Real World Example No. 1

Kent McMillan · 2010-08-07T16:48:31Z

Here is an example of the subject under discussion, the case where a mistaken survey had established markers in ignorance of the existing originals that define the true boundaries of the parcel. In 1990, my clients had a topographic survey made of these three small parcels that they had purchased in 1981. In 1999, they hired me to help them answer some questions that pertained to the boundaries of the property. There was a specific question about whether a structure was on their land. So I traced the titles of their parcels and of those adjacent back to common ownership and went out to locate their boundaries as described in the various conveyances of record.Two of the parcels they owned were originally created in 1963 when some lots in a new (1963-vintage) subdivision were resubdivided. That resubdivision was made by the same surveyor who had laid the subdivision out and he prepared metes and bounds descriptions calling for the "iron pins" that he had placed to mark all of the corners and which were subsequently used to convey the parcels.I had a copy of the map that the 1990 surveyor had made of his work. It indicated that he had found exactly two of the eight markers that the 1963 surveyor had reported setting and that in 1990 the "missing" six had been replaced with new markers. His map indicated no tie to any corner of any other adjoining parcel and so, by Texas standards qualified as a "quickie-dickie survey".After locating the original "iron pin" monuments from 1963 and the 1990 surveyor's misadventure, the situation was found to be as shown in the sketch. The purple lines are the 1990 surveyor's idea of where the parcel boundaries drawn in the heavy black line were.The survey involved locating the boundaries of other parcels also established in 1963 by the same surveyor who had laid out the subject parcels and examining the private records of the 1963 surveyor (who had since retired). There was no doubt whatsoever but that the purple lines were grossly incorrect. There was no evidence that any of the interested owners had relied upon the 1990 surveyor's work or were even aware of it, with the exception of an old pipe at the lower right corner labeled "71". That had surveyor's ribbon on it and had apparently been thought by some surveyor of the adjoining parcel to be the common lot corner.However, there was an old chain link fence running basically along the original 1963 parcel boundary and Pipe 71 was well on the other side of it. I found no record of Pipe 71 and suspect that it probably had been set back in the late 1930's on the boundary of some parcels that were later merged into common ownership prior to the 1963 subdivision. It just happened to fall near the parcel corner, but had no record relationship either to the corner or to any of the boundaries leading to it.So, would anyone care to tell me why, in this real world situation, it is important to preserve the markers placed in gross error by the 1990 surveyor?

Summarize Topic

Page 5 / 5 Prev

Strictly Surveying

Last Post by Kent McMillan 16 years ago

81 Posts

20 Users

0 Reactions

2,835 Views

RSS

Kent McMillan

(@kent-mcmillan)

Posts: 11416

Member

Topic starter

Translate ▼

Real World Example No. 1_- hey Kent

> here in MA we have this little requirement;
> 2.In the event of substantial disagreement with the work of another surveyor, contact the other surveyor and investigate the disagreement."
>
> Is there not a requirement for you to contact the other surveyor in TX?

No, we don't have that rule in Texas.

Posted : August 9, 2010 12:18 pm

Page 5 / 5 Prev

26 Forums
54.5 K Topics
592.1 K Posts
238 Online
16.9 K Members

Forum Icons: Forum contains no unread posts Forum contains unread posts

Topic Icons: Not Replied Replied Active Hot Sticky Unapproved Solved Private Closed

Real World Example No. 1

Please support our supporters!

Our Policies

Quick Links

Support