Report of Survey (Gads, this is going on a public document!)

That's a tough one. My feeling is any monuments within a subdivision should hold, but the exterior must be within the original property. It sounds like he made blunders a common practice. I've dealt with bad surveys, plats, etc., and the practice(of my mentors) was to find all the evidence. Then get all the parties together, and either amend the plat, or agree to a boundary line agreement(s). My responsibility has typically been recovering the markers, leaving these messes for the senior Surveyors above my pay grade. I'll follow this thread to hear advice from the experts. Good Luck.

Here's my suggestions:
Start with the purpose, it provides an intro so the audience understands the problem at the start.
Drop "It always helps to know the history of land." It sounds weak, just say the history of the land is as follows.
In my opinion he did not consistenly level his chain resulting in measured distance that were longer than actual distances, instead of "It does not seem that he consistently leveled his chain, to produce a horizontal distance, as is proper procedure".
"As such, I do believe that the professional thing to do with the title in this neighborhood, is to " Use: In order to maintain harmony within the subdivision I will hold . . ."
You've got a good start, but get yourself in a confident mood, it will show in your writing. As written, it sounds like you aren't comfortable your solution.
Remember active voice -- Noun, verb, object.
Hope that helps.

Evelyn

> I could use a bit of criticism. This is exactly how it is, but I'd like your comments, before it is published!
>
> Report of survey.
> It always helps to know the history of land. In this case, we find Charles Parliament, and Eugene “Cotton” Parliament in the title chain of this community..
> Eugene “Cotton” Parliament, was the Montgomery County Surveyor, at one time.
> His knowledge of surveying was not very great. I have retraced some of the surveying and deeds he wrote. Common mistakes that I have found are:
> He sometimes wrote “North” into deeds, when he meant to write “East” (accidentally got the wrong direction, with cardinal directions, and bearing quadrants).
> He often had large discrepancies in dimensions, from measuring. It does not seem that he consistently leveled his chain, to produce a horizontal distance, as is proper procedure.
> This “subdivision” was apparently laid out by him, and or under his direction.
> In my professional opinion, in order to resolve title issues pertaining to the location of the boundary lines, that all original corners found be accepted and held; also all roads should be accepted and held and any natural monuments called for and found be accepted and held. New descriptions will need to be written to reflect the actual distances and directions (as determined by the current field survey).
> At the SE corner of Ray Jenkins (Kay Mattson) I believe that the monument that is there is a witness corner, to the one up beside the road, as I have set it. All dimensions I have shown are horizontal. In some places, the original monument has been destroyed. (Not sure what you are saying but maybe something like this "I believe the monument at the SE corner of Ray Jenkins (Kay Mattson) is a witness corner to the the monument on the side of the road which I re-set (the original monument having been destroyed)."
> The purpose of this survey is to resolve the boundary conflicts on the common line between Ray Jenkins, (Kay Mattson) and Mark Thew. By exchanging quitclaims, to the agreed upon lines, peace will be restored.
> To try to hold deed dimensions in this neighborhood , will only result in more conflicts.
> I believe that discrepancies between deed dimensions, and field measurements, are at the core of the neighborhood conflicts, in this community. This is my solution.
>
> ~ Nathaniel Dearyan, PLS, March 29, 2012

I made a couple suggestions in the paragraph about resolving title and acceptance of original monuments found, etc. Hope this helps a little.

Phil

Good ideas, I would still recommend the active voice. I accept the existing monument, roads, yadda, yadda. You're in charge here, you're stamping the map, be confident.

With all due respect, things like this need to follow a regular protocal, sort of like lab report.

State your objective. In this case what you are surveying and why.

State your findings. Here you disclose your records base, seeming discrepancies in record vs measured, and anything else that seems important to your opinion. Not why, just what you found.

State your conclusion. Here you can provide why the original guy was not the best, but he was the original surveyor. Not much you can do about any of that. Compare your findings with your conclusions.

State your opinion. This is where you earn your money. It will all be on your record of survey, and that survey will tell the tale of your lab report.

$0.02

Good luck Nate. Sounds like fun

I'll echo the other posters excellent advice, and add a small change.

Edit "By exchanging quitclaims..." to be "By exchanging quitclaim deeds..."

Just my opinion, but your sentence seems too "chummy", as opposed to professional.

Lots of good advice so far. I would only add, in relation to this statement:

"As such, I do believe that the professional thing to do with the title in this neighborhood, is to HOLD all the original corners that were set. Also, to HOLD to all the roads, and natural monuments as possible."

What you are really doing in the report is explaining the evidence and why it indicates which marks are original. So in addition to leading off with the problem as suggested above, I would state the law. Original monuments found undisturbed control location. I might even quote it from a case in your jurisdiction and give a citation. Then explain the historical evidence that leads to your conclusion that the monuments are of the character the law requires.

I'm not sure why you need quitclaim deeds? Your suggestion seems to be in conflict with your findings. Or maybe you have not made up your mind if the evidence is strong enough to call them original monuments? I would be clear. Either they are in your opinion or there is not enough evidence to determine, in which case quitclaim deeds to an agreed line is a good suggestion and up to the parties to decide on whether the line goes to an existing marker or not.

Duane, QC is because one of the lines is between to fussing parties, and we KNOW that the original mons are gone, and the new line is cattywhumpus, in that it would require an exchange of deeds, in small pcs. This makes it cleaner.

Thanks all for the suggestions. I had to throw it all onto paper, but I did not like the coarseness of it.

I will work on it some more. And will use some of the suggestions above.

Thanks for the replies.

N

IMO it should read "hold all the original corners recovered".

OK, here it is

Report of survey:

The purpose of this survey is to resolve the boundary conflicts on the common line between Ray Jenkins, (Kay Mattson) and Mark Thew. By exchanging quitclaim deeds, to the agreed upon lines, the boundary will be where both parties have agreed, and peace will be restored, to this part of the community. (Note that this agreed boundary is not where the original boundary was).
I find from researching the title history of this community, that the history of this land contained Charles Parliament, and Eugene “Cotton” Parliament.
Eugene “Cotton” Parliament, was the Montgomery County Surveyor, at one time.
His knowledge of surveying was not very great. I have retraced some of the surveying and deeds he wrote, in various parts of Montgomery County. Common mistakes that I have found are:
He sometimes wrote “North” into deeds, when he meant to write “East” (accidentally got the wrong direction, with cardinal directions, and bearing quadrants).
He often had large discrepancies in dimensions.
Evidence shows he did not consistently level his chain, to produce a horizontal distance, as is proper procedure. This “subdivision” was apparently laid out by him, and or under his direction.
My conclusion
At the SE corner of Ray Jenkins (Kay Mattson) I believe that the monument that is there is a witness corner, to the one up beside the road, as I have set it. I believe the monument to be original, but it was intended as a witness corner. I have held to the ROADS as natural boundaries.
My Professional Opinion is that in order to resolve title issues pertaining to the location of the boundary lines, in this neighborhood, that all original corners , which can be recovered, be accepted and held; also all roads should be accepted and held and any natural monuments called for and found be accepted and held. New descriptions will need to be written to reflect the actual distances and directions (as determined by the current field survey). I believe that discrepancies between deed dimensions, and field measurements, are at the core of the neighborhood conflicts, in this community.

If this protocol is not followed, and a surveyor tries to hold deed dimensions in this neighborhood, it will only result in more conflicts.

~ Nathaniel Dearyan, PLS, March 30, 2012

OK, here it is

My favorite classes in school were ones that required lab reports. Simplicity and clarity are a great way to deliver whatever message needs delivering.

This student would give you an A on this one.....:good:

Hope it all works out for you. These kinds of surveys are why we make the "big bucks", allegedly...lol

3/4 of it is supposition and should be deleted. The meat and potato portion is the last three lines. Use that as your thesis, support it with a few paragraphs, generate a closing paragraph outlining your decisions and recommendations.

Delete the superfluous stuff.

Kris, although I sort of agree, this neighborhood has see it's share of deed staker surveyors. And landowners. The trouble out here will NEVER end, if they don't modify their thinking. This is so they have my permission, to modify their thinking.
N

Unless you've got them dead-to-rights for screwing it up, it's conjecture and should be avoided in the narrative portion as being a fact. You could, in the closing portion, insert that it is possible that a particular surveyor MAY have been in the area from your experience in following them previously, but that the corner is the corner is the corner and you put the stuff back in that was missing, at call.

I guess I am leaving it in the supposition file, for a reason. I KNOW that is the history of the community. I don't know the history and pedigree of every monument. It's my opinion, with an out.
N

Try this:

Special Note:
In conducting a retracement survey of Whatever Acres Subdivision, many original corner markers were recovered and mapped. The positions of these property corner markers vary significantly from the positions shown on the recorded subdivision map. The surveyor has determined that the corner markers stand as marking the location of the property boundary corners, despite not matching the dimensions shown on the subdivision map of record. As a matter of real property law and sound land surveying practice, the irons found are accepted as marking the property boundary corners.

Nate the Great

Thanks Stephen. That is much less wordy, and more to the point.
I will put that in the hopper, and think it through.

I do feel I have to mention the cadres that did it, though, for historic significance.

Nate (AKA Stephen the linguist and concise dude!)

> ... In my opinion he did not consistenly level his chain resulting in measured distance that were longer than actual distances, instead of "It does not seem that he consistently leveled his chain, to produce a horizontal distance, as is proper procedure"....

I would keep it more general, and/or I would me more clear. The distances he measured would "shorter" or smaller numbers than if he had measured them horizontally.

ie: if he had set out a monument with a chain on the slope, the actual distance to the point should be be farther away if he set it on on the horizontal. If he measured between existing points, the actual horizontal-measurement would be a smaller number.

> Try this:
> ...The surveyor has determined that the corner markers stand as marking the location of the property boundary corners, despite not matching the dimensions shown on the subdivision map of record. As a matter of real property law and sound land surveying practice, the irons found are accepted as marking the property boundary corners.
>
> Nate the Great

"The Surveyor" has determined? What surveyor? I think you mean the author of the report? I would either speak in first person (which I prefer), or make it clear that you the author has made this determinaiton or opinion.

You are making a statement, and signing your name to it I believe. I would make my statement as though I were saying it. (or perhaps I misunderstood smoething).

I agree being more concise is a good idea. Some possible additional statments might include citing some laws or rulings that back your opinon of the original monuments being controlling, and/or adding that you consider the found corner markers to be the original markers in their original location.

Great thread. Thanks for starting it Nate. I would have all kinds of great advise that I most likey wouldn't follow well whenever I wrote my own. To me it is extremely hard to write but easy to criticize. I hope JB Stahl chimes in. He always puts things so well.