I think I am getting a headache!
Cowboy,
I am sure in your area, micrometer distances are important, and so are building corners.
I think that in many cases it's not necessarily calling a monument off, but showing how their measurements came out. They moved/rotated/aligned their fieldwork onto the record plan/deed. In this case, it looks like they're very close to the record plan/deed configuration.
I'm not really endorsing this method, just aware of it.
I understand that we need to apply the rules to every situation, and I am looking at far more evidence than just measurements. Intent of the parties, calls in the deeds or maps, other legal principles etc.
If you have two original monuments at each end of a street that hit with the map then they and the original mapping control over the pin that is a tenth out. If you have 10 pins in a block that match with the original map and the pin on your front corner is a tenth out...thats a pretty good case to say that something may be wrong with the pin in your front corner. And again...a tenth can matter in some cases.
People move stuff. I mean I have watched landscapers pull a pin I set less than an hour ago and reset it pretty damn close. Sure we got them on that one but how about the 99% of the time we don't see it. Or in a boundary dispute where an owner moves a pin...or the pin in the grass was run over buy a utility truck 10 years ago.
There is no court that is going to rule that a lot is now 49.5 feet wide instead of the 50 as shown on a 200 year old filed map based on a pin that is not called, not original and that you can't prove who set it, how it was set, when it was set or if it was disturbed when you have other evidence that is stronger than that single pin. We have more proof that that pin is out than that it is correct. If that pin is the only evidence or best evidence then it may hold more weight.
You have to look at everything...you can't just blindly hold a pin assuming that it was set correctly and has not been disturbed. If other evidence points to a pin not being in the right place then we call it out.
You keep mixing up the facts. If you have a "pin" of unknown origin that conflicts with long held reliance by the land owners, then yes, the "pin" may just be piece of iron. If you have a monument of unknown origin and reliance upon that monument, and the only evidence you have against the monument is that doesn't measure exactly within some fictional measurement tolerance the monument holds.
Bottom line is that yes, you have to gather all the evidence, analyse the evidence, and correctly apply relevant law to come up with correct decision. Which includes the presumption that even an uncalled for monument is presumed to be the boundary until you prove otherwise (this takes more than mere measurements and a fictional measurement tolerance).
> You have to look at everything...you can't just blindly hold a pin assuming that it was set correctly and has not been disturbed. If other evidence points to a pin not being in the right place then we call it out.
The problem lies where that "other evidence" relied upon is a difference in measurements.
Good grief....
And we wonder why the price of surveys and our perceived professionalism keeps getting lower and lower.
I think I am getting a headache!
KW
I don't think you needed that coffee anyway after reading this.
line bender
You are right about that!
WOW!
It depends
> While surveying a lot in the city you find four monuments roughly where you'd expect them to be. After computing an inverse between a couple of these monuments, it appears a wall of the $4M office building (built in 1950) located thereon crosses this line by .07'.
>
> Roll me in pigstuff and call me Goofy. 😛
Don't you think the building corner from 1950 is probably evidence of where the corner monument once was? It is less likely that the building has moved since then than the old property pin. It is more likely that when the building was staked out more original monuments were in the ground.
I would be very careful of calling a building corner from 1950 as "encroaching" and would be more likely to use it to determine other corners; or as a point to proportion to from the other monuments. (just my 0.07' worth).
Another way to look at these old subdivisions, and how the higher courts in NY have held in the past.
The protracted subdivision is a plan showing the idea a developer had but not far enough along to absolutely infer intent as nothing has taken place to delineate the actual lots on the ground. If one lot is sold, it is now presumed that the lot was surveyed and the new owners took title with a view of the premises and markers delineating it. The intent of that conveyance is obviously to convey what was surveyed and marked. 200 years later we survey the block and find there is enough for all to have 50 foot lots. But, the one lot in existence has markers that are 52 feet apart and improvements that agree with those markers.
The existing lot stays as is. The remaining lots could be protracted or sold 50 feet at a time leaving a remainder because we don't have enough evidence to infer an intent from the protracted subdivision that is in conflict with the evidence of intent from a consumated actual sale and survey.
Simply put, the court is not going to infer intent from a document that is clearly in conflict with intent shown by actions on the ground (such as boundary markers and/or improvements built at or near the time of the transaction).
I think I am getting a headache!
> I am sure in your area, micrometer distances are important, and so are building corners.
So far as we are concerned, building corners are only important as to whether or not they are determined to be encroaching.....they have no bearing on the property line in most cases.
Right on Mark
That building corner is the highest in the ranking of evidence; to me anyway.
Thank goodness some has finally posted how much a pin can be off before I can ignore it. Its 0.05'. Thats not the magical 0.04' that has been discussed in the past, but its close. Its also good to know I can reject any pin I don't like, because I wasn't standing there watching it the last 100 years. If I choose to ignore it, I can always say I don't know who set it and I don't know who moved it.
All sarcasam aside, Fattiretim is surveying in New York, probably a very urban area. I can't imagine surveying in an area like that, anymore than he can imagine surveying where I do. So I will take what he says in the context of the environment he works.
No kidding. I wonder if those standards would allow me to survey a lot and reference all of the corners to two house corners?
Any survey standards that allow a survey to be conducted without corner monuments being set is a joke and a detriment to the profession.
I don't buy the argument that: that is the way it is done around here!
Simply means that the "surveyor" was told to do it one way and that is it! No more learning about facts.
I bet you aren't a fan of Jeff Lucas.
> There is no court that is going to rule that a lot is now 49.5 feet wide instead of the 50 as shown on a 200 year old filed map based on a pin that is not called...
This premise is misleading. The court's don't rule "what" the size of the lot is. The lot size is as intended and represented on the plat. They rule "where" the boundaries are located. The fact that a surveyor measures the distance between to established boundaries to be more or less than the platted dimension is no surprise to anybody, especially the court. It's common knowledge that surveyors can't measure correctly. The law does not expect them to and makes room for the known fact that they can't. The law expects corners to migrate and shift over time at no one's fault and it allows for that fact as well.
>A l'impossible nul n'est tenu. No one is bound to do what is impossible. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 601.
The courts also don't trouble themselves over minutia.
>De minimis non curat lex. The law does not notice or care for trifling matters. Broom's Max. 333; Hob. 88; 5 Hill, N.Y. Rep. 170.
JBS
Right on Mark
A building corner (and/or a fence) does not establish the property line, but they do give good evidence to where one once thought the property line was.
In my opinion, those are words to live by.
Miguel A. Escobar, LSLS, RPLS
We had to raise the 0.04 threashold to 0.05 due to the recent explanation of RTK error. 🙂
One of my mentors would have said “0.04 ft in 1320 ft, now you are just being greedy!”
Miguel A. Escobar, LSLS, RPLS
