being the boundary line was the easiest way to "save his client some money". Of course, in the 50 or so years since that description was created, the headaches caused by his saving them money has easily cost them more than 10 times what it would have taken to do the job right the first time.

Larry P

PS: The attorney who wrote the description I mention above wouldn't know a datum from a hole in the ground. So of course he made no mention of datum in the description.

I don't like the "order of importance of conflicting elements" list. (Not directed at Larry's list, I mean in general). I mean it has its place, but it is a resolution of absolute last resort in my opinion. It is not a cookbook to decide exactly what you do and when. The perfect example is the arguments on other threads stating that if the deed doesn't call for a monument, then the bearings and distances hold as paramount over missing a monument by so much. Everyone setting "pincushions" or saying that the bearing and distances hold over uncalled for monuments, is right when applying the order of importance of conflicting elements. I tend to want to accept uncalled-for monuments, under the theory that a surveyor probably set them with due diligence and care at the time he or her set them. Why can't a land survey set a monument in a retracement survey, that is going to be disagreed with by the next guy whith a different measuring machine?

The important thing I read in a lot of the discussion on conflicting calls, and other such discussions, is that it is paramount that the scrivener be an expert in conveying the intent of the parties of conveyance. An example is that the owner can't sell a parcel less than 10,000 square feet. Don't you think the scrivener might be able to write the description in such a way as to make that the highest order call 'in that description?". I mean if that is what the grantor wants, and that is what the grantee wants, how can you not respect that intent and show it on the description? It is the point that so many are missing I believe (having read hundreds of descriptions).

I know that if the city requires that parcel to not be less than 10,000 square feet to meet their requirements, then that is the intent, and if I return a call on a retracement of 9,998 square feet someone might be screwed. Couldn't one write into the deed or somewhere on the plat that "the intent of this deed is to grant 10,000 square feet and absolutely no less." (or worded better). If this is done, and if the measurements close, it might force someone to always accept that area over measured distances or monuments if they don't sum up to at least the minimum area.

Same is, or should be, true for any other areas of importance in any particular case. The better the scriveners write in the intent of the deed, the less area of uncertainty ininterpreting that deed.

It is sad that the scrivener is nearly never held accountable for his or her poorly-written legal descriptions. And that is probably one of the biggest problems with surveying conflicts today.

Back to the subject at hand....if a scrivener actually went to the trouble to put in an elevation as a property line, it must be considered as very high on the intent within the four corners of the deed. I would say it is the highest importance on that deed secondary only to a senior ownership. It is finding the "monument" that is the controlling benchmark for that elevation. That is an "original monument". Hopefully, that is also called to on the deed.

Bingo!

Having beat my head against the wall over three separate jobs this past week because of elevations, elevation is nothing more than an assumed coordinate.

Elevations are relative to some benchmark somewhere. Change the number on th benchmark and the elevation number on site changes, too. (Think NGVD29 v NAVD 88).

Original contact...

Me: ...and, do you have a specific datum to work from for the elevations so we match something you have already or need to tie into?

Them: huh?

Me: OK, we'll look for a local bench mark or just use the elevations from a nearby CGPS Station...

Post delivery contact...

Them: your elevations are wrong!

Me: what do you mean?

Them: they don't match the survey I got from my neighbor/architect/City Hall...