Mark
I have to agree with Foggy. My definition of an original monument is the one that is first set before, or after, the initial conveyance and that is generally accepted, or should be accepted, by the parties as being the original demarcation of the boundary. There is adequate case law just about everywhere to substantiate that premise.
Remember the infamous "Lucas" thread of last year on this subject?
So, If Monuments Mean Nothing-Mark
This is/was the Mass. Land Court and nobody knew of the pipe and stones. It's in the woods on undeveloped land on Cape Cod.
To my knowledge the pipe and stones were never shown on a plan nor ever witnessed by any current abutters.
I was briefly involved at the inception of the case but was held back as a consultant when I started forming an opinion that my client didn't appreciate.
No Bar Unbent-Kent
> I understand that, yes, but when working in an older subdivision it is common, around here, to set the monuments after approval and recording of the plan. The monuments do not show on the plan but are found in the field after road construction and utility installation.
Okay, that's fine, I'm sure, but how does it relate to the topic under discussion, which was whether the act of erroneously setting a survey marker and showing it on a plat of record conclusively moves the boundary of some senior title, the assumption some are cherishing.
So, If Monuments Mean Nothing-Mark
So it's not on any plans and misses the deed dimensions by 50'. It must have been fairly apparent to have been found at all, or it was on occupation.
Why not post the text of the decision here?
Mark
I read Lucas regularly. I have yet to see proof from him that when a surveyor places a monument it automatically fixes the corner. It may fix the corner if it A)is called for in the deed or (B) is agreed, in one form or the other, to be the property corner by the adjoiners.
No Bar Unbent-Kent
A re-bar that has obviously been disturbed, bent that is, should be located at the point it enters the ground, not the bent top, in my opinion.
I don't believe it would move the line.
I think that your rehabilitation of the monument showed that it was set correctly when you drilled a little deeper to re-set the pin in the same location that it was originally set. Or did I miss something in the threads?
I agree with what you did. I would not hold an obviously disturbed monument.
So, If Monuments Mean Nothing-Mark
It missed the abutter's dimension by about 50', this client and the defendant's deeds are bounding descriptions without dimensions or bounds. Typical for around here. The surveyor found it by luck more than anything.
I'm not going to post a 19 page decision here.
So, If Monuments Mean Nothing-Mark
> I'm not going to post a 19 page decision here.
Fair enough. But I think we can fairly assume that this is much more than a case of holding a found monument just because we hold found monuments.
No Bar Unbent-Kent
> A re-bar that has obviously been disturbed, bent that is, should be located at the point it enters the ground, not the bent top, in my opinion.
>
> I don't believe it would move the line.
>
> I think that your rehabilitation of the monument showed that it was set correctly when you drilled a little deeper to re-set the pin in the same location that it was originally set. Or did I miss something in the threads?
Actually, that particular rebar wasn't originally set on the actual boundary of the tract being subdivided. All it was in effect was a witness stake on the lot line that had to be prolonged or shortened to intersect the boundary of the land that the subdivider actually owned. That particular survey was not so well made that there was any reason to think that the position in which I'd restored the bar wasn't where it originally had been (incorrectly) set.
Lucas, September '10
I might add a reference to Lucas n the September '10 edition of POB. In footnote 1 he states:
"The first surveyor concept falls short of an "organized body of ideas" and is not supported by the facts. It is more of a belief system based on arbitrary rules of surveying and surveying mythology"
So, If Monuments Mean Nothing-Mark
Drop me an email and I'll send you the decision.
it was very well written, IMHO....
So, If Monuments Mean Nothing-Mark
> > I'm not going to post a 19 page decision here.
>
> Fair enough. But I think we can fairly assume that this is much more than a case of holding a found monument just because we hold found monuments.
Well...I think that would be a good assumption. If that were the case, It would probably be more like a 19-word decision vs. a 19-page decision. 😉
Read that oregon case sometime that Keith Williams always liked to cite about holding a center-of-section monument over math. It had all kinds of wherefores and whatnots in association to holding that center quarter corner, and even then it applied to a specific set of properties properties and not to other properties in the same section. Case in point being that every situation is on its own merit and in the midst of its own set of circumstances.
So, If Monuments Mean Nothing-Mark
> Well...I think that would be a good assumption. If that were the case, It would probably be more like a 19-word decision vs. a 19-page decision. 😉
Exactly my point.
>
> Read that oregon case sometime that Keith Williams always liked to cite about holding a center-of-section monument over math.
That would be Dykes v. Arnold
I NEVER SAID OR INFERRED
I never said or inferred that any monument-looking object is a valid monument or a corner. What I have grown sick of is example after example of people on this site condemning anything that does not match their opinion of mathematical perfection.
First, the monument you find is the corner if it was set by the surveyor who conducted the first survey establishing said tract. It may be out of your preferred level of precision mathematically, but, it is, in fact, the corner.
Second, the entire monument is the corner. The corner is not a fly speck somewhere on or inside said monument. Anyone silly enough to only expose the top 1/8" of a monument needs to have their license removed permanently.
So, If Monuments Mean Nothing-Mark
Got it, Don. Very interesting. I'm going to have to block out some time to digest this.
At first glance it does not seem that the judge just blew off the found monument. In fact, he acknowledges that it is probably the same monument that is called for in the deed. It seems, instead, that the natural monuments (ie/ calls for adjoiners) held more weight than the artificial monuments (pipes and stones).
I NEVER SAID OR INFERRED
How about when there are standards to be met and the monument does not meet the standard in place at time of being set and most of the others are within those specs. in a subdivision where all were set as a group by the same crew. 0.3' can be a large error in a 50' line or even a 100' one. Now a half mile it could be well within the acceptable error. I depends is the only answer that can cover it all. Always and Never are words used by the unknowing.
jud
Very common situation
A fairly common measurement error is about two inches per 100 foot lengthwise and an inch or more laterally at the midpoint of that 100 foot length. The original surveyor was using a 100 foot steel tape with no corrections made for temperature, tension or slope. The monuments were set on one side or the other of the tape. Placing a half inch monument on the opposite side of the tape will introduce at least an inch of lateral error. Add this to the two inch shortage lengthwise and you have approximately a two inch ORIGINAL difference from what was reported on the plat. These add up rather quickly over hundreds of feet.
They are the ORIGINAL MONUMENTS AND THE ORIGINAL CORNERS.
I NEVER SAID OR INFERRED
> I never said or inferred that any monument-looking object is a valid monument or a corner. What I have grown sick of is example after example of people on this site condemning anything that does not match their opinion of mathematical perfection.
IMHO, I'd bet that the lath Paul found was placed by a field crew working from search coordinates. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I didn't see that a new corner was set, or that a Survey (remember, California is a recording state)was recorded.
> First, the monument you find is the corner if it was set by the surveyor who conducted the first survey establishing said tract. It may be out of your preferred level of precision mathematically, but, it is, in fact, the corner.
I'm not so sure. Please post a citation to a case that supports your assertion. This is what I opened my comments with - a request for a citation. No one has offered one. I know of none. Foggyidea sent me one that has 19 pages of mitigating circumstances. I'm serious that my mind is open about this.
> Second, the entire monument is the corner. The corner is not a fly speck somewhere on or inside said monument. Anyone silly enough to only expose the top 1/8" of a monument needs to have their license removed permanently.
When you adjust your traverse and ties in LS you get an error ellipse for each position you determine. If a mathematically calculated location falls within the error ellipse for the found monument then the monument is on the corner as far as I'm concerned. I'm even willing to double it - if an ellipse around a monument I might stake would overlap the found monument's, that monument is on the corner.
Very common situation
If someone wishes to buy or sell a specific dimension of real estate they can certainly do that can they not? Not in your world, apparently, if they have a surveyor on the job. Paradoxically, the buyer will possess the exact dimensions until he has it surveyed, then, for evermore, he will own something other than what the buyer intended to purchase and the vendor intended to sell.
> A fairly common measurement error is about two inches per 100 foot lengthwise and an inch or more laterally at the midpoint of that 100 foot length.
Oregon State Law requires that set monuments be within the greater of 0.1' or 1:10,000. ORS 92.050(2).
I NEVER SAID OR INFERRED
>
> When you adjust your traverse and ties in LS you get an error ellipse for each position you determine. If a mathematically calculated location falls within the error ellipse for the found monument then the monument is on the corner as far as I'm concerned. I'm even willing to double it - if an ellipse around a monument I might stake would overlap the found monument's, that monument is on the corner.
I disagree. If I accept a monument as the corner, I show my measured and record distance to that corner monument. My measured distance, is the final distance I get between monuments after I analyze/adjust my traverse information. I have one final measured distance (it is to a certain precision of certainty, but I report one). I disagree that there is some sort of standard of error in measurements that I base the acceptability of a corner monument on. they all have those 19-page decision factors associated with them.
