"The BLM guys here are extremely experienced and really good at what they do. I think they are all licensed locally and really helpful and good to work with."
I agree, the BLM folks around here are great as well! Unfortunately one just passed away last week. ;-(
CV
I agree, the BLM folks around here are great as well! Unfortunately one just passed away last week
That's sad! Hate to lose one of the good ones. I don't know if he/she fit the profile but our surveying get togethers seem to be getting greyer and greyer.
Kent's attempts to disparage my reputation.
Here is a listing of Kent's attempts to disparage my reputation in this thread. Nowhere in any of my posts here have I made reference to utility poles, fences, ignoring the writing, or putting the line where landowners tell me to. Kent, by constantly saying I said these things is trying to put me in a bad light with other posters. It's sad!
"the Texas surveyor doesn't have the authority to ignore the writing as you claim to have."
"Leon, if you have no authority to put the boundary anywhere other than the utility poles or a fence."
"so if all you have to do is ask the landowners to point out which fence or power pole marks their boundaries"
"Hey, I'm just repeating your ideas about the surveyor having to put the boundary where the landowners tell him to."
"Having the landowners tell him where to locate the corners of a tract titled by reference to the government subdivision would seem to be a great shortcut."
It's no secret that Kent and I don't like each other, but why the attempt by Kent to damage my reputation. Why can't Kent allow for other opinions that differ from his. Is this professional conduct?
Disparagement of reputation?
> Here is a listing of Kent's attempts to disparage my reputation in this thread. Nowhere in any of my posts here have I made reference to utility poles, fences, ignoring the writing, or putting the line where landowners tell me to. Kent, by constantly saying I said these things is trying to put me in a bad light with other posters. It's sad!
>
>
> "the Texas surveyor doesn't have the authority to ignore the writing as you claim to have."
Well, you fail to say why you don't think that's a fair characterization of what you yourself have posted to this very thread. I think it pretty clearly follows from your idea that only the landowners can tell a surveyor where to put their corners.
> "Leon, if you have no authority to put the boundary anywhere other than the utility poles or a fence."
Likewise, if you're expecting the landowners to tell you where to locate their line, you're inevitably going to be following fences and lines of utility poles. What else were you thinking that a landowner would tell you?
> "so if all you have to do is ask the landowners to point out which fence or power pole marks their boundaries"
Ditto.
> "Hey, I'm just repeating your ideas about the surveyor having to put the boundary where the landowners tell him to."
That's what you actually posted, believe or not. What was it you meant aside from what you posted?
> "Having the landowners tell him where to locate the corners of a tract titled by reference to the government subdivision would seem to be a great shortcut."
Yes, obviously it would be. You wouldn't have to worry about following old surveys when the landowners want you to follow a new fence. Why exactly would you even want to do any deed research if you know that you're going to end up just following the landowners' instructions?
> It's no secret that Kent and I don't like each other, but why the attempt by Kent to damage my reputation.
I've never met you, Leon. You may be a perfectly likable guy. You frankly do more to damage your reputation with the sort of hairball of nonsense you post than anyone else might ever do.
Not to worry, Leon
Your reputation is solid as a surveyor. Kent's is that he will take your words, reinterpret them in a way very different from how you presented them, twist the logic, and then bait you with juvenile taunts. Pay no attention, it only encourages him.
Disparagement of reputation?
That's all your words and opinion Kent, NOT MINE. It's untrue (I won't use the real word).
I'm perfectly confident that you are not a nice guy Kent and I have no desire to meet you ever. Why would I want to meet someone whom has gone to extremes to destroy my opinions, to the point that you constantly feel the need to falsely express my opinions in an attempt to disparage me. I'll express my own opinions, I'll respect that you can express yours. They will most likely differ but the members of the board can make their own determination of how radical or sensible they are. That's part of development of judgment, sorting out the good from the poor and I believe the board participants and readers are perfectly capable of doing that. If we ever do meet let's hope neither of us have any tools nearby.
Disparagement of reputation?
> That's all your words and opinion Kent, NOT MINE.
Actually, since evidently you need the reminder, what you posted to this very thread was:
>For us private surveyors out surveying the boundaries between two existing private land parcels, what is our subject to the approval of the directing authority?
>What authority do you have do set that marker where there isn't one needing repair or worse, never has been one? Aren't the landowners the directing authority?
and
>I'm looking at this more as a landowner than a surveyor. Me and my neighbors have domain over OUR boundaries. Before a surveyor RESURVEYS my property boundaries I believe they need mine and my adjoiners sanction. What's wrong with that?
Not to worry, Leon
Kent said: "I get the idea that he's (Leon) looking for an easy way to survey in his part of Utah."
Kent, you are not being intellectually honest. How could you have read these boards for all of these years and not know that Leon is greatly conscientious about conducting his surveys? He has devoted himself and his resources to the study of boundary law and read and reflected on more cases than most here have.
From reading his posts for five years, I know he would lose much money on a job before he would take an easier way and not come up the best decision.
Why don't you just say that you don't agree with his surveying and legal philosophy? That would be understandable.
But to say he's taking the easy way out, is just laughable, and worse.
-Steve
Not to worry, Leon
> Kent said: "I get the idea that he's (Leon) looking for an easy way to survey in his part of Utah."
>
> Kent, you are not being intellectually honest. How could you have read these boards for all of these years and not know that Leon is greatly conscientious about conducting his surveys? He has devoted himself and his resources to the study of boundary law and read and reflected on more cases than most here have.
Well, Leon's methodology of expecting the landowners to show him their boundaries is certainly not Scientific Rocketry. Why couldn't you send your most junior party chief out to do that work? I'm thinking "no reason at all". That's one test of easy.
Take this one on Kent, my opinion is the same as Clark
From Clark on Surveying and Boundaries, Seventh Edition, page 26:
Section 2.03 Power to fix boundaries.
The surveyor in private practice cannot establish a new boundary line without some other authority, either legal or from the landowners. Except by express statutory authority, the surveyor cannot legally state the location of the legal boundary lines as such. Absent statutory authority, all a surveyor can do is testify as a witness as to where, in the surveyor's best judgment, after relying upon the available evidence of earlier surveys, the boundary lines are located. In analyzing the function of the private surveyor, a recent Florida decision stated that the surveyor was the only professional authorized to locate land lines on the ground. However, a surveyor was “not an official and had no authority to establish boundaries.” The role of the surveyor was indicated by the court to be two-fold. First, a surveyor lays out boundary lines within an original tract of land that previously existed as a single unit or parcel. The second role of the surveyor is that of locating a boundary line that has previously been established; that is, the surveyor “retraces the footsteps.” The surveyor does not correct, revise, or reinterpret the original survey, but only finds what appears to be the original survey. Except to the extent that a court or jury might give the expert surveyor's testimony more weight than that of a layperson, the surveyor can play no special role, legally, in settling a boundary dispute.
Where there is no dispute and with the complete agreement of those affected, the surveyor has the right to locate agreed boundary lines, as long as the agreement includes all parties in interest, including holders of liens and encumbrances.
In a number of states, statutory methods are provided whereby public officials are empowered to relocate lost corners. Such proceedings are quasi-judical in nature and require notice to all affected landholders and a hearing, with appeal to the courts an option to dissatisfied parties. These proceedings do not change the boundaries; they only provide a legal determination as to where the boundaries were originally located, and they have the same effect as if adjoining landowners were litigating the determination of a boundary line. In these cases, the testimony produced at the hearing by way of survey is evidence and nothing more; but it becomes binding upon all parties when the location is determined at the hearing, provided jurisdiction has been obtained by proper notice to all affected parties.
Surveyors employed by the Bureau of Land Management of the U.S. Department of Interior are given statutory authority by Congress to establish new section lines in place of old in accordance with The Manual of Instructions for the Survey of Public Lands of the United States. They are cautioned that any new surveys cannot affect valid bona fide private rights acquired under older surveys.
Not to worry, Leon
Kent,
by "methodology of expecting the landowners to show him their boundaries is certainly not Scientific Rocketry. " I assume you are referring to the process of interviewing the landowners.
If one is to survey property, with the location of that property being subject to the common law, why would a surveyor not think that talking to the owners of that property could be important?
If the owners had a common line between them of which they were uncertain, and had agreed to fix that line as certain (perhaps generations ago) and relied upon that line, would not a surveyor surveying the property want to know about that, so that he might consider that fact in light of established law?
Why couldn't you send your most junior party chief out to do that work?
for the same reason that you go and search for boundary monuments yourself.
Take his one on Kent, my opinion is the same as Clark
> From Clark on Surveying and Boundaries, Seventh Edition, page 26:
>
> Section 2.03 Power to fix boundaries.
>
> The surveyor in private practice cannot establish a new boundary line without some other authority, either legal or from the landowners. Except by express statutory authority, the surveyor cannot legally state the location of the legal boundary lines as such.
> Absent statutory authority, all a surveyor can do is testify as a witness as to where, in the surveyor's best judgment, after relying upon the available evidence of earlier surveys, the boundary lines are located.
> In analyzing the function of the private surveyor, a recent Florida decision stated that the surveyor was the only professional authorized to locate land lines on the ground. However, a surveyor was “not an official and had no authority to establish boundaries.” The role of the surveyor was indicated by the court to be two-fold. First, a surveyor lays out boundary lines within an original tract of land that previously existed as a single unit or parcel. The second role of the surveyor is that of locating a boundary line that has previously been established; that is, the surveyor “retraces the footsteps.” The surveyor does not correct, revise, or reinterpret the original survey, but only finds what appears to be the original survey. Except to the extent that a court or jury might give the expert surveyor's testimony more weight than that of a layperson, the surveyor can play no special role, legally, in settling a boundary dispute.
So, it sounds as if what you really meant to post was that you'd discovered that surveys are not legally conclusive on the adjoining landowners and that the landowners may dispute a surveyor's opinion? Isn't that a bit ... underwhelming?
Not to worry, Leon
>
> Why couldn't you send your most junior party chief out to do that work?
>
> for the same reason that you go and search for boundary monuments yourself.
Actually, the fenceline surveyors DO just sent the most junior party chiefs out.
Not to worry, Leon
We used to have "fenceline" surveyors around here in the 50's, guys who just located fencelines without looking for surveyor's monuments. Now they have been replaced by guys who merely place numbers on the ground.
Who in this thread is talking about "fenceline surveyors"?
Cooley advised us to come to our opinions regarding the location of a boundary in the same way a court would (in light of the law).
If a surveyor finds all of the evidence, including but not limited to surveyor's monumentation, why would anyone call him or her a "fenceline surveyor"?
Take his one on Kent, my opinion is the same as Clark
Your big beef, complaint and call to BS was over the authority issue. Why not in light of the Clark quote you address that Kent. Maybe both me and Clark are radicals, I dunno. In Utah surveyors have not been given statutory authority to fix boundary locations. Maybe Texas is different, if so please provide the Texas statute for my enlightenment. I might get the urge to have real Terminus style power and move to Texas, really lay down the boundary law (not really - to darn hot - don't care for a few Texas residents).
BTW, I just didn't discover this, read it first about 5 years ago while taking an advance boundary law course. Seemed sort of strange at first but after I thought it all through I mostly agreed. I don't really want the authority, just want to be able to help landowners solve their boundary problems, provide a service not a disservice.
Take his one on Kent, my opinion is the same as Clark
> BTW, I just didn't discover this, read it first about 5 years ago while taking an advance boundary law course.
I think you're serious. :>
Take his one on Kent, my opinion is the same as Clark
I really didn't expect you to address the authority issue in light of the quote from Clark. Same ole same ole.
Take his one on Kent, my opinion is the same as Clark
> I really didn't expect you to address the authority issue in light of the quote from Clark. Same ole same ole.
Leon, the point you're trying to make is so tiny that it hardly seems worth discussing. You're conflating Clark's remarks about private surveys not being conclusive on landowners to mean that surveyors cannot actually resurvey boundaries without the landowners giving them "instructions". The two are mostly unrelated propositions. Really.
Take his one on Kent, my opinion is the same as Clark
Nope!
No thanks for trying to give my opinion. You don't have a clue. I pretty much just agree with the whole quote from Clark. So is Clark conflating?
It's like groundhog day with you except it never ends. Same ship(t) day after day, year after year, heck decade after decade. Can't you ever come up with something new, grow a little bit. Boring, but I have to waste my time to defend my reputation.
Not to worry, Leon
> If a surveyor finds all of the evidence, including but not limited to surveyor's monumentation, why would anyone call him or her a "fenceline surveyor"?
Steve, you've hit precisely on Kent's shortcomings as a surveyor. While being an excellent retracement surveyor with an innate ability to recover footsteps of former surveyors (in his unrelenting search for the "original" corner), he cannot seem to fathom the significance of any other form of evidence. Kent would seem to think that the only value of the deed is to extricate measurement evidence and the only value of landowners is to construct fences in wrong places.
Kent simply cannot (or chooses not to) comprehend the importance of the landowner's role in establishing their boundary. Kent sees boundary establishment solely as a surveyor function where landowners are reduced to bothersome pests. Because landowners most often rely upon surveyors to indicate the location of their boundaries when first conveyed, retracing the footsteps of the original surveyors will most often result in the correct solution. Kent seems satisfied with being incorrect the rest of the time (those times when original monuments either cannot be recovered or were never relied upon by the owners).
Other surveyors, like Leon, aren't satisfied with being wrong at any time and are willing to go the extra mile to gather and consider all of the evidence. When Kent's shovel has exhausted the possibility of recovering the original monument is when other surveyor's are just beginning their task. While Kent has resorted to his least-squares analysis of the deed dimensions to precisely place a monument where none has existed before, surveyors like Leon are just beginning to recover all of the evidence which will lead them to the boundary location which has already been established on the ground and perpetuated by the owners.
JBS
P.S. And, Kent... No, a surveyor should never ask the owner where they think the line goes. That's the surveyor's job. He should, however, gather from the landowners all of the evidence that may pertain to the boundary location. There's a BIG difference.
