(Background: you surveyed a government lot inside a Section by locating the required original corners and breaking down the section per the Plat.)
Q (by Mr. Karoly): Okay, what are the dimensions of Lot _ per the original Plat?
A (witness): 20 chains north-south by 20 chains east-west.
Q: your Survey shows 20.5 chains by 21.0 chains, can you explain that?
A:
How would you answer this? Just curious, this issue comes up in a copy of a 1997 depo of a Surveyor on an issue we are revisiting. I'm about halfway through the back and forth on this.
A: "Yes!"
Paul in PA
"The lines on the plat are labeled with nominal distances, the actual distances can vary greatly when the lot is surveyed in accordance with the BLM's instructions for surveying sectionalized land."
> (Background: you surveyed a government lot inside a Section by locating the required original corners and breaking down the section per the Plat.)
>
> Q (by Mr. Karoly): Okay, what are the dimensions of Lot _ per the original Plat?
> A (witness): 20 chains north-south by 20 chains east-west.
> Q: your Survey shows 20.5 chains by 21.0 chains, can you explain that?
> A:
>
> How would you answer this? Just curious, this issue comes up in a copy of a 1997 depo of a Surveyor on an issue we are revisiting. I'm about halfway through the back and forth on this.
Sir,
The distances shown per my retracement reflect measurments taken after my chain was compared to the original surveyor's chain.
DDSM
A: "Yes!"
Good answer, PiPA!
Dave set it up and you jumped on it.
I applaud you:-)
Don
Luckily for us, Dave is not asking most of our deposition questions these days...
😀
The lot and its corners and boundaries lie out on there on the ground and are where the original surveyor surveyed it. Here are photographs of them.
If the original measurements are wrong, it does not mean the lot corners move.
If I measure this room and make a mis-measurement by 1/4 of an inch, and you buy the room, the room remains the room. You would not tear down and move the walls if you know it was the same room that I surveyed.
Same thing applies to land surveying. The only accurate map of the land is the original map marked out there on the ground where the original surveyor surveyed and set the original corners. The map and deed are things that were put on paper to represent what exists on the ground as a matter of convenience since you cant dig up the land and record it in the courthouse. The original is the land and the paper is the best attempt to represent the dimensions and location of the land--conveniently and practically. The nation requires stability of title, not a dynamic hodgepodge.
Every survey measurement has some error, and there are varying degrees of it. Mr, Attorney, if you were to use your philosophy on every tract of land, then every tract of land would be constantly moving depending upon measurements on any given day.
And for that reason, the most important rule in surveying was developed, and that rule is the Natural Hierarchy. It is the fundamental rule of surveying, and every competent practicing title attorney ought to know all about it and understand it.
That said, the Natural Hierarchy has to meet a threshold. It meets the threshold and is applicable if and only if I can make the following conclusion, which is this: If I am confident that the monuments I found in the field are either the same monuments, or replacements of them, then the Natural Hierarchy is acceptable. If not, then it is not acceptable. It is my firmest opinion that the monuments are in the same place as original, and the Natural Hierarchy applies. This means that my survey is a correct representation of the land, and that is the answer to your question.
(It is noteworthy that some states have an additional sentence that says that Intent rules over the natural hierarchy.)
That was very well played, IMO.
Yep,
On the first day we found a full chain. On the second day we found only half a chain. We think there was a fight over the chain and the crew split it up!!
Pablo B-)
> Q (by Mr. Karoly): Okay, what are the dimensions of Lot _ per the original Plat?
> A (witness): 20 chains north-south by 20 chains east-west.
> Q: your Survey shows 20.5 chains by 21.0 chains, can you explain that?
A: Dude, lighten up, it's only a chain; didn't Ovid say "Happy is the man who has broken the chains which hurt the mind, and has given up worrying once and for all."
Yes. Now, Sir, what is your next question?
I have experience with being deposed. The first rule to follow is that you provide the shortest answer possible to each question. Make the individual deposing you work to get any information. Once you start offering information above and beyond the shortest possible answer you have given them fresh territory to attack. Make the deposer prove that he knows enough about the subject to ask questions that will give him the answers he so hopes to obtain. BTW, "I do not know the answer to what I think you are asking." is a perfectly acceptable answer. Do not guess as to what is being asked. Make them make it clear to you first. It is perfectly acceptable to repeat their question aloud and ask them "Is that the question?" Make them answer yes or clarify before moving on. This is very helpful when you need a few extra seconds to formulate a better answer.
I like LPL's answer best, however, I might just ask counsel, "More specifically, what would you like me to explain?"
Yes. Excess and deficiency. Let's say you have a pie and you want to give your children equal portions so they don't fight, you slice them equal portions. Right? If the pie is a little larger than usual, the portions are larger. If the pie is smaller ...you get the idea. My kids do. This pie was just a little larger. Uncle Sam baked it. I just sliced it.
I agree. The best answer is yes, and stop there. I was thinking it was in court.
> (Background: you surveyed a government lot inside a Section by locating the required original corners and breaking down the section per the Plat.)
>
> Q (by Mr. Karoly): Okay, what are the dimensions of Lot _ per the original Plat?
> A (witness): 20 chains north-south by 20 chains east-west.
> Q: your Survey shows 20.5 chains by 21.0 chains, can you explain that?
> A:
Q (by Mr. Karoly): Okay, what are the dimensions of Lot per the original Plat?
A (witness): Excuse me?
Q (by Mr. Karoly): What are the dimensions of Lot per the original Plat?
A (witness): The dimension?
Q (by Mr. Karoly): Yes what are the dimensions of Lot per the original Plat?
A (witness): Of the Government Lot?
Q (by Mr. Karoly): It's a simple question - what are the dimensions of Lot per the original Plat?
A (witness): Per the original plat?
Q (by Mr. Karoly): Are you being intentionally obstructive?
A (witness): No, I just trying to figure out how little you know about surveying so I can compose an answer that you might comprehend.
The 1997 deposition is the attorney grilling a land surveyor in a boundary dispute between two private parties. We weren't directly involved in the dispute. It involves a segment of the east-west centerline of a Section on the south side of the township. About 100 pages of the 160 page deposition is regarding the surveyor's determination of the standard quarter corner for the section to the south. The surveyor single proportioned it and there are two other monuments for the corner a couple of hundred feet south of the single proportioned corner on his version of the township line. The attorney's client owns on the north side of the east-west centerline of the section. I think the client and the attorney think that moving the township line south would move the east-west centerline south. He asks very few questions about the east and west quarter corners which would actually have an effect on the boundary in dispute and there is some fertile ground there for questioning.
The Attorney on the side of the surveyor admonishes him to only answer yes or no when that is what the question calls for several times. He even interrupts him a few times.
what was the answer in the Depo? My answer is the map reflects my professional opinion and that is why the dimensions are different from the record.
It went back and forth, sort of a mess. The Lawyer's question and answer format isn't a very good way to convey information.
Lawyers, you gotta love them, grill the surveyor for 5 hours over something that is irrelevant to the dispute.
The Lawyer eventually lost. I found the 1998 Judgment in the file today. We have been having a back and forth with the Plaintiff (he lost in that case with his neighbor) since 1979. The whole thing was started by a Forester who ran a line on the wrong bearing. As far as I know the Forester and the Surveyor are dead now.
okay but how did the surveyor answer
How did the surveyor answer in the depo? Can you cut and past the surveyor's immediate response to the question? I want to know exactly how he responded. Or did he try to respond but never did because he was interrupted by counsel.
