Rivers v. Lozeau explained by Don Wilson

Brian and Keith

> 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.

I think it went wrong when we quit thinking about 'the line run (surveyed) on the ground'...[msg=191358]on the ground[/msg]

I think back on Mr. Hodgman's little book...Manual of Surveying

"it is not a question of measurement...but a question of law and practice"...

Ninth Annual Meeting of Ohio Society of Surveyors...Proceedings

DDSM

:beer:

Brian and Keith

Just a thought!

When surveyors started putting a second dimple on an existing brass cap monument, all rationale went down the tube. Some even take a hammer and beat it over to where it was supposed to be.

Land surveying is becoming a technician measuring trade and if enough of you simply let it happen, it will.

How often do you have to read about the measuring abilities and how accurate they are?

Keith

Brian and Keith

Why do you think that I constantly bring up subjects that should make you stop and think about your own procedures?

Just because you were taught to do it, and that is the way it is done around her,,,,,,,ain't good enough!

Keith

Brian and Keith

> Just a thought!
>
> When surveyors started putting a second dimple on an existing brass cap monument, all rationale went down the tube. Some even take a hammer and beat it over to where it was supposed to be.
>
> Land surveying is becoming a technician measuring trade and if enough of you simply let it happen, it will.
>
> How often do you have to read about the measuring abilities and how accurate they are?
>
> Keith

1815...original...notes, blazes, calls, witness trees, stobs...

1842...retrace...blazes, witness trees...perpetuate stob with new trees and a stone

1902...find stone and set an iron with new trees...(what happened to the blazed line trees?)

1950...find iron...measure 1320...north and west..

1973...find iron and 1/16 corners...make subdivision plat...200 foot lots...

1985...find lot corners...

1995...GPS lot corners...

2000...review GIS for coordinates...see geo-referenced plat of 1973...

2013...RTK...VRS...they back the plat solution out to the 1/16 corners using found lot irons...they do a technical solution of section subdivision...ouch...call everything 'off'...

Call lawyer...them dang old surveyors are wrong 'again'...

Lawyer calls me...I question a land owner from 1935 at the nursing home...he tells of a stump hole that his grandpa said was a line tree...I find the hole...the stone...the irons...the original line...

Who will you put your money on?

(not to mention the existing fences (occupation) date from 1952 to 2000...lol)

DDSM:beer:

Brian and Keith

Dan-

Thanks for posting up the reference to Hodgman.

I still have the leather bound wrap-around from my late father and it's my first surveying book. It was then the beginning of learning for me as to surveying beyond math. My opinion is that the math is the easiest part of surveying. The hard stuff comes later.

I agree with your statement about the line run on the ground. It would be interesting for me to compare our experiences here in Ohio with what was happening in the PLSS states which were surveyed in about the same time frame in the south. I'm very familiar with Indiana, which is very similar to Ohio. Maybe we could get up some conversation on this point.

Brian-

We can assign our current problems to expert measurers, engineers, etc. but not so much here in Ohio. Perhaps some of the problems after 1840 stem from the expansion of bureaus.

In the 1970's I did a lot of work for the Corps of Engineers. At that time they were a dedicated hard working organization. They were dedicated to damming up streams, and they had an entire bureaucracy dedicated to finding streams, designing dams for them, taking land, and building dams. After two major dams in my home county, we stopped that juggernaut.

It was a learning experience for me. Today, the BLM seems to have those same characteristics, which should be a clue to Keith as to how I feel about the BLM.

And Keith, continue to bring up the stuff you bring up.

Brian and Keith

> Dan-
>
> Thanks for posting up the reference to Hodgman.
>
> I still have the leather bound wrap-around from my late father and it's my first surveying book. It was then the beginning of learning for me as to surveying beyond math. My opinion is that the math is the easiest part of surveying. The hard stuff comes later.
>
Carl,
I have 4 editions of Mr. Hodgman's book in PDF format...scanned by Google...but only one leather wrap-around from 1897...I enjoy seeing the same discussions online in 2013 that our Brothers had in the 1800's...

> And Keith, continue to bring up the stuff you bring up.
Amen...

DDSM:beer:

Brian and Keith

Carl,

Thanks for your comments and I intend to bring up topics and arguments for the main purpose to just make surveyors stop and think for a few minutes about what they are really doing and why!

I just want some to go to bed at night and rethink what they may have read here and have a light come on!

And of course I will continue with the bogus theory and let it dawn on some why it is not defended!

Does it not seem strange that after all I post about the bogus theory, there is no counter argument?

Why would that be.

Keith

Dan

Thanks for your comments and I appreciate your comments.

Keith

William D.

Sorry, but that is not that way I remember numerous older discussions. Maybe I am misremembering them or that there has been a recent revelation like Rivers. Like.....

My error!

Keith

Whatever happened to the Idaho case you were involved with? Were the findings ever published? Is the record public information? What was the outcome: win, lose or draw?

Rivers is a Florida case.

It is a terrible decision.

Rivers involves a line 400' south of an aliquot line. The 400' was originally measured from the aliquot marked by a private surveyor. The 400' line was later shown to the grantee by the grantor. Then the BLM moved the aliquot line which spawned the lawsuit over the 400' line (not the aliquot line).

So what happens the next time someone moves the aliquot line? Can the property owners ever have a stable boundary line?

The Rivers opinion is contrary to common sense and long settled law.

Brian and Keith

What I want to know is when did a simple, common sense system of law designed to solve problems (mostly by favoring the physical over paperwork) turn into a complex engineering problem with multiple lines and strips of non-existent title?

All any Surveyor needs to do is go to the law library and read the actual law which is in plain English and available for anyone to read.

> .... Then the BLM moved the aliquot line ....

Being as the BLM survey was a dependant resurvey, I trust you have conclusive proof their work was in error? Not meaning to contest your conclusion, but why the BLM chose to ignore the evidence that Moorehead used is apparently not setting well with you?

Regardless, the BLM survey was not the item being contested. The court was given only that the BLM resurvey was the official DEPENDANT resurvey of the controlling boundary.

Rather, the question presented to the court was regarding the status of the private surveyor. The losing arguement tried to portray the private survey as being automatically held as being original. This was harder for the court to swallow than the common successful showing where private establishment of aliquot parts have gained original status through common acceptance.

Again, the question to the court was not whether the BLM survey was correct, but if private surveyors have status as original surveyor by simple virtue of being first to establish an aliquot line.

For this, the court said no in Florida, and as such that is the current status of law there.

William D.

You are correct, as I did mistakenly refer to the Dykes case as a Federal case in Feb. 2011, and then admitted the error.

My apologies to you.

Keith

Dave,

You are exactly right, it is a horrible case.

They don't know the difference between those government lines that are run on the ground and those government lines that are protracted on a plat.

The case has good language, but for the wrong reasons.

Keith

Rivers v Lozeau

> 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

"From the time the federal government granted this quarter-quarter section to the original grantee down to the Rizzos, the title conveys was to a tract of land located according to the original government survey and by the deed from the Rizzos to Brown, and subsequent deeds, the Lozeaus acquired title to the north 400 feet of this quarter-quarter section according to the true boundary line established by the original governmentsurveyors. This is true regardless of the fact that Mr. Rizzo showed Marcus Brown the erroneous monuments set by the Moorhead surveyors"

I'm thinking this is the quote you're looking for from the case.

By the way, I'm not disputing you're bogus theory. I think both deed stakers and fence surveyors have valid arguements which one or the other has merit in an individual situation.

Rather I am only pointing out the fact of law in the State of Florida. It is established case law there, as opposed to perpetuation of theory.

clearcut

It is not quite that easy of a synopsis of the case. BLM did the resurvey of the section lines and in my opinion screwed up with their position of the west 1/4 cor. of sec. 15. This was what created the mess within section 15. Their corner position was proportioned and ignored a monument ". . . established in the 1948 resurvey . . ."

From what I can find out, a Forest Service registered surveyor, employee, did the center lines and aliquot part lines within section 15. This is a legal matter in itself, a FS employee surveying Federal Land under a State License! But, that's another story.

If in fact that FS survey was executed under BLM's authority, it would then make it a legal survey and would be in the field note records of BLM. So far, I have been unable to get a copy of those field notes.

That survey of the section subdivisions ignored all existing private survey monuments and of course is the reason for the court case. It was this survey that in fact moved the aliquot part lines.

Since the case is a State Court case, surveyors in Florida need to review and heed, but, it can be used for precedence if the same issues are there. And that is doubtful!

BLM will not necessarily abide by the decisions in a State Court.

Keith

Clearcut

Read this again:

"From the time the federal government granted this quarter-quarter section to the original grantee down to the Rizzos, the title conveys was to a tract of land located according to the original government survey and by the deed from the Rizzos to Brown, and subsequent deeds, the Lozeaus acquired title to the north 400 feet of this quarter-quarter section according to the true boundary line established by the original governmentsurveyors. This is true regardless of the fact that Mr. Rizzo showed Marcus Brown the erroneous monuments set by the Moorhead surveyors"

The sentence in bold is not correct! The government surveyors did not establish the aliquot part lines on the ground, only by protracted lines on the plat.

Hence the bogus theory that was testified to on protracted lines.

Keith

Rivers v Lozeau

I read it fine the first time. I am only providing an exact quote from the case as you requested, which is the law at this point in time in Florida.

You can call it incorrect it all you want. But it is not theory in Florida, it is law, right or wrong.