The supreme law (per my truck's vanity plate) DEU 19:14:
Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour's landmark, which they of old time have set in thine inheritance, which thou shalt inherit in the land that the LORD thy God giveth thee to possess it.
DEU 27:17 is even better but it was already taken:
Cursed is the man who moves his neighbor's boundary stone." Then all the people shall say, "Amen!"
But how is "monument" defined in Section 355.1? That part linked doesn't say, but it appears that for some reason fence posts were overlooked.
yeah there is enough wiggle room probably to attempt to recuse oneself from the intent of this statute. The spirit being when a 'corner' is set by a professional surveyor, its intent is to designate that surveyor's professional opinion as to the corner's location - right or wrong (position-wise) is a major gray area, a can of worms one can understand the legislature not wanting to open.
Interestingly also, if the monument doesn't possess a magnetic field I suppose its fair game too.
in Maryland...
> (b) Penalty for damage or removal of marker.- Any person who willfully obliterates, damages, or removes any stake, marker, monument, or other landmark set in the property of another person by any civil engineer, surveyor, or real estate appraiser or any of their assistants, except if the stake, marker, monument, or other landmark interferes with the proper use of the property, is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction shall be fined not more than $500.
Yes, under that law, the person who owns the property that the erroneous marker encroaches onto could remove it lawfully, but not the surveyor who placed it, it would appear. :>
>
> DEU 27:17 is even better but it was already taken:
> Cursed is the man who moves his neighbor's boundary stone." Then all the people shall say, "Amen!"
Applies dually to the surveyor who mis-staked it too I suppose 😉
> California Penal Code Section 605
>
> Every person who either:
> 1. Maliciously removes any monument erected for the purpose of
> designating any point in the boundary of any lot or tract of land, or
> a place where a subaqueous telegraph cable lies; or,
> 2. Maliciously defaces or alters the marks upon any such monument;
Yes, a land surveyor who is serving the public good and the affected landowners by removing mistakenly located survey markers could hardly be said to be acting maliciously, which is the key distinction.
NY
New York State Education Law - Article 145 - § 7209 Special Provisions
9 a. Any person who knowingly damages, destroys, disturbs, removes,
resets, or replaces any boundary marker placed on any tract of land by a
licensed land surveyor, or by any person at the direction of a licensed
land surveyor, for the purpose of designating any point, course or line
in the boundary of such tract of land in which he or she has no legal
interest, shall be punished by a civil fine of not more than five
hundred dollars and shall be liable for the cost of reestablishment of
said boundary marker.
Monument Defined
> But how is "monument" defined in Section 355.1? That part linked doesn't say, but it appears that for some reason fence posts were overlooked.
355.1 DEFINITIONS.
As used in this chapter unless the context otherwise requires:
7. "Monument" means a physical structure which marks the location of a corner or other survey point.
One could argue that a fence post is just as much a physical structure (if not more) as a #5 rebar.
> (d) “Corner”, unless otherwise qualified, means a property corner, a property controlling corner, a public land survey corner, or any combination of these.
> (f) “Monument” means a marker that occupies the position of a corner and that possesses or is made to possess a magnetic field.
> (g) “Reference monument” means a special monument that does not occupy the same geographical position as the corner itself but whose spatial relationship to the corner is recorded and that serves to witness the corner.
> 54.210d Defacing, destroying, altering, or removing corner monument or reference monument; penalty; temporary removal; resetting; report; “person” defined.
> Sec. 14. (1) A person who defaces, destroys, alters, or removes a corner monument or reference monument is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000.00, or imprisonment for not more than 180 days, or both, and shall be responsible for the costs of reestablishment and replacement of the monument and filing of the corner record by a surveyor.
Yes, in Michigan, it appears that would be perfectly legal for a land surveyor to remove a survey marker that isn't occupying a property corner or referencing it in the public record, since the marker removed would not be either a "corner monument" or a "reference monument" as defined by the statute, which makes perfect sense.
> Randy, I think all states have various laws against disturbing or destroying private property, which survey monuments certainly are.
Actually, very few of the laws cited so far would prevent the removal of survey markers that don't mark or reference property corners. :>
My take on this subject has always been; if I find what appears to be a monument set by another surveyor, and in my opinion is out of position as indicated by record and other adjoining evidence found, and it is flagged as such, to locate it and denote it's position on the plat and to visually point it out to the client in the field and explain the situation to him/her as best I can. But, I don't move them or pull them up or anything like that. That is for the clients and their neighbors to decide. Just the way of my practice. I'm not saying it's the best practice. That's just my individual philosophy. After all, evidence is evidence and who am I to destroy it.
NY
> New York State Education Law - Article 145 - § 7209 Special Provisions
> 9 a. Any person who knowingly damages, destroys, disturbs, removes,
> resets, or replaces any boundary marker placed on any tract of land by a
> licensed land surveyor, or by any person at the direction of a licensed
> land surveyor, for the purpose of designating any point, course or line
> in the boundary of such tract of land in which he or she has no legal
> interest, shall be punished by a civil fine of not more than five
> hundred dollars and shall be liable for the cost of reestablishment of
> said boundary marker.
Well, that would appear to criminalize the surveyor who has to remove some mistakenly placed boundary marker in order to find the original that exists below it. How practical a law is that?
A Surveyor I know surveyed a client's lot adjoining the lot. Someone at the Church (which had junk piled up on the client's lot) removed all the line stakes. So the next time he wrote Deuteronomy 19:14 on the lath and they didn't disappear again.
NY
All of these laws are useless, unless a witness that observed the act and is willing to testify to having witnessed it under oath in court is found. Know of many pins pulled or destroyed by construction on private property and the numbers are right up there with public employees or those doing contract work for the public. Never have seen any charges brought because a witness can not be found to get the charge beyond speculation. The only way we can prevent this type of thing is to mine all monuments, after a few bangs most will avoid anything that looks like a survey marker. Many laws are passed to please someones interest but written in a way that they are unenforceable, our representatives are good at doing that.
jud
> My take on this subject has always been; if I find what appears to be a monument set by another surveyor, and in my opinion is out of position as indicated by record and other adjoining evidence found, and it is flagged as such, to locate it and denote it's position on the plat and to visually point it out to the client in the field and explain the situation to him/her as best I can. But, I don't move them or pull them up or anything like that. That is for the clients and their neighbors to decide.
See, that clearly is a poor practice to rely upon lay people to correctly identify the erroneous markers to be removed. The professional surveyor himself or herself should be
removing those markers so that the proper ones remain. Otherwise, the mess just grows, which defeats the entire purpose of weedomg out the junk markers.
NY
A Surveyor's marker that no one can see is nearly useless.
Monument Defined
> 7. "Monument" means a physical structure which marks the location of a corner or other survey point.
So, in other words, a physical structure which doesn't mark the location of a corner or other survey point isn't a "monument" within the meaning of the Iowa statute. That would seem to allow the removal of mistakenly placed survey markers which aren't actually at the corners.
NY....DUH.
b. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph a of this subdivision,
a licensed land surveyor licensed under section seventy-two hundred
three of this article or a person acting at the direction of any such
licensed land surveyor, may remove an existing marker if substandard in
nature in order to place an upgraded marker in the same location and
shall note the same on the map of survey.
Maybe you have jumped to a conclusion without looking a bit further......
(We've got guys around here who like to kick those pins over 0.18 just like in Texas.)
> See, that clearly is a poor practice to rely upon lay people to correctly identify the erroneous markers to be removed. The professional surveyor himself or herself should be
> removing those markers so that the proper ones remain. Otherwise, the mess just grows, which defeats the entire purpose of weedomg out the junk markers.
I see you missed the point entirely about me calling out where I certify the correct corner to be by my plat. There are usually less problems caused by doing that and locating the other monument on the plat and explaining the discrepancy to the client than destroying what adjoiner Joe has believed to be "his" corner. Wrong as it might have been. I'm certifying to what I certify to no matter what else is around there or what anyone else believes.
> Right, Randy. I think the hard part to prove would be the "malicious" part. If the person thinks he's doing a public service or it just gets in the way of his lawnmower, I don't think a judge would consider that malicious. I don't have any cases to back that opinion up with, though.
Prove maliciousness? Heck prove they removed it at all. Then if you get them to admit (or prove that) they removed it and that it was malicious.....see if you can get the district attorney to prosecute.
Two good purposes of a law, as I see it, is to be able to cite it to would-be mischief-makers, and to be able to get the client to sue someone for the cost to reestablish the corner location.
The fines are often minimal to the cost of resetting it.
