OK - Dave
OK, here's what I would do Dave.
First I would create an LDP, one that would precisely (within reason, the statute says all measurements must close within 0.10000 feet) for my RTK GPS. I would then take all the deeds in the immediate area, draw them up in AUTOCAD, creating coordinates for each and every property corner.
I would then load my trusty survey chariot with shiney new rebar, caps and lath, Drive to the site and proceed to drive in new irons at each and every coordinate pair (property corner) I had previously calculated, flag them profusely and write "property corner" on each lath.
The next step is the fun one :). I would then knock on each and every landowner's door, present them with a branny-new plack of survey, and with a big smile, describe who's fences, barns, houses, etc, are on whose land. After receiving the "oh shiite" look from the schocked and dismayed landowners, I'd hand them business cards I had previously picked from my attorney friend and tell them "if you want your land back, I'd suggest hiring an attorney".
Collect check and laugh all the way to the bank, eagerly awaiting more boundary survey jobs.
Oh, it feels good to being performing a professional service to the public. 🙂
Dang, Brian
> The next step is the fun one :). I would then knock on each and every landowner's door, present them with a branny-new plack of survey, and with a big smile, describe who's fences, barns, houses, etc, are on whose land. After receiving the "oh shiite" look from the schocked and dismayed landowners, I'd hand them business cards I had previously picked from my attorney friend and tell them "if you want your land back, I'd suggest hiring an attorney".
>
I don't think Dave has enough Apple Pie and Coffee to do this...
He may need to 'send letters' and not knock on doors...some of them folks have guns...and traditions...and guns...and they remember what Grandpa said during the 'beating of the bounds'...and guns...;-)
DDSM:beer:
BTW...the Apple Pie and Coffee works as well in the Hillbilly Ozarks as it does around Central High School in Little Rock...:-)
OK - 53 posts in the last 12 hours .....
1 & 2. Trim or extend to the north or south bounds if you disagree with those intersections. They a separate and distinct issue.
3. I hold the line of the original surveyors pins, which, in the earlier example , were shown to and accepted by the purchaser. Common Law 101.
Regarding the work of the 1960 surveyor, we don't know if he was a 1930's surveyor at the end of his career using generally accepted methods of his time, a 1940's surveyor with a bad eye or a 1950's surveyor with a pint of Bushmills. It doesn't matter. The pins were set and accepted by the purchaser and the seller. They are perfect, at least as the definition of the new division line.
I'll doff my chapeau to D. Karoly... "The monuments are 100% correct......the 500 foot number in the Deed has a precision of +/-4'."
Great discussion! :coffee:
Rick
Dang, Brian
Don't believe it was Dave setting all those new shiny monuments, it was a guy showing his superiority along with his contempt for someone holding a different view.
jud
Dang, Jud
Too many 'Daves'...I was referring to Mr. Ingram and not to Mr. Karoly...or is it Mr. Lee?...dang...
DDSM
Metae, As Used In The Roman Stadium
Was borrowed from metae, the Roman surveying term for the limit of a measurement.
The decadence of the Roman stadium came long after Rome was organized laws and measurements.
This thread is so long now I cannot recall where I should put this rebuttal.
Paul in PA
Jud
Superiority and contempt? I don't think so, I'm really quite humble.
I was illustrating the absurd, by being absurd.
BTW, you'd be surprised (maybe not) by the number of "surveyors" that do what I just sarcastically described.
I think most of the surveyors on this board would make the correct decisions in a real case. The problem with a case laid out in only a few sentences, is that it obviously cannot clearly reveal all the nuances of a real boundary problem and there are many blanks that need filled in, and everybody fills them in differently. But I do believe that a large percentage (10% is too large) of surveyors do not have a complete working knowledge of boundary law. I know I used to be one, but I'm doing everything I can to learn more, and lord knows, I don't know it all. Yet!:-)
I appologize if sometimes my tone comes across harsh or short. It generally is because I hate typing, not the people I'm talking with.
Dang, Dang
> I was illustrating the absurd, by being absurd.
> I appologize if sometimes my tone comes across harsh or short. It generally is because I hate typing, not the people I'm talking with.
I wish we was all sittin' round a big table...full of Apple Pie and Coffee...
So we could see each other wink or scowl...
I'll buy the first round...:beer:
DDSM
(I did get the joke, didn't I?)
Coffee?
How long would it be before coffee turned to adult beverages? Then it would get real interesting.
Paul's Arrogance and Obtuseness
Talk about not getting it! let's take the post one assertion at a time.
> Senior rights apply to the East 500' which is marked with pins...
>
> The Remainder parcel has Junior rights.
>
Correct on both counts.
> Jones did not transfer the Remainder parcel, he transferred the West 500' which is not the same as the 1000' parcel less and except the East parcel.
>
Although by general rule, the two descriptions would describe different parcels, in the case the 1985 conveyance, either way would have the same effect. I'll explain (again):
1960:
- Survey performed at time of conveyance. Results not rejected, therefore are accepted. Survey controls this conveyance. True in most, if not all jurisdictions within the US. The monuments are permanent, definite witnesses to the original parties' execution of the agreement. The distance reported in the deed is an imprecise record to be used to guide one to the corners.
- Both Jones and Eastman were aware of the 1960 survey and its irons. Neither made any objection to their locations.
1985:
- No new survey, therefore all information with respect to parcel sizes came from the existing deeds and the map of the 1960 survey. Only information of the location of the line splitting the Jones parcel was the points on the ground and the map of the 1960 survey.
- All affected parties, Jones, Westerly, and Eastman only had information supporting of Jones' original parcel being 1000' wide, Eastman's parcel being 500' wide, leaving Jones with the w'ly 500' as the remainder.
- Jones and Westerly walked the property, with Jones indicating the 1960 irons as marking the corners of the property.
- Since intent of an agreement must be interpreted in light of the circumstances existing at the time of the agreement we must do so with the facts just listed and cannot do so in light of extrinsic evidence found several years after these conveyances.
In 1985, Jones had the w'ly 500' of his property left. The e'ly line of that 500' was the w'ly line of the e'ly 500' as monumented in 1960 (it was not until 1995 that it was discovered that the e'ly 500' was only 496' by more precise measure, and that the w'ly 500' was 504'). 1000' - 500' = 500'. Referring to the remainder and referring to the w'ly 500' is a distinction with no difference for those operating by the information available at the time of the 1985 conveyance. Either description would indicate intent of Jones and Westerly to convey the balance of Jones' parcel to Westerly. The fact that they walked the property together for the purpose of identifying the corners merely seals the deal beyond further question.
> West has 500' period in the scenario previously given... No evidence has been given that West has claimed it by possession and use.
>
Westerly has 500' according to the information available and by which the deal was made in 1985, period. The fact that it was measured to be 504' many years later is immaterial. If you advocate that it is 500' at whatever subsequent time it is measured, then you advocate that the boundary must exist in a state of perpetual flux, subject to movement according to the measurements (and errors in them) of each surveyor that arrives on the scene. Would you ever provide for stability of the boundary? If so, how? When?
Possession and use up to a line is not necessary to validate an established boundary. It is only necessary as one element to overcome an otherwise established boundary. You are mixing and misapplying doctrine.
> A conveyance to West that would include refernce to the pins or the survey would alter the facts.
>
It would be tidier, but it would not alter the end effect under these circumstances. It would have made it simpler so that the surveyor who is too stubborn to let facts get in the way of his opinion could then understand what the landowners (possible exception of Mr. Newyoung) already understand. The common boundary is marked by the 1960 irons and declaring otherwise moves the existing property line.
> Had the subdividing surveyor filed a subdivision map... the facts would be different.
>
It would only make a difference if one or both of the corners between the lots became lost and the only evidence to replace them was in the form of the measurements reported on the map. Otherwise, under these particular set of circumstances, there would be no difference.
> Possibly it is because all you PLSS surveyors fail to understand Metes and Bounds descriptions.
>
What an incredibly arrogant and ignorant statement! There you are in your little corner of the world, probably having never surveyed anywhere else, making the presumption that because there is a basic framework provided by which to define much of the land boundaries in PLSSia, that there are no M&B descriptions out here. That doesn't even pass the most basic test of sense.
Are you aware that there were land grants before the PLSS surveys existed in many locations? Are you aware that there are vast tracts which were in Spanish and French land grants to private individuals that were later recognized by the US according to treaty?
Are you aware that there are prominent natural and manmade landmarks such as rivers, streams, shorelines, mountain ridges, roads, etc. that provide natural boundaries and that many of the settlers buying and selling land came from the colonial states, having little or no understanding of sections and such, but understanding quite well the use of natural boundaries as land boundaries? How do you suppose many of them described land that they conveyed?
Of course we have M&B descriptions and understand them every bit as well as colonial surveyors do (and quite apparently better than some). Perhaps if you started thinking of the PLSS as a series of 6 mile square subdivisions, much like any other subdivision, most containing 36 lots nominally 1 mile square, it might begin to take some of the mystery out of it for you.
Having surveyed in both PLSSia and in colonial states, I can assure you that a PLSS surveyor would have far less to learn about M&B surveys than a colonial surveyor would about surveying in the PLSS.
> In the aforesaid case we have no reference if the surveyor was employed by Jones to subdivide his land, giving him some stature as the Original Surveyor or was employed by Eastman, making him a retracer (in error) of the of the paper survey of Jones. In the latter case various things must follow to turn those errant pins into Bounds for Westerly.
>
You imply that merely writing a description (paper survey? Huh?!?) is the same as having performed a survey. Can you provide an authoritative source for that?
In the case given, We are told that the survey was done at the time of sale, so that implies that it was performed for the purpose of establishing the boundary between Jones and Eastman. That imparts the status of original survey to it. It is completely immaterial whether it was commissioned by Jones or by Eastman. If Jones hired him, then by extension, Jones established the line. Eastman never objected to or questioned the line, indicating acceptance. If Eastman hired him, we are told that Jones later indicated the irons to Westerly as marking his east line, showing clear acceptance.
A description in itself does not establish a boundary. It either is an attempt to describe a boundary already established on the ground, or a set of instructions intended to provide guidance to those who would subsequently establish the boundary. Either way, it is the act of placing the boundary on the ground which establishes it. If that happens after to the conveyance, it is considered valid if it is a good faith and reasonable attempt to establish it according to the deed. If the establishment happens prior to or at the time of conveyance, it is considered to be the execution of the true intent and the written description is considered to be an attempt to describe what was actually done.
> Bounds make all the difference in the world to this argument, because they are few.
>
Only if the surveyor fails to find or deliberatley ignores evidence, and insists on holding questionable distances reported in a deed over clear and concrete evidence of the true intent.
In a case like this, for a surveyor who understands that his duty is to identify the original boundaries by the same rules a court would, it raises additional questions that send him on a quest for additional information. But in the final analysis, with the circumstances given in this case, it would make no other difference.
The real difference is between the surveyors. One would find a difference between the deed distance and the monument locations, would exhibit no further curiosity as to why the difference exists, and proceed to create chaos that he might then offer to remedy. Or worse, he might just dump the problem he manufactured in their lap and advise them to find an attorney to help strighten it out. (Drive by survey: show up, shoot from the hip, run away after inflicting damage)
The other surveyor would find the difference and then go about finding out facts such as that Jones and Westerly walked the property to identify the corners of the conveyance (the other surveyor would have never found this out, or would stubbornly ignore it if told as we see in this exchange), or that the 1960 survey was performed in conjunction with the conveyance at that time. This surveyor would investigate as to whether Jones and Westerly had any reason to believe that jones' remainder was anything other than 500' wide. The other surveyor wouldn't even know why he should care.
Thank You
Not that you had to ask, but permission granted.
OK - 53 posts in the last 12 hours .....
> and only one person even started to answer my questions. So I'll repeat them.
>
> 1.) What do you do about the pin that is set 10' onto the neighbors land on the North side?
>
> 2.) What do you do about the pin that is set 10' off of the South line creating a little triangle to the East?
>
> 3.) And finally, where do you place the division line once you admit the pins are not where they should be? Do you go to the 500'? Or do you intersect the line connecting the pins with the North & South lines.
>
> Remember, this is not an aliquot division and doesn't have to be in a PLSS area. This example could be anywhere. It is a straight forward division of a piece of private property and the original tract could be any size.
>
> The whole point of my original post is to make the point that you can't just hold pins where you find them. And then how do you help correct the problem?
As to questions 1 & 2, you still haven't provided enough info to warrant serious discussion. Until you do, you deserve the sarcastic (but maybe not far off realistic in Dan's case) answers you received from Brian and Dan.
And as to question #3, you are still stubbornly and clearly incorrectly holding to and trying to impose the illegal premise that the surveyor is obligated to move the boundary. The pins define the common boundary of the two parcels comprising the old Jones parcel, and do so on so many levels. You have to ignore a whole lot of evidence and buck a whole lot of law to insist otherwise.
How about you answer this: Once you finally admit that the line between Eastman and Westerly can exist nowhere other than on the line between the 1960 irons, what would you do with the N & S lines? Please provide the evidence you considered and cite the legal principle you would apply.
OK - 53 posts in the last 12 hours .....
The North and South line issues were addressed in my post. The owner can't sell land he does not own, nor can a skewed survey take it.
Dave's False Premise
Well put, Evan. Right on all accounts.
JBS
Dave
Where does this come from?
1.) What do you do about the pin that is set 10' onto the neighbors land on the North side?
Explain how you believe this to be a true statement?
Keith
Dave
This is the erroneous premise that this whole discussion is based on.
In other words, only in the minds of a deed staker, can your premise be true. You are talking about the deed line and the monumented line is crossing it.
Right?
Keith
Metae As Used In The Roman Stadium...
...was borrowed from metae, the Roman surveying term for the limit of a measurement.
The decadence of the Roman stadium came long after Rome was organized by laws and measurements.
Metae is the limit of the measurement marked by a monument. Mete is the measurement that must take place before the place of the metae can be found.
Paul in PA
Paul's Arrogance and Obtuseness, Reply 1
"Senior rights apply to the East 500' which is marked with pins."
The pins however do not mark the Westerly boundary, they are just pins. No document gives them any authority as a bound to the Westerly line.
Paul in PA
Paul's Arrogance and Obtuseness, Reply 1
> "Senior rights apply to the East 500' which is marked with pins."
>
> The pins however do not mark the Westerly boundary, they are just pins. No document gives them any authority as a bound to the Westerly line.
>
> Paul in PA
The survey performed at the time of the 1960 conveyance does.
The corner...
is the corner, is the corner, is the corner. If it puts a bend in the line, so be it.
