I need some peer feedback on a current pincushion dilemma. I'll try to summarize briefly but with sufficient details to judge what course of action you might consider.
The subject tract is a 1.4 acre residential metes-and-bounds tract in a suburban setting. This land and all of the adjoiners were split from the same parent tract in the early 1960's (not simultaneously), including an 8-lot subdivision. The subject tract and adjoiners commence at a concrete monument at the northwest corner of the subdivision, which I was able to find. In fact, I found all 4 original concrete monuments.
We were retained to perform a "legal survey", which in Indiana means that 20-day notice is given to the adjoiners, and the survey is filed with the County Surveyor afterwards, and becomes a legally binding document on all parties that were given notice (unless an objection to the survey is filed).
The reason we were hired is because a now-defunct survey company was hired to perform the same survey in 2010. None of the parties (client and neighbors) were happy with that survey, mostly due to several areas of apparent negligence on that survey. A few notable areas of concern:
1) The 2010 survey did not tie into the subdivision monument(s), nor even show them as being found.
2) The 2010 survey shows a record gap of about 1/2 acre between the subject tract and westerly adjoiner, when in fact there is no gap. That surveyor forgot to turn over the deed to Page 2 and retrace the second part of the legal description of the adjoiner.
3) The 2010 survey shows a jog in the easterly line of the subject tract, when there is none in the record deed, nor any occupation along that line. The jog creates title issues with the easterly adjoiner. the surveyor then wrote a modernized legal description, which thankfully hasn't been used.
As I said, the client and neighbors all recognize that the 2010 survey was not of the highest standard, and some feel that it is basically worthless. Which leads me to my pincushion dilemma. Two capped rebars set by that firm fall about a foot away from the record position of the rear corners, using record dimensions from the found subdivision monuments. Setting additional capped rebars will create pincushion corners. However, it seems that if I "hold" those monuments without setting new corners, the landowners are likely to consider my survey with the same esteem as the previous surveyor, and wonder why they hired me.
Thoughts?
Sounds as though there is no reliance on those questionable pins. If ever there was a case for pincushioning, you probably have it.
You would probably set your pins, drive the old ones down a few more inches, and show them as rejected on your drawing?
(But then I'm not an LS)
>
> As I said, the client and neighbors all recognize that the 2010 survey was not of the highest standard, and some feel that it is basically worthless. Which leads me to my pincushion dilemma. Two capped rebars set by that firm fall about a foot away from the record position of the rear corners, using record dimensions from the found subdivision monuments. Setting additional capped rebars will create pincushion corners. However, it seems that if I "hold" those monuments without setting new corners, the landowners are likely to consider my survey with the same esteem as the previous surveyor, and wonder why they hired me.
>
> Thoughts?
Couldn't the land owners pull the rebars if they are in agreement to the worthless 'worth' of the 2010 surveys?
It can be explained that this action could prevent any future conflicts. Remember in a few years or so , some other surveyor will be placing another pin for the trifecta pin cushion. 🙂
I would think that you will have to have all your work performed to maximum standards and procedures and have it detailed in your report which would also include a notarized letter by the parties stating their removal of the previous surveyor's pins.
>Couldn't the land owners pull the rebars if they are in agreement to the worthless 'worth' of the 2010 surveys? It can be explained that this action could prevent any future conflicts.
That's what I was thinking. It seems your reasons for questioning the discrepancies in the previous survey are valid. Since there has already been a fox in the hen house and everyones feathers are ruffled, I'd say it's best to have all land owners on the same page before you go finishing your survey.;-)
In this case, it seems that there is direct evidence that the owners have all rejected the 2010 survey including the 2010 monuments. Then they aren't monuments. They are a bane on the profession and the owners know it. Not only have they not relied upon the monuments, they've directly rejected them. It's time to pull them all (unless there are some they have accepted) and start over.
A surveyor's marker that doesn't represent a boundary location in the eyes of the owner, is not a "monument." There should be no fear or hesitation to simply pull them. I would, however, recommend that you first record their position, then pull them. Their former position can be preserved on your survey which will be filed in a public repository (It will, won't it?). Perhaps the evidence could be used by the owners to bring suit against the surveyor. They certainly don't need them on the ground mucking up future generations.
What pin cushion?
JBS
PS: Other states should take a serious look at Indiana's permanent survey statute. It's an excellent solution for resolving boundary and survey conflicts by requiring a high level of expertise from a professional surveyor.
I concur completely with JB.
Not quite sure if this would do the trick or not.
We were retained to perform a "legal survey", which in Indiana means that 20-day notice is given to the adjoiners, and the survey is filed with the County Surveyor afterwards, and becomes a legally binding document on all parties that were given notice (unless an objection to the survey is filed).
If the Survey that was done in 2010 and the steps you described above were followed, then the 2010 survey is part of the record and you have no legal right to remove evidence of that recorded survey. Set your new movements where they should have already been set. Note that you were employed to check and place new monuments at the proper locations if you found the previous work defective because the effected owners had rejected the results of the previous work. Yep, you will need to show and describe 2 monuments, the one you set and the one you rejected at each corner.
back to the sand box
jud
> If the Survey that was done in 2010 and the steps you described above were followed, then the 2010 survey is part of the record and you have no legal right to remove evidence of that recorded survey. Set your new movements where they should have already been set. Note that you were employed to check and place new monuments at the proper locations if you found the previous work defective because the effected owners had rejected the results of the previous work. Yep, you will need to show and describe 2 monuments, the one you set and the one you rejected at each corner.
These monuments are meaningless, in spite of the fact that there is a "record" of them. How is removing them and perpetuating their former location on your survey going to result in anything less than positive? There is no logic in perpetuating the physical location of a monument marking where a corner is not located. It will only lead to confusion.
Is it the surveyor's job to document and perpetuate PROBLEMS? Or, is it the surveyor's duty to document and perpetuate SOLUTIONS?
JBS
The 2000 survey has been rejected by the owners. You found the best evidence that proves it foul. Remove the 2000 mons, show it all on your survey. Settle the neighborhood and don't leave behind evidence of the non-established 2000 goods, except for your notes on your survey showing where they were and explaining why they were removed.
Then follow up with a report and a copy of the 2000 survey and your survey and submit it to your St. Board for review. Notice I did not say "complaint". Simply report the facts. Only they can say if a problem exists with LS2000. On it's face, it looks like incompetence or negligence or a combination thereof.
It seems like it would be best to remove the bad monuments. There is one statement in you post that jumps out at me. You say "SOME" of the owners feel the previous survey was worthless. Does that mean some of them like it? Have you called the other surveyor and discussed the problems with him? Maybe he would pull them.
I'm not familiar with recording Statutes. In Oklahoma we can record misc. documents or recorded plat additions. The latter requires Joseph, Mary, Baby Jesus AND the City Council's approval. The former is a document lost in the endless rows of records with no specific paper trail. I wish we would record our surveys around here. It would keep some of the breed from victimizing honest citizens that need the services of a professional surveyor.
That being said, the aformentioned conditions bring to my mind the wise words of one of my mentors, "A pin set in the wrong place is still wrong."
The trick is disproving, with the evidence available at the time of the previous survey, an erroneous location. Be careful. "The contrary can usually be shown".
Oh, and don't every pull another surveyor's nails or pins, unless they're in your truck tire. Leave the fool thing there. If you remove them, there remains no evidence that their survey was in error. Remove them and it's your word against their's.
So where are the pin finders?
There are some regular participants on this board that have repeatedly said that any monumentation found is good and you have to hold it. I could name names, but I won't - but when are you going to jump in and claim the pins set in error 2 years ago have to be good because they were found?
So where are the pin finders?
I also remeber someone posting a picture here of a surveyor who did not accept his previous pin/cap and set a new one as a pincushion.
JB... I love your posts.....
SOLUTIONS.... Show DEED,MEASURED,RECORD, and the "lowballers" pins
as found.
Write a very to the point narrative following the placement of the
pins set, in relation to the pins found, and why they were rejected.
Leave them as monuments to the previous "lowballers" work to help
"enhance" their professional reputation.
My nickles worth... (runaway inflation, darn it all)
So where are the pin finders?
> There are some regular participants on this board that have repeatedly said that any monumentation found is good and you have to hold it. I could name names, but I won't - but when are you going to jump in and claim the pins set in error 2 years ago have to be good because they were found?
I'm not sure where you have seen or heard surveyors proclaim that "any' monument found must be held, I sure can't recall anyone on this board saying so.
Presumption: A rule of law that permits a court to assume a fact is true until such time as there is a preponderance of evidence which disproves or outweighs the presumption. A presumption shifts the burden to the opposing party to prove that the assumption is untrue.
I'm thinking that is what the original poster has done, presumed the previous attempt of a resurvey was correct until he found the necessary evidence to overcome the presumption of correctness. Once he has done so to his professional satisfaction, he is free reject the "monuments" and hopefully remove and deposit them in the dust-bin of uselessness, right alongside a whole host of straw-men.
So where are the pin finders?
easy answer
After the owners use them.
So where are the pin finders?
>
> I'm not sure where you have seen or heard surveyors proclaim that "any' monument found must be held, I sure can't recall anyone on this board saying so.
>
> Presumption: A rule of law that permits a court to assume a fact is true until such time as there is a preponderance of evidence which disproves or outweighs the presumption. A presumption shifts the burden to the opposing party to prove that the assumption is untrue.
>
> I'm thinking that is what the original poster has done, presumed the previous attempt of a resurvey was correct until he found the necessary evidence to overcome the presumption of correctness. Once he has done so to his professional satisfaction, he is free reject the "monuments" and hopefully remove and deposit them in the dust-bin of uselessness, right alongside a whole host of straw-men.
In the rules of evidence, I thought that as far as boundary law was concerned that a preponderance of evidence was needed to outweigh prima facae evidence. Finding a pin in the ground set by a surveyor is not prima facie evidence. Finding a pin in the ground set by a county or some surveyor in a official capacity such as a court appointed surveyor would be prima facie.
Correct me if I am wrong?
