The corner...
Not if that bend strays into a 3rd party parcel. He has no right to sell property owned by a 3rd party (as the sketch shows to the North), only what he owns between his 4 corners on the original lot. If fences were erected in 1960, there would be an adverse possession case. That is not the case here. The owner to the North had no part in this transaction, with the evidence.
Two Things
From my experience, there are two things that civil engineers are incapable of understanding:
interpersonal relationships and Land Surveying.
Don
The corner...
If the guy on the north says that that pin is on his south boundary line, no matter if it does put a bend in the line, that pin is the corner. There are some instances where you could argue otherwise, but really, this is not much different than the OP. There are many instances where you should bend a line through a monument. The surveyor that set that monument meant to set that pin on the line (and thought he did, along with the landowners).
OK - 53 posts in the last 12 hours .....
please keep in mind its close to my bedtime
Sung to the tune of "I'm a girl watcher"
I'm a line bender
I'm a line bender
bendin' at P.I's
Why, why, why
I'm a line bender
I'm a line bender
Here comes one now
Mmmm, mmm, mmm
I was just a boy
When I threw away my toys
I found a new pastime
To dwell on
Whenever I detect
A senior line with delta left
I play the game I do so well, oh
I'm a line bender
I'm a line bender
bendin' at P.I's
Why, why, why
I'm a line bender
I'm a line bender
Here comes one now
Hello there, mag nail
My, my, but you do look swell
The calcs say move
'bout 5 ft. over
I wonder if you know
That you've been putting on a show
Too late to move
a little closer
I'm a line bender
I'm a line bender
bendin' at P.I's
Why, why, why
I'm a line bender
I'm a line bender
Here comes one now
Mmm, mmm, mmm
The corner...
> If the guy on the north says that that pin is on his south boundary line, no matter if it does put a bend in the line, that pin is the corner. There are some instances where you could argue otherwise, but really, this is not much different than the OP. There are many instances where you should bend a line through a monument.
Where in any evidence has the guy to the North has been involved at any time? We can all create facts to make any answer correct. This isn't an if then question. With the sketch above, and the post yesterday. My understanding this sketch is meant to be a new wrinkle in yesterdays post. With that logic maybe the guy to the North created a subdivision, had is own survey following the true line, now 6 lots are affected. He never knew of the corners set on the Jones Eastman Survey, but did know of the two corners marking his South Line. Those are created facts that have no bearing on this either.
I still stand by my post.
I HAVE THE ANSWER!
Apparently the fate of the Survey world hinges on this question, here is the answer:
The monuments are 100% accurate.
The 500' number in the Deed has a precision of +/-4'.
The corner...
Not creating any facts. Doesn't matter. Disregard that I even said that. That pin is there and has been for 50 years. You bend the line through that pin. That monument marks the bounds of the property and has since the surveyor set it there and those landowners relied on it in good faith.
I HAVE THE ANSWER!
:good: :beer:
I am going to bed. Glad you straightened that out DK. 🙂
The corner...
I could agree if it was within the parent parcel, not involving other parcels, with different ownership. This example doesn't have any occupation, or improvements affected. I still believe the line should be trimmed North. The line to the South could have a different result. In this case the parties involved would need to see the evidence, and have their input considered. In most cases they can come to a fair agreement, then tie that agreement to the survey.
If they wanted to fight over it. I guess I'd be calling my mentors, and making a post here. Along with researching similar case decisions. Looks like a good job for time and materials, or a surveyor most likely is going over budget.
Have a great night all. Bed time for me.
The corner...
On a side note. The senior rights posts received more comments than anything on the site. Maybe we need a sub-category of land surveying for senior rights.
The best answer I heard on any of them was " I'm for senior rights, they should have as many rights as us young folks". Now that was funny and clever.
Paul's Arrogance and Obtuseness, Reply 2
Paul said:
"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."
Evan Page said:
"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):
I disagree.
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.
I disagree, acceptance requires soome act, such as a fence. As far as we know, they were unaware where they were.
- Both Jones and Eastman were aware of the 1960 survey and its irons. Neither made any objection to their locations.
I disagree. Facts not in evidence.
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.
I disagree. Jones may have assumed the pins were correct.
- 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.
I disagree. Not all of the above are facts.
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.
I disagree. There is a distinction between the w'ly 500' and the remainder.
Paul in PA
David, You Are Assuming A Survey Showing Pins
The surveyor could have set pins and produced no map.
The surveyor could have set pins and produced a map that did not show pins.
The surveyor could have set pins, produced a map showing that, which map was lost by the client and eventually removed from the surveyor's records.
Everybody keeps assuming the best from a surveyor that could not meet extant standards.
Paul in PA
You take the "right line" as marked on the ground and intersect it with the "right north and south lines" as marked on the ground. If you will not accept the more recent division why would you accept the previous one? Just because you measure perfectly 1000 does not mean I can't find a problem with those pins based on adjoining deeds and evidence. It's almost certain there is a metes overlap or gap that could be displayed on all of the lines of the larger tract. How far back and how geographically extensive are you going to "correct" the work of all previous surveyors? Hopefully you can eventually work your way from Virginia across the entire nation. My clients keep telling me there is some magical point of beginning to be found that will make all things come into harmony. Let us know when you find it.
OK - 53 posts in the last 12 hours .....
> and only one person even started to answer my questions. So I'll repeat them.
>
I thought that I had addressed the questions, but apparently not in a direct enough assault.
> 1.) What do you do about the pin that is set 10' onto the neighbors land on the North side?
>
Investigate. There is absolutely no evidence given in the "sketch" other than the spacial relationship (measurements) between the monuments. When will a retracing surveyor ever find the monuments "on line" or "at distance?" Never. Yet, we expect it every time and we obviously have little idea of what to do when we find it. We're talking about some blatantly fundamental survey laws, here. This is stuff that we discover every day. I am astounded that many in the surveying profession have no clue (other than some errant text book response) how to approach the problem of "how to determine a boundary location." In fact, most of the text books on surveying being written today go to extreme lengths in an attempt to divorce the surveying profession from the responsibility of determining boundaries.
There is no known boundary law in existence that allows determination of a boundary based upon spacial relationship alone. All the sketch tells me is that it's time to negotiate an addendum to my contract with the client. I have to gather more evidence to explain the conflict between the evidence found (or not found) in the record with the evidence found on the ground. I need to know who was involved, which neighbors are involved, what was the level of their involvement, what is the origin of the pipes, etc., etc. I need evidence; evidence which can be used to determine the boundary. Any attempt to judge the monument or the deed elements as controlling is completely premature. It's nothing less than a guess.
> 2.) What do you do about the pin that is set 10' off of the South line creating a little triangle to the East?
>
See answer No. 1. The fact that the monument is recovered out of position is no surprise. The question still remains. What evidence is available to disprove the monument? If the evidence can't be mustered to disprove it, then the presumption of its correctness stands.
> 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.
>
The fact that the "pins are not where they 'should be'" has nothing to do with boundary law. Face the facts; the pin is NEVER where it "should be." Usually, we hope they're "close enough" that no one will care or that the difference won't matter. That's not boundary determination, that's a short-cut method to giving up because it's not worth the effort to figure out minutia. If a surveyor ever is asking whether a monument is "where it should be," they've completely missed their responsibility as a "retracement" surveyor. Our duty is not to "fix" or "correct" any discrepancies in the measurements of another. Our duty is to gather the evidence to prove the boundary has or has not been established in accordance with the rules of law. If it's been established, then retrace the line as established. If it's not been established, then survey it in reliance upon the best available evidence (and no, that doesn't mean "just stake the deed.") Sometimes that does mean, "just stake the deed."
In this case, and given the apparent presumption that the monuments have, for some reason, not established the boundary (which is contrary to the fact that the monuments are there)... The monuments would be meaningless and wouldn't be used as controlling anything. Just stake the 500 feet (to your best ability within the current standard of care governing your survey) and place the monument on line (to the best of your ability, using a no more than a 3lb test monofilament on a windless day with no fewer than three checks on the final position by closed loop in both directions to statistically confirm the placement as if it's going to be use to construct the super-collider).
What do we do if the boundary between Eastern and Western has been established and while the boundary between Eastern and Northern has not? The found monuments control for position one way (east-west) but not the other. Retrace the boundary between Eastern's parent parcel and intersect it with the boundary controlled by the found monuments. That's the text book answer. Remember, however, that's only in a vacuum of evidence and circumstance. A failure on the surveyor's part to gather the evidence necessary to fill the void, when the evidence is available, is nothing less than negligence. It is the surveyor's duty to gather the evidence BEFORE rejecting the monuments. Most likely, the evidence is there and the monuments are accepted as a result of the actions that established the boundary location.
> 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.
>
Yes. It's a division that has already happened before you got there. That means that you should be retracing the line. Only a complete insufficiency of the evidence to establish the line will allow you to "change hats" and take on the role of an original surveyor. That's the same whether you are in the PLSS or in a colonial state. The PLSS didn't invent common law rules for surveying. They were established centuries before the PLSS existed. It's the same common law for every boundary you ever survey anywhere in the US. You are either, 1) retracing an existing boundary which has been previously established, or 2) laying out a boundary for the first time as an original surveyor. There is no role for the "fix it" surveyor.
> The whole point of my original post is to make the point that you can't just hold pins where you find them.
The whole point of my response is to point out that you can't just reject pins where you find them either. Blind rejection is actually worse than blind acceptance, because the existing pin does have the advantage that it is presumptively correct. Now if you can gather enough evidence to prove that the boundary has not been established by the running of the line on the ground (in bad faith), then reject the monuments. The evidence you gather will give no consideration to the measurements.
> And then how do you help correct the problem?
If the evidence is available to make the determination that the boundary has been previously established on the ground, and you've gathered the evidence necessary to prove it, then there is no "problem." You've determined the boundary location. The only duty the surveyor now has is to DOCUMENT the location and the supporting evidence so the next landowner (or surveyor) will know the location of their boundary and why it's located there. There is no "problem" that needs to be brought to the landowners to resolve. Errors in measurements are survey issues, not title issues or issues which should arise to the level of a dispute. Too often (in fact, most of the time) the surveyor, in a tizzy over the mismatched numbers (exposed only by his measurements), sets off the neighborhood alarm by declaring that there is some "problem" to resolve because they've discovered an ambiguity outside of the deed record.
The alarm bells are sounded and the neighbors immediately take sides against one another as if they are given the right to claim ownership to one of two (or more) "possible" boundary locations. That's just flat out WRONG. It's contrary to boundary law and it's contrary to common sense. Before we run amok in the neighborhood under the guise of "correcting the problem," we'd better first make certain that WE aren't the PROBLEM that needs to be corrected.
Has anyone ever read a case where the courts used measurements to disprove a monument? I've read literally thousands, and never once have I seen such a case. Then, why do surveyor's think it's OK for them to use measurements to disprove monuments? Have any of us ever seen a deed distance or a plat distance that was wrong? Then, why do we think it's a "problem" that needs to be fixed when we find a difference between a measured and record value? We freak out at the though that our analytical minds just can't warp itself to consider that there may be facts "which lead us away from the theoretical results that we ought to reach" (as Cooley put it). It's easy to play "measurement expert" and "mathematical genius" and it's apparently the only thing we are being taught (it's all I was taught and it's taken me years to relearn). It's time to consider the Law on Boundaries and time to learn how those laws affect the survey process. They're not difficult and the courts expect us to know and follow them.
JBS
Metae, As Used In The Roman Stadium
> Was borrowed from metae, the Roman surveying term for the limit of a measurement.
>
Not sure what you're using as your source information there, Paul. The Metae wasn't a term at all associated with "measurements." It was a term used for the big, giant pillar at the turning point in the chariott race. The "metae" is the "monument," not the "measurement."
The Justinian Codex required the surveyor in a partition action to "divide the field by metes and bounds." That meant to divide the field be physically dividing it with physical monuments along the boundary and at the terminal points.
> The decadence of the Roman stadium came long after Rome was organized laws and measurements.
>
Not sure what your point is. Clearly, the terms were contained in the Justinian Codex. Are you suggesting that the unnamed stone monument came first, then the chariot race was devised to utilize the existing monument? I suppose they could have erected a 10' tall stone pillar (the metae) and a 6' high wall between the two metae, then stood back and asked each other, "Now, what should we call it, and what should we use it for? I know, let's use it as a calibration base line for all our "measurements," er, I mean "surveys."
JBS
JBS:
Re: "Has anyone ever read a case where the courts used measurements to disprove a monument? I've read literally thousands, and never once have I seen such a case."
Isn't that precisely what the court did in Aspinwall v. Dunleavy? (Supreme Court of Oregon, March 13, 1917; I don't have the reference numbers but I saved it from the Knerr thread of yore):
JB
An awesome post and thank you for taking the time to compose it!
It is a very good discussion of Surveying 101.
One can see from some of the posts how we have pin cushion corner monuments and how double lines come to exist where only one is necessary as originally established.
Keith
On to the next level .....
John:
"And then how do you help correct the problem?"
"If the evidence is available to make the determination that the boundary has been previously established on the ground, and you've gathered the evidence necessary to prove it, then there is no "problem." You've determined the boundary location. The only duty the surveyor now has is to DOCUMENT the location and the supporting evidence so the next landowner (or surveyor) will know the location of their boundary and why it's located there."
I'm with you about all the way. BUT, this problem on clueless to the law is much bigger than just ignorance of some surveyors. Maybe there is no "problem" with the law and true "The only duty the surveyor now has is to DOCUMENT the location" but a yet larger problem still exists. It's ingrained into the system to totally reject the solution and documentation of the boundary location. Title companies, public officials, planning departments, landowners, this list goes on and on of common sense rejectors. Bottom line to me: fixing it can't be done just by the surveyor coming around to understanding boundary law. The disrespect for surveyors goes to thinking you've came from outer space when you display the reality and truth of boundary law to most of these folks running the system.
So take what under the law is a well established boundary but with a ambiguity with the deed of record. Client wants to do a subdivision or any land use application where the system needs to review and approve it. Well, from my experience the system will reject your by the law boundary determination. They will want (or probably require) the SLEDGEHAMMER SHOTGUN QUIT CLAIM DEED Fix to bring the record into shall we say mathematical perfection. Yeah, and they hold the aces at this point, your clients project is dead in the water until the system gets its cookie and compliance. Your client won't know whom to believe the surveyor or the system.
And on top of it all the system guys hold not only Aces but most of the face cards. They have the money to force legislation, they have the clueless respect of the public, they have the leverage to either insure or not insure the financing, and to reject the recording of a boundary agreement.
I'm all for bringing the law to land boundaries, but from my view unless a client is willing to go to court in some far off land from view of the system, there is not much chance that the law will prevail. A landmark supreme court case won't even phase the system one bit. They just go on ignoring it as before.
And also, when the SLEDGEHAMMER SHOTGUN QUIT CLAIM DEED Fix is used you don't need to determine about anything. No evidence required, no analysis, no case cites. Just get em to sign and record that sucka and everything is peachy. You don't even need a surveyor for this, about anyone with a GPS or measuring tape can do this. Legal boundary analysis and boundary law just gets in the way. Wouldn't surprise me one bit to see a bill pass the legislature next year to this effect. The surveyors bucking the system will finally be put aside. The Borg will be complete!
Your right, Duane. Obviously, the whole problem here is that the 1000' monuments are wrong. We need to fix those first, then we can fix the 500' monuments and make everything right with the world. No gaps, no overlaps. That'll surely eliminate the debate, right? ;o)
JBS
Scary aint it? Lets throw all monuments in the sea, for some old fool come around here and wanna survey you or me. (compliments to Lynyrd Skynyrd)
