The developer lines could be the boundaries no matter how erroneous they are but there isn't enough information in the thread to say for sure.
Obviously Land Surveyors like the rules of construction because they are rational and objective but they are only the first half of boundary law.
I figured it was a slam dunk when the Developer admitted he set the corners in question, but after reading what people think here I'm not so sure. If the Judge ruled like you folks think there's going to be a huge title problem with the other 25 property owners. The ones on the North end of the subdivision will lose their entire lots. I've been trolled before here so I'm taking what you're saying with a grain of salt. I was on the stand for 6 hours so obviously it all can't be stated on this thread.
I'll throw this in. When doing a resurvey you are responsible to find where the corner is not where it should be. Keep that in mind. Which I think that's what most of the posters are referring to.
I'm not saying either way, your testimony may be persuasive the other way. I am only saying it is possible. The largest discrepancy I'm aware of in a published case involves a 1/16th line 500 feet too far north but under the facts and circumstances of the case the Court affirmed the trial court's ruling in favor of the "incorrect" boundary.
the trial court only has authority over the boundary in question and the parties in court. Other boundaries and property owners cannot be affected by the one judgment.
Losing property owners may have a cause of action against the developer.
Again this is just background...often in a case like this there is random scrap metal in the ground that no one knows how it got there. In this case the developer explained why and how the scrap metal got there so that is very useful information. It may yet be insufficient since it appears to have been unilateral. Or if the Lot owner didn't rely on the scrap metal then your resolution may be deemed more persuasive. But if your resolution throws longstanding valuable improvements off onto other property courts are reluctant to go that way. I can't say either way because I don't know.
What I am saying is Land Surveyors are interested in technical details but Courts are more interest in the human story because that is really what it is. They aren't so interested in numbers.
The lots are all the same dimensions, 80' by 180'. There are 26 lots in the Subdivision. There should be over 60 pins. The opposition hired two different surveyors. They could only find 8 pins in three days each of surveying. The 8 pins were all short in matching distances to the Play and 20 degrees off in bearing when compared to the Plat. Neither attempted to show the subdivision's relationship to the GLO corners. Both steadfastly stuck to their opinions that the 5/8" pins were original corners even though the Plat stated they were 3/4" pins. Their positions were 60 feet to far to the west and 180 feet to far to the north with respect to the GLO corners and Government Lot Lines. How could you testify that you though they were original pins set by Original Surveyor? Especially when the Developer admitted he set them? I hope no Developers read this website. The worst Surveyors I have ever run into make 10 or 15 foot errors. They also set monuments of the size they state on their Plat, usually 1/2" pins. It's going to be very interesting what the Judge's decision will be.
In a subdivision all 26 lots will be affected by the Judges decision. The only solution I can see is a boundary line agreement with 26 landowners. How easy do you think that will be? If I was the Judge I would make a decision where the Lot isn't, not where it is.
I agree with your statement that Judges should be interested in how all the landowners will be affected by his ruling. I'm hoping the Judge will realize that in my opinion the "original" 5/8" pins were fraudulently set by a nonregistered Surveyor and not by the Surveyor that certified the Plat.
In my opinion the patina on the pins was a bunch of BS.
I would call the pins not set to surveying standards. I would stay away from calling them fraudulently surveyed, incompetently for sure. The guy wasn't licensed and shouldn't have been surveying, but it was surveyed and the landowners relied on them.
It sounds like a replat should be executed. I don't know about Montana but there is a mechanism called a Clerks Plat that can be used to force it to be done. The court may require a solution similar to that. Sucks for the landowners losing area.
I don't see how this is much different than a guy who walks out in his corn field, sets some rocks on the ground, writes some crappy/inaccurate descriptions, and then starts selling lots.?ÿ I assume the problem here is the plat just happened to be recorded first.?ÿ How did this end up in court in the first place??ÿ Adjoiners complaining?
Due to the length of time involved, surveying without a license might be moot. But to settle the probably moot point, one would have to figure out when the 5/8 pins were set, and what the land survey licensure laws were back then. Perhaps the adjoining land still belonged to the developer, and maybe, back then, landowners were permitted to survey their own land. If the land belonged to a corporation in which the developer held a major position, like president or majority stockholder, that's a different kettle of fish.
The defendants built a trespass road to get their building site. I got called to survey the road and Mark the property lines. The Plaintiffs survey was very well measured. He rejected the defendants lot pins which were not well surveyed. I ended up doing a section breakdown and determined the defendants lot was not where the Developer told them it was. The Subdivision survey was screwed up so bad it was determined only a Judge's decision could determine where the Defendents wasn't. The Defendants hired Surveyors that said the pins were original. The Plaintiffs hired me that said the pins weren't original.
The Plat was done in 1971. A year before Montana instituted a Subdivision and Platting act. The Developer admitted setting the pins in 2001. He only set pins around lots for people who came and asked him where their lots were located. Back then licensure was by a written test and engineers could also be licensed as Surveyors by answering a couple surveying questions. I've never heard of landowners ever being allowed to survey their own parcels.
The license status of the developer is only relevant to whether he is guilty of practicing land surveying without a license. ?ÿIt is not relevant as to whether his monuments have become established as marking the boundary. If the property owners mutually accepted or acquiesced in those monuments as marking the boundary they?ÿmay?ÿbe established monuments depending upon if they meet the required elements in whatever State this is in.
Dave, I represented the current owners. They did not accept the Developers corner since they were over 100 feet from where the Plat discription. They were also 30 feet over the Government Lot line between Government Lot 3 and Lot 8. You cannot sell land you do not own. The Developer set pins for subdivision lot 25 over the Government lot line into government lot 8 which he did not own. The Defendents build a road across Tract 3 which the Developer never owned to access Lot 25 which the Developer pined in Government Lot 8 which he never owned. I don't care when the pins were set. If they are not located in property you own, you can not sell that property under the pretense that you own it. Being a poor Surveyor does not justify it.
I represented the current owners.
Surveyors are not supposed to "represent" or be advocates for clients. They are supposed to find the facts and evidence, and form opinions as to boundary locations using legal principles.
When parties do not agree with those opinions, surveyors present facts and evidence impartially in court. Help the judge understand the situation so an equitable decision results. Don't try to "win" for a client.
Sounded to me like He meant the plaintiffs were His clients and the evidence was not biased, but simply supported their argument about a poor, old, or incomplete survey that led to discrepancies or misrepresentation of boundaries.
Not that He was working to win for them in a sneaky lawyerish type of way. How would you not be defined as an advocate for your client if your professional expertise allows you to discover evidence, offer interpretation, and measure proving the survey in question to be inaccurate or questionable. Isn??t that why a judge reviews everything to consider whether there has been any manipulation or faulty practice on either side of the argument or who they??ve hired.
I agree we do not advocate as it relates to boundaries. It is appropriate to advocate for our clients on other matters such as P&Z or Council applications.
As for court, there are two ways we serve. If as an expert, we act much as you described. If called as a fact witness it is improper to extend into opinions and conclusions beyond the record. A good attorney will catch when a fact witness surveyor is being baited that direction. A smart surveyor will as well..
Right, the fact that the developer, no longer having any interest in the land, reset the boundaries 29 years after the Plat and they were always and at all times regarded as incorrect by your client and in trespass, and the developer intended to mark an internal lot line, not the subdivision boundary which he crossed into an adjoining government lot without good reason or justification...those are reasons to reject the coffee can.
Exactly. The Defendants got a Surveyor to sit on the stand and declare the pins were the right patina to be set over 40 years ago. He certainly biased his testimony to favor his side. The Defendants just shopped around till they found not only a Surveyor, but a Lawyer that would take any side for money. This case should have never gone to trial if their Lawyer was the least bit ethical. They tried every dirty trick in the book to keep the Plaintiffs expert witnesses from testifying.
