Follow the hot links:
Case is a Florida Appeals case (not Federal) and FS and BLM, obviously, were not a party in the case.
I wish someone would post a link to one of their ethics classes on this board in violation of Red Vector's published terms of use; I could use the CEUs 😉
I don't see the big deal. It's not like he by-passed a log-in or "pay-per-view" requirement. They let you watch the course for free, you have to pay to submit answers and get credit ... seems like linking a free page online is "fair use", regardless of their terms and conditions.
Somebody is confused and maybe me?
Rivers v Lozeau is a Federal Appeals Court case and does involved BLM and FS surveys and resurveys!
But, I guess you have to take the course to see what is said?
Keith
> Somebody is confused and maybe me?
I think it's you. 539 So.2d 1147 (Fla. App. 5 Dist. 1989)
There is no intention to violate the terms of RedVector other than to disseminate freely available identifiable information. Course can be reviewed for free and you only pay to take test and receive credit.
Harold J. Rivers and Mary E. Rivers, Appellants/Cross Appellees,. v. Raymond S. Lozeau and Joy Elaine Lozeau, his wife, Appellees/Cross-Appellants, 539 So.2d 1147, No. 88-396. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District. Feb. 23, 1989.
Thanks Norman and William,
I am wrong in my believing that the Appeals court was Federal. Serious mistake on my part!
It does make a difference however in precedence for BLM surveyors, by being a State Court!
I have not went through the training document yet and will be looking for reasons that all private survey monuments were rejected?
Keith
I have glanced at the 24 pages on this case in the training document and is very interesting.
Especially page 24 of 24.
The approved and accepted boundary lines established by the federal government surveyors are changeable. (True or False)
The statement is absolutely false, but too bad this case was about rejecting previous established subdivision of section monuments by a private surveyor!
Testimony of course was along the lines of Clark's recent book on protraction lines are the only evidence of the subdivision of section lines and those private survey monuments that were not exactly on these protracted lines were rejected.
Talk about a bogus theory!
Keith
Ahem..
Not a theory in Florida at least. Actually a fact. Fact of law.
Perhaps you should now call it a bogus fact?
How confusing is that? Can there actually be such a thing as a bogus fact?
Hmmm.
Maybe what we actually have is the bogus theory of a bogus fact?
wow,
I need to see that law!
Really!
Keith
if it was a snake it would bite you
Clearcut
I assume that you are referring the subject court case, therefore you need to cite some quotes that disputes my concept of a bogus theory!
Just because the court does not know the difference between section lines and subdivision of section lines, I have to assume that you do.
Keith
Wait a minute, hasn't Keith been haranguing BLM for a few years now imploring them to explain Rivers v. Lozeau? No wonder it didn't dignify a reply when in fact they weren't a party to this State of Florida case. Maybe he should apologize to them as well or at least put it to rest once and for all.
PS: Another case that Keith has misidentified as a Federal case over the years also happens to be a State case, Dykes v Arnold, 129 P 3d 257 (Ore. App. 2006), Oregon Court of Appeals.
> PS: Another case that Keith has misidentified as a Federal case over the years also happens to be a State case, Dykes v Arnold, 129 P 3d 257 (Ore. App. 2006), Oregon Court of Appeals.
I don't think that is true. I, in fact, heard him testify about it and he correctly referred to it as an Oregon case.
William D.
You are wrong on all counts.
First, would you agree that the survey and resurvey which created the mess in Rivers v Lozous was a dependent resurvey by BLM and the surveyor and the approving official of that survey, were the ones that I would like to see and have been writing about, to explain their survey. You can take a look at names on another post to see that fact.
Second, I have never referred to the Dykes case as a Federal case.
Get your facts straight before you make accusations.
Keith
William D.
An apology from you would be appropriate!
The part I would like to see explained is this statement made by the court:
"Although theoretically conceived and invisible, these lines are not merely theoretical concepts but are real lines, actually run and marked on the ground with terminal points monumented by surveyors acting under the authority of the cadastral engineer of the Bureau of Land Management." (See Wilsons slide number 17)
This is directly contradicted by the 2009 Manual:
§3-99:
In the public land survey system a corner is fixed in position by operation of law. Corners marked in official surveys followed by use are fixed in position by monuments. Only a small portion of corners are marked on the ground in original surveys. Subdivision-of-section corners are generally not marked. Their positions are fixed on the plat by protraction. Their positions are fixed on the ground by the survey process of running (and marking) line between marked corners, and setting monuments.
§3-137:
In marking the corners of subdivisions-of-section, the surveyor shall identify the section boundaries, run and mark the section center lines, and fix the legal center of the section in common, in order to determine the boundaries of the affected quarter-sections. Then, if the boundaries of quarter-quarter sections, or lots, are to be run and marked, the boundaries of the quarter-section shall be measured, and the sixteenth-section corners fixed and marked in accordance with the proportional distances represented upon the approved plat. Finally, the quarter-section center lines are run and marked and the legal center of the quarter-section duly fixed.
The law presupposes the fact taught by experience that measurements of lands cannot be repeated with absolute precision and that the work of no two surveyors will exactly agree. The governing law, 43 U.S.C. 752(2), states that "boundary lines which have not been actually run and marked shall be ascertained, by running straight lines from the established corners to the opposite corresponding corners." The protracted position of the legal subdivision corner on the survey plat is merely the first step in fixing the position of a corner. The corner position is fixed by the running and marking of the lines.
Great post Brian,
If one reads the decision and attempts to read what they are talking about, you will see that they confuse the absolute truism of section lines, section corners being unchangeable, and yet they go off into the bogus theory of the testimony from Robillard about the theory that the section subdivision lines are based on the protracted lines, as if they were on the ground.
Next time you see these protracted dashed lines on the ground, you can then agree with the court decision.
Keith
Brian and Keith
Keep up the good work. I agree.
Here in Ohio, where we got the PLSS straightened out for all of you to the west, we have no such problems. The question is, what went wrong with the PLSS after the 1840's?
The last GLO work here, the First Meridian Survey, was done largely in the time period of 1819-1821. Under the instructions of the time, there is no such concept as a "center quarter" or a "sixteenth quarter". Our county surveyors eventually caught up with all of that as time went on, as the land was patented out, and apparently they got most of it right without the need of a Manual.
We can read all of the transcripts of the original Deputy Surveyor's notes and they don't seem to have ever set a center quarter. We know the difference on their plats between the black lines they actually ran for $3 per mile and the brown lines which were only protracted.
How could something so simple be converted into something so complicated as to defy understanding?
Brian and Keith
> Keep up the good work. I agree.
>
> Here in Ohio, where we got the PLSS straightened out for all of you to the west, we have no such problems. The question is, what went wrong with the PLSS after the 1840's?
>
> The last GLO work here, the First Meridian Survey, was done largely in the time period of 1819-1821. Under the instructions of the time, there is no such concept as a "center quarter" or a "sixteenth quarter". Our county surveyors eventually caught up with all of that as time went on, as the land was patented out, and apparently they got most of it right without the need of a Manual.
>
> We can read all of the transcripts of the original Deputy Surveyor's notes and they don't seem to have ever set a center quarter. We know the difference on their plats between the black lines they actually ran for $3 per mile and the brown lines which were only protracted.
>
> How could something so simple be converted into something so complicated as to defy understanding?
What went wrong? That is the $600 dollar question. I don't think anything went wrong with the PLSS, it is a very good system. What went wrong was the keepers of it.
My theory (yes, it could be wrong) was the advent of easy measuring, combined with the profession of surveying largely occupied and controlled by engineers, whose (understandably) main skills were technological and mathematical. When one could easily "prove" prior surveyors and landowners had "mis-measured" their holdings, the surveyors started to focus on the measurements and correcting the "wrongs" that had been done by inprecise measuring, and not boundary law. After all, the technology was really cool and boundary law was boring and hard to teach. Our favorite "war stories" are those where we have proved someone wrong aren't they?
The $1200 question is how do we fix it? First step is for each state (some have already done this) is to become a self regulated profession. Let the engineers engineer things, let the surveyors survey boundaries. Education is very important. We need to make sure that the ones teaching in our universities are focusing just as hard on boundary law as they are on the cool stuff like GIS, GPS, least square adjustments, etc. I'm sure I could write on this for hours considering what I've been thru the past 2 1/2 years, but my spaghetti sauce needs tending. I'll be back, and am eager to hear more theories.
