Stephen:
You seem to be trying to make this more complicated than it really is. The survey was made along with the conveyance of the east 500'. The purchaser of the west 500' was shown those pins. He went ahead with the purchase of the property. The recent survey shows a 4' discrepancy in the measurement. Big deal. The surveyor's job is to retrace the boundary, not create a new one.
LR:
Are you suggesting that Maine doesn't recognize the difference between a "latent" and a "patent" ambiguity? That seems quite contrary to common law. I don't have time to research it right now, but it sure sounds suspicious.
JBS
It's something many of us have nSenior rights / pin holders
Dave Karoly had a great answer in the thread below:
"The monuments are 100% correct......the 500 foot number in the Deed has a precision of +/-4'."
It can't be put any simpler than that. It's something that many of use have not yet come to terms with.
David:
> You seem to be trying to make this more complicated than it really is. The survey was made along with the conveyance of the east 500'. The purchaser of the west 500' was shown those pins. He went ahead with the purchase of the property. The recent survey shows a 4' discrepancy in the measurement. Big deal. The surveyor's job is to retrace the boundary, not create a new one.
It's not at all clear to me that under the laws of my state the 1960 survey established a boundary for the easterly parcel. The plan is unrecorded, it's not referenced in the 1960 deed, and the pins vary substantially from what that deed calls. The purchaser of the west was shown the pins in 1985. Again, why are we assuming that the guy who bought the east property in 1960 ever saw them, much less agreed that they were a boundary? And under some doctrines even such an agreement might not hold up if it was based on a mistake.
There are certainly additional facts which might make the pins hold. They aren't part of the original fact set. As I said earlier, the problem with the case is that it's TOO simple.
Gotta run.
Stephen:
>
> With all due respect, it is not obvious at all.
I support your right to hold and express different opinions, but I vehemently disagree. Unforturnately for you my opinion is more closely aligned to ones expressed by an overwhelming majority of case law decisions thoughout our nations history.
>
> I have known of dozens of landowners who were absolutely insistent on the language of the deed, irrespective of what's on the ground. Especially in cases like this, where the deed language is not at all technical.
>
And you have known HUNDREDS of landowners who saw their property boundary markers and held to them.
> Usually they would lose out if they went to court.
>
You said it, not me.
Stephen
JBS:
No, Maine does recognize that difference. But I believe our courts would limit their finding of latent ambiguity to the deed itself -- i.e. the deed course runs to a called oak tree, I find three oaks near the called distance, we go to extrinsic evidence. I don't believe the Maine courts would hold that an uncalled monument renders clear language such as that in the original fact set even latently ambiguous.
But I too am out of time.
Oh I get it...apparently you don't
> > I am a metes and bounds surveyor and have been for many years. Metes and bounds are further down on our list than found monuments.
>
> Metes, as in the measurements, are further down on the priority of calls, yes.
>
> But a call for a bound, especially a call for a boundary which is senior in title, is considered to be a call for a monument of record, which puts the bound portion very high on the priority of calls.
Actually, if you do an etymological search on the history of the terms, Metes and Bounds, you will find that the modern survey text books have it entirely wrong. The term "Metes and Bounds" descends from Roman Law. The Justinian Codex has a lot to say regarding surveyors and their role in Roman society with much focus on the integrity of the profession when dealing with land. In an action of partition, the surveyor was directed to divide the field by "metes and bounds." In Roman terms, that was the "Metae" and the "Bundae". The words were commonly used to refer to the course set out for the chariot races. The "Metae" was the terminal pillar used to mark the turning point of the race course, and the "Bundae" was the wall and observation platform constructed along the course to separate the chariots.
The term "metes and bounds" really means "boundary monuments" and "corner monuments" placed along a boundary and at its terminal points. The term has no relationship with measurements (bearings and distances) as has been more recently portrayed in the survey texts. Skelton (published in 1930) espoused that bearings and distances (measurements) should be included with metes and bounds descriptions, not as evidence of boundary locations, but as corroborative evidence to be used for the recovery of the controlling monuments. He complained that the attorneys would strip the the measurements from the descriptions because it was thought by them to make the description more certain. Removing the measurements ensured that the certain conflict between the measurements and the controlling monuments would be eliminated. The "metes and bounds" description, in it's purest sense, contains calls to monuments and calls to adjoining boundaries. Measurements were added later and have, over the course of only a few decades, become the paramount consideration of surveyors in spite of the physical evidence.
Just another example of surveyors teaching surveyors what they were taught by surveyors. Sometimes we get it wrong and need to return to the primary sources.
JBS
JBS:
> No, Maine does recognize that difference. But I believe our courts would limit their finding of latent ambiguity to the deed itself ...
That defies the definition of "latent" ambiguity. A "latent" ambiguity is one that is discovered "outside" the four corners of the document. A document that appears clear and concise on its face is discovered to be ambiguous when extrinsic evidence is recovered which reveals a conflict. A "patent" ambiguity is one which can be discovered within the four corners of the document without the aid of extrinsic evidence.
JBS
JBS:
In the example I gave, the three oaks found render the language in the deed -- the call for a single oak -- latently ambiguous. I can't see how finding a monument would render a clearly written deed in which no monument is called (or implied by a call for a survey or plan) ambiguous. The point called at 500 feet is there, irrespective of whatever is found nearby. I believe that's how the Maine courts would see it.
I'll look into next rainy day! I'm outta here.
P.S.
There would certainly be other reasons why I would investigate the pin anyway, but that's another story.
What say you?
Simply put, this is an example of how a deed staker or a land surveyor would resolve the survey on the ground!
Keith
Some Of You Are Just Not Getting It
Possibly it is because all you PLSS surveyors fail to understand Metes and Bounds descriptions
Yes, possibly, because it is well known that surveyors in PLSS states have never seen a deed that wasn't based on a sectional description.
Bounds must stimy some of you.
Yes, not being civil engineers, we are easily stymied.
"The monuments are 100% correct......the 500 foot number in the Deed has a precision of +/-4'." - Dave Karoly
Study Dave's statement and learn from it.
Don
>>I would contend that in any state, any survey system, the duty of the surveyor is to do the job correct.
I would contend that in any state, any survey system, the duty of the surveyor is to do the job correctly.
What say you?
I would say this statement is the most ridiculous one yet:
I agree that an original survey by a government surveyor in accordance with the manual means that the corners set and found undisturbed are gospel. But only under those circumstances.
Really?
CeeCee:
> In the example I gave, the three oaks found render the language in the deed -- the call for a single oak -- latently ambiguous. I can't see how finding a monument would render a clearly written deed in which no monument is called (or implied by a call for a survey or plan) ambiguous. The point called at 500 feet is there, irrespective of whatever is found nearby. I believe that's how the Maine courts would see it.
>
There's the part you have misunderstood. The search for extrinsic evidence clearly revealed an implied call for a survey and its monuments. A survey (the original survey of the east 500') was performed at or near the time of conveyance and was known about by the landowners for many years. Therefore, property boundary law says that the original, accepted, and found monuments be held over the bearings and distances (priority of calls).
What say you?
I agree with you Keith. Otherwise, why are the rest of us here?
What say you?
David,
You are right and I see statements on here all the time about the confusion over "original surveyor"?
If in fact the "original surveyor" is only the GLO/BLM surveyor of the PLSS, then what's that say about everybody else?
The entire PLSS was originally surveyed by the GLO and BLM surveyors and the interior of the sections are considered legally surveyed even though, as we know, no monuments were set in the interior of the sections during this original survey. There are exceptions to this of course.
Why can't the first land surveyor who subdivides the PLSS section, be considered the original surveyor?
Anyways, if the surveyor now-a-days wants to correct the errors of the past and also ignore legal monuments that have different measurements than GPS or the latest measuring device; s(he) only shows her/his ignorance about land surveying.
Damn, get off this technician expert measuring concept!
Keith
What say you?
Don't know anyone who is strictly holding the position that the measurements are the only consideration, but many have made that accusation to those willing to look at other considerations than just holding the monuments. I find it somewhat amusing that there are some who think that the surveyors of the 60 were incapable of measuring very close to 500 feet. Perhaps those making that assumption are incapable of that, but those using a tape and plumb bobs daily did some very good work. This is like all surveying, it depends and the best solution really does depend on the owners position and the surveyors willingness to let them have the opportunity to make an informed choice.
jud
What say you?
Land boundary establishment processes have nothing to do with whether or not a surveyor can "measure" correctly, incorrectly, well, or not so well. There is nothing in boundary law that has anything to do with a surveyor's ability to measure (negligence claims are not boundary law). That makes the surveyor's ability to measure 500' +/- irrelevant. Yet, we have surveyors who are too quick to use measurements as an excuse for acceptance or rejection of another surveyor's monuments. Surveyors will never be able to determine a boundary location by comparing their measurements with the record or a found monument. Yet, the arguments seem to always center around the "close enough or not" doctrine.
JBS
What say you?
Why else are there multiple corner monuments set within a finger length distance?
What say you?
Amen JB!
