Know of a section corner that is almost exactly 660 feet (10 chains) west of the location expected by following the Government Field notes. ?ÿThe west section lines of the two adjoining sections bend back in the first half mile to what appears to be correctly located quarter corners. ?ÿMakes a guy wonder if it was set correctly then the first settler decided to help his claim grow by moving the one corner for some reason. ?ÿYou would expect that someone doing such things prior to the arrival of neighbors would have moved more than one corner.
This all sounds like a broken record. Will you Measurers ever get the message? Read The Judicial Function of Surveyors by Thomas M. Cooley, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Michigan ,1864 - 1895 The monuments rule over the Plat. Unless you have unimpeachable evidence the corner was moved it is where it is.
Know of a section corner that is almost exactly 660 feet (10 chains) west of the location expected by following the Government Field notes.
Somebody got distracted and forgot to record an "out" while using shortcut procedures so they didn't finish the mile.
Cooley's last parting sentence foretold the future: "What I have said cannot contribute much to their enlightenment, but I trust will not be wholly without value."
Did the 1981 Surveyor find or set the southeast corner?
Do not forget to probe for a hole in the record position; it won't look good in court.
?ÿ
As page 259 says in my copy of Brown's Boundary Control and Legal Principles Senior Rights controls followed by the Survey and then the monuments. If the monuments don't fit the survey then how do you hold them? New York is a metes and bounds puzzle and maintaining the integrity of the puzzle is more important than holding every pipe that the local farmer set when he couldn't find the surveyors corner. I would think that once you have reached a point where the government survey no longer controls that it is okay to hold the measurement over the monuments when they don't agree, because the measurements were the intent of the survey and the monuments were typically set on a second trip.?ÿ
My 2 cents from 3,000 miles away.?ÿ
Did the 1981 Surveyor find or set the southeast corner?
The SE corner of my client's property is a set, original corner; along the East line of the plat. The property to the east was surveyed (platted) in 1976. It appears the 1981 surveyor set this corner in error. All other original corners I found in the plat are where they should be.
"As page 259 says in my copy of Brown's Boundary Control and Legal Principles Senior Rights controls followed by the Survey and then the monuments."
?ÿ
It might be here in Texas, and maybe varies state by state, but limitation title will trump senior rights in the general hierarchy of boundary rights.
That deck may be able to perfect title to the adjacent lot(s).
I'm with what was said and/or implied above.?ÿ By definition an original, undisturbed monument can't be off.?ÿ It's off in relation to what??ÿ Other original undisturbed monuments??ÿ Secondary monuments? fences??ÿ
Couldn't be more wrong about NY, but maybe I misunderstand the post.?ÿ In fact, even an old structure built near the time of the original survey is held to be better evidence of the?ÿline than?ÿmeasurements and senior rights once all original monuments have disappeared.?ÿ But yeah, if you can retrace two lines and one was surveyed in 1930 and another in 2016, then you have to stop the 2016 line where it intersects the 1930 one.?ÿ But that's a title issue, not an interpretation of intent issue.?ÿ If you can't retrace the 1930 survey (or if it was a paper subdivision and never?ÿmonumented on the ground), then sure the 2016 survey is good.?ÿ The only puzzle that counts are the parcels as marked and occupied on the ground.?ÿ The paper puzzle doesn't fit and never has, but gets better as new descriptions are written with modern measurements shown to found ancient monuments.
I'm with what was said and/or implied above.?ÿ By definition an original, undisturbed monument can't be off.?ÿ It's off in relation to what??ÿ Other original undisturbed monuments??ÿ Secondary monuments? fences??ÿ
There's the Oregon or Washington board MTS that was in effect at the time. I think I read somewhere the positional tolerance for monuments was roughly 0.5'.?ÿ It seems that if they had noted the encroachment of the deck on the original plat, they simply memorialized their blunder. And I would say if the positional tolerance was exceeded, it would be characterized as a blunder.
?ÿ
?ÿ
One of the first?ÿquestions I always ask myself in this situation is how do I know it is "undisturbed"??ÿ Monuments get moved for all sorts of reasons - intentional and unintentional.?ÿ The longer you survey, the more stories you hear about monuments getting placed back where they thought it should be.?ÿ Can you contact the other surveyor??ÿ If it were me, I would appreciate a call and a chance to check it out myself.?ÿ
A measurement of 3.5' difference might be evidence that it is not an "undisturbed" monument.?ÿ If you went that route, I would look for additional evidence to support it being in the original position, and evidence that supports that it has moved.?ÿ Weigh all the evidence, including possible parol evidence.
Be careful not to let yourself fall into the mind trap of "monuments hold" - period.?ÿ?ÿ If the same surveyor was not prone to measurements significantly being off in the same survey, and you are positive that this is where the surveyor set this point, then I would say it was likely a mistake.?ÿ Holding a mistake only compounds an issue for the next surveyor that you could have corrected.?ÿ You have to weigh all the factors in what you might consider being a mistake and the distance that separates a mistake and poor workmanship.?ÿ No two surveys or circumstances?ÿare ever alike.?ÿ For instance, a stone set at the Center of Section in 1885 that was found to be 3.5' off from the mathematical intersection of the quarter section lines would be acceptable in my opinion.?ÿ An interior lot corner placed?ÿin a subdivision?ÿin 1993 that was found?ÿ3.5' off would not be acceptable.
