Maybe you could prove me wrong?
Keith
You all may recall another thread here that I was requesting the surveyor Corky Rodine and the approving official Lane Bouman to explain the circumstances in their resurvey. Doncha think that is legitimate and especially on a resurvey that they won in court?
But since this is a state court and BLM was not a part of the case, as their lawyers do not go into State court, the case is thus not binding on BLM!
Keith
> You all may recall another thread here that I was requesting the surveyor Corky Rodine and the approving official Lane Bouman to explain the circumstances in their resurvey. Doncha think that is legitimate and especially on a resurvey that they won in court?
>
> But since this is a state court and BLM was not a part of the case, as their lawyers do not go into State court, the case is thus not binding on BLM!
>
> Keith
The BLM never won anything.
The BLM resurvey wasn't on trial. Its correctness was not brought into question in the courtroom. It doesn't appear that there was reason for the BLM to even testify.
I see several reasons why no one from the BLM has responded to you calling then out. Biggest reason being their survey wasn't being contested.
The field notes are fascinating.
They are using the four section corners as perpetuated by the county surveyor in 1947. The north, south and east quarter section corners are said to be monumented by the county surveyor in 1948 and are at the single proportion position exactly per BLM.
The west quarter section corner is set by BLM by proportioning from Moorhead field notes. SC - N 1deg 12' W 38.832 - QSC - N 0deg 51' W 41.206 - SC.
From the BLM mon to unmarked nail/tag "1/4 sec. cor. W. bdy. 15-14-24" (which I assume is quote from Moorhead notes) N 30deg 45' E 139.2 lk.s which puts it pretty close to the s.p. position. The n/t fits call to south edge pond better too.
There isn't really enough information in the field notes why they rejected the n/t, maybe they had a good reason, can't tell, though.
As you say no one challenged either the BLM resurvey or the apparent USDA-FS survey.
Here's the field notes at the west quarter section corner...
38.832 Point for the 1/4 sec. cor. of secs. 15 and 16, at proportionate dist. based upon a 1948 resurvey, recorded in field book no. 118 at page 53 in the office of Moorhead Engineering Company, Ocala, Florida. In the record of the 1948 resurvey, a falling was given to the "proven 1/4 sec. cor.", and two new witnessess (bearing trees) were taken. There are no remaining traces of the orig. lightwood post or its accessories, nor of the two 1948 witnessess (bearing trees).
At the cor. point
Set an aluminum post, 30 ins. long, 2 1/2 ins. diam., 4 ins. below ground, with cap mkd.
[notes reflect corner stamping]
from which
[notes show two pine bearing trees]
Set a U.S.F.S. orange bdy. post S. of the cor.
This cor. is located 109 lks. South of the center line of State Road 314, bearing NE. and W.
From this cor., the "1/4 sec. cor. W. bdy. 15-14-24", established in the 1948 resurvey for reasons unknown, bears N. 30deg. 45' E., 139.2 lks. dist., monumented with a nail and a 1 in. diam. metal tag, but with no mks., set flush with the pavement in State Road 314.
Dave,
You got it!
And to continue the line on northward, 41.206 to the cor. of secs. 9, 10, 15, and 16, monumented . . .
In other words the S 1/2 of the section line was 38.832 and the N 1/2 of the section line was 41.206.
Read the description of the 1/4 cor. again.
Keith
clearcut
Who are you and do you work for BLM Eastern States?
Being awfully defensive?
Keith
Here's the field notes at the west quarter section corner...
> ... a falling was given to the "proven 1/4 sec. cor.", and two new witnessess (bearing trees) were taken. There are no remaining traces of the orig. lightwood post or its accessories, nor of the two 1948 witnessess (bearing trees).
That part has always fascinated me. Has anyone ever come across an explanation of what Moorhead/the BLM found at the "proven" corner? How can the corner be "proven" if no original witnesses nor the lightwood post is found, and the corner is in major disagreement with commonly accepted boundaries.
Here's the field notes at the west quarter section corner...
Gee, ya wonder why?
If we could ever get the field notes existing for the subd. of the sec., we would probably see that they all lined up with that "other monument" in the road?
Those of course were the monuments that were ignored for any evidence of the west 1/4 cor. or the subd. of sec. lines.
Here's the field notes at the west quarter section corner...
Lozeau acquired their property in two Deeds, the north 163 of the north 400 and the south 237 of the north 400.
Possibly a mistake. Deeds on-line for free, why does Florida have that while California doesn't, home of the Silicon Valley for crying out loud doesn't???
Rivers got his in two parcels, first the south 130 of the north 563 then later a metes and bounds which covered the rest, e.g. his parcels combined would be the south 163 of the north 563.
Now we know why Moorhead's monuments were 433 feet south of the Moorhead north line of the 40.
In my opinon Wilson's explanation leaves a lot to be desired. He begins by stating several reasons for accepting the first survey, then goes whacko repeating the court's convoluded understanding of the original surveyor.
Notwithstanding failure of “following surveyor” to properly find northern boundary of quarter-quarter section where it was located by original government surveyor, and notwithstanding his placement of erroneous monuments, the title conveyed was to a tract located according to the original government survey referred to in the deed description; this was true even though grantor showed grantee the erroneous monuments and parties believed the erroneous boundary lines were correct.
Notwithstanding “following surveyor’s” erroneous survey and placement of monuments, deed description adopted by reference the true north line of quarter-quarter section which was necessarily controlled by location of that line as established by original government survey.
There was no original government surveyor to follow. Plain and simple. There was only evidence of establishment to follow. (The first surveyor)
linebender
You are right and the convoluted statements by the Court must have come from the testimony on the bogus theory of the subd. of sec. protracted lines as being the one and only position of those lines, not where they were already established on the ground with survey monuments.
As I have stated many times, this case is the epitome of the bogus theory.
It is a clear example of why the theory is bogus.
Keith
Rivers v. Lozeau
Seems to be a lot of confusion as to the facts of the case. For instance Mr. Lucas wrote:
Traversing the Law: Requiem for the First Surveyor Concept
by Jeffery N. Lucas, PLS, Esq.
August 30, 2010
"...the BLM conducted a dependent resurvey within the section throwing out the local survey and claiming about 28 feet along the north boundary. The 28-foot discrepancy had a ripple effect throughout the remainder of the quarter-section, sending everybody to court.
In their ruling in favor of the BLM, a Florida court of appeals stated:..."
I'm surprised at some of the statements he made. For one, the BLM was not party to the lawsuit. 2nd, the BLM never subdivided the section.
Perhaps a better account of what really went on can be found in "Clark on Surveying, 2012 supplement"
In Chapter 30, the supplement gives some insight on the sequence of events.
Appears the 1986 survey was a private survey performed for Lozeau (not the USFS as some have implied). Apparently Rivers and Lozeau were already argueing when Lozeau hired the surveyor.
Other interesting tidbits from "Clark 2012 supplement":
USFS owned all of the section except for the 40 acres which contained the River's & Lozeau parcels..
The only interior surveys of the section discussed in the case were by private surveyors. The BLM only surveyed the exterior of the section and their work was not disputed in this case.
The 1965 subdivision survey by Moorehead "stubbed in" the C-1/4 by "running 40 chs westerly". He used this stubbed in C-1/4 to partition out the quarter-quarter section.
What really strikes me after reading "Clark" is the above statement that Moorehead stubbed in his controlling C-1/4. I have to assume this cast doubt on Moorehead's work as being a careful attempt at identifying the aliquot lines.
I also found interesting the following statement in this section of "Clark":
"In many instances, failure to use the correct and proper terms, and to follow proper rules can be devastating to the client land owner. When a landowner engages any professional, whether it be a doctor, lawyer, surveyor or whomever, to accomplish the task, the landowner is placing his/her entier confidence into the hands of the engaged individual."
From reading this case analysis of Rivers v Lozeau, I have to believe that Moorehead's 1965 "shortcut" was what tripped up the court from relying on his positions. Although the court didn't discuss the "shortcut" as being what discredited Moorehead's work, it appears that is what is being inferred in "Clark".
BTW, the author of the 2012 supplement to "Clark" states he was a testifying witness who was originally retained as a consultant witness. So it would seem this section of "Clark" would be a first hand account of the court's proceedings.
clearcut
There are indeed confusing facts that have been stated.
Lucas was not correct in his statement about BLM conducting the "resurvey within the section throwing out the local survey" as that was the Forest Service subd. of section survey conducted by an employee with a State license. This is the survey that had the ripple effect throughout the remainder of the quarter section. Incidently, I have not been able to get that survey or read the field notes.
The statement is true that BLM was not a party to the lawsuit, therefore is not held to any of its conclusions!
From what I know, the private survey performed for Lozeau was the Moorehead survey and was the first survey on the ground, was monumented and was ignored by the Forest Service survey.
I have not read anyplace that the Moorehead survey "stubbed in" the C 1/4 sec. cor.? Where did this come from and I would like to see that in writing.
"In many instances, failure to use the correct and proper terms, and to follow proper rules can be devastating to the client land owner. When a landowner engages any professional, whether it be a doctor, lawyer, surveyor or whomever, to accomplish the task, the landowner is placing his/her entier confidence into the hands of the engaged individual." (Read - protracted lines are the only evidence of the subd. of sec. lines) And of course, using this logic, why would the survey done for Lozeau be ignored?
BTW, the author of the 2012 supplement to "Clark" states he was a testifying witness who was originally retained as a consultant witness. So it would seem this section of "Clark" would be a first hand account of the court's proceedings.
That would be Robillard and his bogus theory!
The Court simply went with his theory and the other side must not have had a credible witness to blow that out of the water.
Keith
Rivers v Lozeau
> Lucas was not correct in his statement about BLM conducting the "resurvey within the section throwing out the local survey" as that was the Forest Service subd. of section survey conducted by an employee with a State license. This is the survey that had the ripple effect throughout the remainder of the quarter section. Incidently, I have not been able to get that survey or read the field notes.
>
Wrong, the USFS did not perform any survey, at least none that was part of the case.
> From what I know, the private survey performed for Lozeau was the Moorehead survey and was the first survey on the ground, was monumented and was ignored by the Forest Service survey.
>
Wrong, the private survey performed for Lozeau was the 1986 survey mentioned in the case. This would have the been the Whit Holley Britt survey. Remember the sequence of events, 1982 BLM, 1986 survey by Britt. Moorehead's work was in 1965. Lozeau hired the 1986 surveyor.
> I have not read anyplace that the Moorehead survey "stubbed in" the C 1/4 sec. cor.? Where did this come from and I would like to see that in writing.
>
I told you where it is written. Read my post again.
You might also read there as to who the author of Clark was consultant expert for. You might find that surprising.
clearcut
You are purposely misleading the facts on this case. Why?
Tell us who the FS surveyor was who did the subdivision of section survey that rejected the Moorehead previous survey?
I don't have your document that you refer to, so who is: You might also read there as to who the author of Clark was consultant expert for. You might find that surprising.
Keith
Rivers v Lozeau
The C 1/4 corner should have no more influence on the established N line of the SE 1/4 SW 1/4 than the W 1/4 corner. Why would you stub in the C 1/4 corner anyway? Why not stop stubbing at the NE cor SE1/4 SW 1/4 if you are stubbing?
While its correct that the BLM was not on trial the results of a private survey using the BLM resurvey were and the court was talked into beleiving the 1986 private survey reran the origianl line. Poppycock! The 1986 survey was an illegal independent resurvey at best.
And here we go with incorrect location again. Should stubbing in have been used? No
Should that make the corners accepted by the owners no good? NO! For goodness sake, if every incorrectly located monument is no good, why set any? What's the purpose of land surveying?
Rivers v Lozeau
> You are purposely misleading the facts on this case. Why?
>
> Tell us who the FS surveyor was who did the subdivision of section survey that rejected the Moorehead previous survey?
>
> I don't have your document that you refer to, so who is: You might also read there as to who the author of Clark was consultant expert for. You might find that surprising.
>
> Keith
Who told you or where did you read that the USFS performed a survey? I've never seen that written other than seeing it as your assumption in your numerous postings.
Again, Lozeau hired the 1986 survey, not the USFS. Probably where the misunderstanding is coming from, is that Lozeau's surveyor ran the SE-SW-1/4 north boundary in order to determine the line the 400' offset was to be measured from. Many see this as the surveyor was running the line common to the USFS and assume it was being done for the USFS. This is a wrong assumption. Lozeau's surveyor ran that line in order to find the offset line which forms the Rivers-Lozeau boundary.
So again, the USFS did not have a survey performed, Lozeau did.
I am not purposely (or non-purposely for that matter), misleading the facts. These are quotes directly from a case discussion of the Rivers/Lozeau decision by an author with first hand experience with the case.
If you don't believe me, read it for yourself. Everything I have stated is in the aforementioned 2012 supplement, Section 30.10 "Retracements". It is mostly likely in earlier versions of the supplement, however I have only the 2012 version to refer to.
For as much effort as you have put into discrediting "Clark on Surveying", I would hope you actually have read it? I have my doubts sometimes, such as you're referral to what you call a bogus theory has failed to recognize their writings on the acceptance of corners of common use as having equivelant standing as an original monument (Section 10.22).
linebender
Who was the surveyor in that 1986 survey?
clearcut
So you are telling us that there is no FS survey in section 15?
