Land owners move monuments all the time. We have the option to accept or reject any monument, including an original monument if we believe it to be moved/disturbed. We shouldn't just assume the original surveyor made a mistake.
?ÿ
?ÿ
"Land owners move monuments all the time. We have the option to accept or reject any monument, including an original monument if we believe it to be moved/disturbed. We shouldn't just assume the original surveyor made a mistake."
No assumption here. He stated in the Title "Original, undisturbed monument..."
I just went to court over a similar situation, but much worse.
My client had owned 7 acres for over 40 years.?ÿ 30 years ago his neighbor subdivided his property into 3 lots.?ÿ Everything was peaceful until 2 years ago when one of those lot owners had their timber cut and cut an acre belonging to my client.?ÿ What happened is 30 years ago when the neighbor divided his tract, the surveyor screwed it up and included about 2 acres of my client's property.?ÿ So, there were several original, undisturbed pins set by that surveyor that were absolutely in error.
...but that monument was not an original monument for your client's line.?ÿ
I think you'd have to prove that the 1/2"IR provided sufficient constructive notice to the buyer.
The idea that one iron can overcome an abundance of other evidence in a written intent to convey is counter-intuitive, and there are appellate cases for the argument. Here in Texas, and I can't remember now whether it was the Galveston district, or Galveston County, but the gist of the case was that a landowner wasn't bound by a monument set by a surveyor, as the limits of his property, when in the the description the call for a monument set on a senior line was interpreted by the court to mean the intent was to reach the senior line, and that call was of a higher order than the call for the location where a monument was set. That's the best I remember it.
?ÿ
The "Original called for monument, found undisturbed, holds no error of position" is actually true in the sense that it holds no error of position.?ÿ
What dignity you attribute to it, is where the problem lies.
?ÿ
Somewhere there's an appellate case where one key was in the court's opinion that (paraphrasing) If the omission of one call from a deed, or property description, results in making the deed whole, that one call should be struck.
?ÿ
I think you would have to prove that was sufficient reliance on that monument, to overcome the remainder of the intent to convey.
I think you'd have to prove that the 1/2"IR provided sufficient constructive notice to the buyer.
The idea that one iron can overcome an abundance of other evidence in a written intent to convey is counter-intuitive, and there are appellate cases for the argument. Here in Texas, and I can't remember now whether it was the Galveston district, or Galveston County, but the gist of the case was that a landowner wasn't bound by a monument set by a surveyor, as the limits of his property, when in the the description the call for a monument set on a senior line was interpreted by the court to mean the intent was to reach the senior line, and that call was of a higher order than the call for the location where a monument was set. That's the best I remember it.
?ÿ
The "Original called for monument, found undisturbed, holds no error of position" is actually true in the sense that it holds no error of position.?ÿ
What dignity you attribute to it, is where the problem lies.
?ÿ
Somewhere there's an appellate case where one key was in the court's opinion that (paraphrasing) If the omission of one call from a deed, or property description, results in making the deed whole, that one call should be struck.
?ÿ
I think you would have to prove that was sufficient reliance on that monument, to overcome the remainder of the intent to convey.
Again, that's not an original monument. When a monument is set on a senior line it can't be an original monument for that line. A surveyor (or land owner) can only set an original monument for a brand new line.?ÿ
"Again, that's not an original monument. When a monument is set on a senior line it can't be an original monument for that line. A surveyor (or land owner) can only set an original monument for a brand new line. "
?ÿ
The distinction here is that the monument recited in the deed was not some rubicon, past which no claim lie. The intent in the deed was to reach the senior line of the adjoining tract, and the monument failed. The appellant wasn't bound by the monument set by the surveyor.
?ÿ
?ÿ
"Again, that's not an original monument. When a monument is set on a senior line it can't be an original monument for that line. A surveyor (or land owner) can only set an original monument for a brand new line. "
?ÿ
The distinction here is that the monument recited in the deed was not some rubicon, past which no claim lie. The intent in the deed was to reach the senior line of the adjoining tract, and the monument failed. The appellant wasn't bound by the monument set by the surveyor.
?ÿ
?ÿ
Right, because it was not an original monument for the senior line. It presumably?ÿ was an original monument for a side line. And would hold regardless of accuracy.?ÿ
I haven't been able to find a one particular case, here in Texas, where a call for a senior line in a written conveyance prevailed 0ver a monument placed in error. I was able to dig up an appellate ruling where a monument set in error did prevail. The courts in this case take note of representations and constructive notice.
?ÿ
![Smith v Boone[1]](https://rpls.com/forums/forofile/thumb/361d371ba7947c1e91020939134e6dab/ "Smith v Boone[1]")
![Smith v Boone[2]](https://rpls.com/forums/forofile/thumb/b0817aa34be18bc1bc33569de96d4133/ "Smith v Boone[2]")
![Smith v Boone[3]](https://rpls.com/forums/forofile/thumb/2dda66207bf538be7c8b8a21f50b89c8/ "Smith v Boone[3]")
?ÿ
It is quite clear that early surveyors understood that a monument set on a new line closing to an existing line does not control the existing line. In fact there were?ÿwords to that effect "Closing Corner Monument". Now a closing corner monument may be long or short of the senior line, but the senior line controls the actual closing corner location.
Paul in PA
It is quite clear that early surveyors understood that a monument set on a new line closing to an existing line does not control the existing line. In fact there were?ÿwords to that effect "Closing Corner Monument". Now a closing corner monument may be long or short of the senior line, but the senior line controls the actual closing corner location.
Paul in PA
I concur.?ÿ The?ÿ rear corners of the side lot lines in a subdivision which abut the subdivision boundary are all closing corners.?ÿ The subdivision owner's intent is to sell all his land and not sell any land outside the subdivision boundary.?ÿ Local custom here is to monument all the subdivision boundary angle points with 2" Iron Pipes and the lot lines with rebar if the subdivision is cut out of a larger parcel, for example.
OTOH, the contrary may be shown.?ÿ The lot line original physical monuments (now long gone but memorialized) in parts of the city (incorporated in late 1860s and now skyscraper land) control the street widths,?ÿ by judicial action.?ÿ So the street width is 60.50' here, 58.97' there, etc.?ÿ Whacky, but it is what?ÿ it is.?ÿ The rationale was that many structures were built up to the R/W line (0.00' setbacks) and to interpret the lot line monuments as closing corners would result in myriad encroachments and lacunas.
In my state, if you can prove fraud, then the plat prevails, but it is very rare to prove fraud. And, if the record plat has some statement that the original surveyor SET monuments, then the monuments prevail.?ÿ
?ÿ
I did one survey where I struggled mightily for days because I found the original monument about 3 feet "out". Finally, the landowner told me that "he moved the pin over a little to meet setback distance for his new house". This constituted fraud so the plat prevailed.
I did another survey where all six, 5-acre lots from a 1980 survey were monumented correctly in a mountainous and thickly forested subdivision, and all dimensions closed mathematically. I found two pins to be "out" by thirteen feet along a 100 foot line. both lots were vacant, no sign of possession, so I set new pins in the plat position and, per Colorado law, showed both lines on my plat as "conflicting boundary evidence". No harm done - neither lot "lost land" because of this obvious, isolated field blunder.?ÿ But, eventually, the Colorado supreme court ruled that the original monuments held, because the original subdivision plat contained a certified statement by the surveyor that he had "set the monuments". In this case, one landowner gained a strip of land that he had never paid taxes on in accordance with the platted acreage, and another landowner lost a strip and had overpaid the assessor since 1980. (since I followed all statutes in effect at the time of my survey, I was not sued).
"lacunas" - Nice!?ÿ A new word for the day.
Merry Christmas!
"I did another survey where all six, 5-acre lots from a 1980 survey were monumented correctly in a mountainous and thickly forested subdivision, and all dimensions closed mathematically. I found two pins to be "out" by thirteen feet along a 100 foot line."
?ÿ
This survey was appealed all the way to the supreme court ???ÿ
The 0.5 foot is the 'discrepancy' threshold, not a point at which you reject the monument...
The 0.5 foot is the 'discrepancy' threshold, not a point at which you reject the monument...
Yes, in Washington State; if you have 2 monuments 5280 feet apart and your measurement differs from the record by 0.51; you will need to record your survey to show the discrepancy. If they are 10 feet apart and your?ÿmeasurement differs from the record by 0.49; you are good to go...
The 0.5 foot is the 'discrepancy' threshold, not a point at which you reject the monument...
Yes, in Washington State; if you have 2 monuments 5280 feet apart and your measurement differs from the record by 0.51; you will need to record your survey to show the discrepancy. If they are 10 feet apart and your?ÿmeasurement differs from the record by 0.49; you are good to go...
Micro managing never worked, never will... except maybe for burger flipping.
Yes, the Colorado Court of Appeals (Colorado Supreme Court)
?ÿ
Yes, the Colorado Court of Appeals (Colorado Supreme Court)
?ÿ
The Colorado Court of Appeals is not the Colorado Supreme Court.
Colorado Court of Appeals - Home Page
Warren,
Is this the Moralez v. CAMB court case? If so, it is an interesting read.?ÿ I'm curious for two reasons.?ÿ The case is referred to by a now-retired attorney as the Colorado "Blunder Rule".?ÿ The other reason is that one of the owners of CAMB was a close friend of my father.
?ÿI wish the Grand County Clerk and Recorder made recorded subdivision plats available online similar to the deposited land survey plats.?ÿ