I am seeking this group's wisdom on an issue I've encountered in a boundary survey. I have attached a sketch.
The facts: The parcels in green all originate from the same parent parcel. Their descriptions are in harmony, and field evidence supports the record as it relates to that set of parcels. The parcels in yellow originate from a different parent parcel. Yellow and green original descriptions conflict as to their calls on their shared E/W and N/S line. Accepted monuments were found at all relevant corners.
I am surveying the large SW parcel.
The issue: When creating the SW parcel, it appears likely that when the original surveyor described the NE corner, he believed he was at the original common corner between yellow and green. Finding no monument, he set a new corner and described the new parcel. Subsequent parcel descriptions out of this parent followed suit and relied on his, likely erroneus, position of the common corner of yellow and green. Parcels out of yellow continued to rely on their described corner.
The Question: Looking only within the 4 corners of the deed, the text I have to support the conclusion that the original surveyor believed he was the common corner, reads this:
THENCE <B&D> TO AN IRON STAKE, AN OLD CORNER; THENCE A NEW LINE <B&D>.
I believe that the 'old corner' was actually a set rebar, as the surveyor in question has a local reputation for that sort of thing. (He's since passed away, any map he may have drawn is not availble). Looking at the description he was retracing to create his parcel however, it does seem as though he believed he was at the location of the actual common corner and his call for 'old corner' may have expressed that belief. He either found and ignored the pipe marking the presumed actual corner, or overlooked it entirely.
If the interpreation is that he was intending to call for the actual corner of green and yellow, and though he thought he was there but in fact wasn't, should I hold the original corner and show the 'overlap' with all affected parcels? (The redline)
Or, even if he thought he was at the common corner, should I hold his presumed set monument and keep the harmony of that parcel's child tracts, but show the 'gap' between yellow and green? That would be following in the original surveyors footsteps, and the parent parcel owner did posses all of it when each subsequent tract was conveyed. As I said, record and measured within green all checks well.
For some additonal context, the distance between the discrepent corners is about 20 feet.
Thank you in advance to anyone who has made it this far, any thoughts are appreciated.
A huge part of this resolution will hinge on what the landowners knew or did not know about that set monument, and what they did or did not do after it was set, and how long ago.
What's the occupation look like?
What has been relied on? What do the land owners think is the corner? You seem to think the pipe is the corner but I don't see any evidence that gives it more weight than the rebar. Why do you think the pipe should be the corner? You want to say the previous surveyor set the rebar in error but I don't see any reason why you think the rebar is wrong. And it is almost pure speculation that it was set by the previous surveyor instead of being found by him. I acknowledge his reputation and the ambiguity of his statement of the old corner. So far there is more evidence of the rebar being the corner than the pipe. You will need more than what you have given us in order to hold the pipe as the corner. Given all that is known currently, I'm holding the rebar as the NE corner of the SW parcel in green. It seems the surveyor you are speaking of did the original survey creating the child parcel you are now surveying, and his rebar has always been the NE corner of this parcel. With more evidence I might change my mind.
So you found the original pipe between green and yellow? If so I think that should carry significant weight. But I'm guessing that clashes with what is being occupied now.
This reminds me a bit of the many pages of discussion held here quite a few years back known as the "stone versus pipe" situation.
We should not perpetuate errors made by sloppy surveyors who do not follow those who went before them.
This reminds me a bit of the many pages of discussion held here quite a few years back known as the "stone versus pipe" situation.
Ah, the old "stone vs pipe" days.
This reminds me a bit of the many pages of discussion held here quite a few years back known as the "stone versus pipe" situation.
Ah, the old "stone versus pipe" days.
Is there anything to be found to the north where the two colored lines nearly merge? It would seem to me the past actions of the two respective property owners would carry the most weight.
Am I to assume when you trace back the deed description for both parent tracts that the pipe was the original monument? If that’s the case I would hold the pipe unless the rebar looks to have been the accepted corner for awhile then I’d just inform the landowners of the discrepancy and see how they want to handle it.
Just an idea. Make a little worksheet, and interview the affected parties. Learn new stuff, and history.
Final answer, could be quitclaims, so that when you are done, it's all in writing. No more ambiguity.
N
Thank you all for the responses. First I want to address the thought that maybe the surveyor of green actually has it right; in an effort to keep the context brief, I omitted some info, but for the sake of conversation I am confident that the actual corner of green/yellow is as I have indicated and that my original surveyor was not there. Addressing some questions:
What does occupation look like?
Nothing really to work with there, it's on the edge of a electric transmission line and no obvious evidence of occupation by any one parcel or the other.
What has been relied on?
Unclear, only one existing owner has any connection to when the original surveyor may have created the parcel, he indicated that he knew there was a rod somewhere in the general vicinity, but when asked about my finding of two separate monuments, he couldn't recall. Relying on their survey, the other owners would have no reason to suspect the pipe, or what I believe is the actual original corner.
So you found the original pipe between green and yellow?
Yes, I found both a pipe and rebar, one marking what I believe is the original corner between the green and yellow parent parcel, the rebar being what I believe was a retracing surveyors erroneous position of that corner.
We should not perpetuate errors made by sloppy surveyors who do not follow those who went before them.
Agree completely, however I feel as though I am constrained to the what the deeds say, not what I thought they should have said, or what the original surveyor probably thought. There is extrinsic evidence to make me think the retracing surveyor intended to be at the original corner of green and yellow. But the fact is he wasn't, and relying only on the 4 corners of the page, I'm not convinced that any intent to be at the original corner was communicated. When I follow in the footsteps he described in the deed, I find all the monuments he did, at B&D within tolerance. All the child parcels of green are in harmony when relying on the 'wrong' corner.
Is there anything to be found to the north where the two colored lines nearly merge?
There is a monument of green sitting inside of yellow, making it clear the child parcels of green relied on the erroneous position.
Did the original surveyor believe he was at the corner of the green and yellow when he created the parcel? Probably.. but I'm not certain that presumption is supported by the record; rather it's my strong hunch and perhaps bias in wanting to clean up a boundary line. The fact is, he wasn't at what is the actual corner, but he set a monument, and subsequent surveys relied on it. I am having a difficult time in not simply following in his footsteps, however flawed I believe they were.
I thank you all again, I think I know which way I will go on this, just was looking for any different opinions in case I've missed something.
Junior monument controls the green lines outside the yellow parcel. Senior monument controls the common lines between yellow and green unless the owners acted in relying on the junior.
I feel as though I am constrained to the what the deeds say
Don't.
