Original Monuments....That Aren't

While it'd make me feel better if I had some evidence of when and who set it, I'd still assume it represents better evidence than the infinite hypotheticals swirling around in my mind.

Murphy....forget the hypotheticals and that every rule has an exception.?ÿ Whatever you need to convince you that it is in the original location, you have it.?ÿ I'll even concede that it should be used by all available occupation..?ÿ Does that new monument carry the same weight of what the original did?

Scott

I don't view "without error" as relavent outside of philosophical discussion.?ÿ It's a non falsifiable assertion, so best not to even bring it up.?ÿ Describe the found monument, reference evidence supporting its pedigree if any exists, and leave it to others to prove a negative.

@scott-bordenet?ÿ

No it doesn't carry the same weight, but it will be the next best thing.

A good faith restoration of an original plat monument has all the dignity of the original, once accepted, IMO.?ÿ

From Wattles Writing Legal Descriptions?ÿ

I think we tend to take the concept that the original survey is without error a little to literally. The phrase has been used by the courts to make a point, and the context of those cases should be taken into account.?ÿ

Also, a blunder doesn't necessarily negate the "without error". An original stubbed out 1/4 with a dropped chain or two and a 20 degree angle bust is definitely a blunder, but it is still "without error". Depending on the circumstances the same could apply to a private subdivision corner.?ÿ

As for your question. If?ÿ the rebar is a diligent and faithful restoration of an original corner the corner is still "without error", but you could be in error in concluding that that the rebar is a diligent and faithful restoration. In other words it all hinges on your determination of whether the corner is lost or obliterated, and that decision is not necessarily "without error".?ÿ

@norman-oklahoma?ÿ

The problem is that your determination that it was a good faith restoration is not without error.?ÿ

Murphy, like your application...probably what we will all do.

Norman, great citation.?ÿ Wattles no less....not Brown, Robillard, Cooley...though those guys aren't bad either. ???œ

?ÿ

The default position is to hold the monument, much like Norman's quote says. The burden is on the rejector.?ÿ

@scott-bordenet?ÿ

There are several such references in Brown. In my 1st edition of BC & LP is found:

Principle. In a lot and block description, subdivision monuments called for on the plat, or monuments set by others to perpetuate the position of the original monuments called for, if properly identified and undisturbed, control the position of the original lot lines.?ÿ

This principle remains in the seventh edition, unchanged, as section 12.11.?ÿ

@mightymoe?ÿ

I agree, I go with the presumption that a found monument is good until proven otherwise.?ÿ I don't just go about rejecting monuments just because they're not called for in the deed or original plat

@jph?ÿ

Yes, and there needs to be a very compelling reason to reject a monument. Not that I won't or haven't done it. We cleaned up a property a couple of months ago, there was all kinds of irons out there that needed to go. But I'm lucky I guess that is rare here as are multiple monuments at a corner.?ÿ

@mark-mayer?ÿ

Yes - like Brown's interpretation and therefore practical application for surveyors needing to stake corners when all is said and done.

Would you agree that a strict legal interpretation would say, "Wait, that corner is suspect because it is not original!"....to which I would say something like, "Yes, you are right.?ÿ So I did some checking and I'm using it (or maybe rejecting it if I found something wrong)!".

The whole point of my query is to investigate everyone's understanding of a legal interpretation of an original monument.

?ÿ

?ÿ

It frequently happens that we do not have a well documented paper trail. No biggie. So the surveyor must make measurements to the various other monuments and improvements he (or she) finds and evaluate evidence. If it all, or at least most of it, fits it is fair to assume that some reasonable thought and effort went into its placement.?ÿ The standard is?ÿ "clear and convincing evidence".?ÿ

?ÿ

@scott-bordenet?ÿ

You have to do some proving. Even if you have the original monument, or a paper trail documenting the restoration, you would still need to do some measuring and evaluating to show that it wasn't disturbed.

Note that we are talking about a called for monument here. There are plenty of other of Brown's Principles that say that?ÿ monuments that are at (substantially) record bearing and distance relative to others are controlling. The same cannot always be said for uncalled for monuments. Further, "called for" can mean more than it's literal reading.?ÿ What I'm driving at is that you can't just look at these individual principles in isolation.?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ

@norman-oklahoma?ÿ

yep, we're on the same page

@aliquot?ÿ

I could be incorrect in my understanding of what you are saying, but it seems that you are advocating a "beyond any doubt" standard of evidence for considering it a diligent and faithful restoration. With that standard, there would be no such thing as a diligent and faithful restoration, nor even an original, undisturbed monument.

@aliquot?ÿ

One must remember that the good faith standard needs to be applied to the day the monument was restored, not to what would be appropriate today. For example, the City of Portland was platted c.1840, when it was yet to be logged, and many monuments we find today were set c.1900 when the streets were unpaved, lots sold for $50, and the latest measurement technology was still the Gunters Chain.?ÿ

Finding original monument court cases in each state that relate to the OP's question may be difficult or next to impossible. I know when researched most in my state have been about natural boundaries and involve AP cases. There is no state statute or regulation that will answer those questions.