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.
