Could be. We would still like some answers to questions. After all, I paid for the survey. The board just said that they determined that the surveyor did his work in a competant manner.
"A caution to the original poster: Hardly ever are the actual field measurements identical with the deed distances!
Land Surveyors use all evidence of the lines that they are retracing and sometimes that evidence does not measure the same as the deed.
We also refer to this surveyors who blindly use the deed distances and ignore all other evidence as "expert measurers" in a technician sort of way."
I understand completely. What we really want is an explanation for why he placed one particular part of our property boundary over 100 feet away from a fence that he found, which included a fence post next to an iron pipe in the ground! That was for the middle tax lot.
And also why he used a different starting point for the third tax lot than what was called out in the deed.
Survey Done Competently But Lines Are In Error?
Actually as others have pointed out, the measured bearings on the survey reference "grid" bearings from a state plane coordinate system. These are neither astronomic or magnetic bearings. It depends on where you are located from the central meridian (north/south starting line) of the state plane system. If you where located at the central meridian then grid north would be "true north" but as you get east or west from there then the bearings vary by a term called convergence. Have your surveyor friend explain it to you.
It sounds like you have a problem and history that needs to be sorted out from common law not laying your deed description on the ground. Not all surveyors can help you with this, not all lawyers either. You need to get a specialist that understands the boundary establishment laws in your state, can sort out the evidence and form an opinion on where the boundary has been established (or not). From there it would depend upon whether you and the neighbors accept the opinion or not. If a dispute is in hand you may go to court and make your half acre or so very expensive.
If you can work with your neighbors and want it all sorted out and then described from an accurate new description then you could use a procedure called a boundary line adjustment where you agree to the location of the boundary and then execute conveyances to the line. Money can exchange hands here to make it about anywhere you like, just make sure you don't violate a zoning ordinance. With foreclosure and lenders in a mix this may be a bit tricky but a foreclosing lender might want it all cleared up also.
Anyway, if you find the right specialist your problems probably can be worked out.
"Are they parcels that were deeded by metes-and-bounds descriptions rather than by reference to an existing recorded map or plat?"
Yes.
"And if so, were they surveyed at the time they were created? "
I don't know for sure, but the surveyor found a burried iron pipe next to a fence corner, which is about where we all think the deeds say the corner should be. The surveyor didn't think so.
"The difference between North 70 degrees West and North 73 degrees West might be significant, . . ."
It is significant, if the radius of the circle is 46.5 chains and you are looking at the tangent distance that far from the center of the circle.
"Survey markers 100 feet out of position would be extraordinary. I've been surveying for about 40 years and have seen them 15 or 20 feet out, but nothing like 100 feet. Are there any occupation lines such as fences, walls, hedges, or ditches, and if so how do the markers compare with them?
The only way to be sure of what's going on is to have a new survey prepared. Look into any legal issues after that."
Before we filed our complaint, my friend (who is a licensed surveyor in Washington State) did look at all of this, and had a brief dialog with the original surveyor. We paid him for this. We will be doing a new survey and are quite certain that it will show boundary lines fairly close to the old fence. My friend did run all numbers through his software.
All of this came to a head yesterday, whenever I received the letter from the board. I have asked the board for the details of their investigation (the questions they asked the surveyor, his responses, and so forth), as well as if there are any accuracy requirements in state law (regarding how close a stake in the ground has to be to a position called out in a legal description in a recorded deed.)
"1) Meet with the surveyor and have him walk you through his survey, evidence gathered, and his decision process."
Did that first. He told me to piss up a rope after a few emails, that I, as a layman, didn't understand surveying techniques.
"2) Hire a competent surveyor to thoroughly review the survey in question and perform another survey. Make sure the surveyor you hire is well versed in property boundary law in your state."
This is currently where we are. He has not performed the formal survey but he has reviewed the deeds and fed all data into his software.
"Meet with your neighbors and try to work out the differences of opinion of the location . . . ."
I think we all would probably agree that the legal boundary is the fence. That's consistent with all of the deeds.
". . . . .and hire a competent surveyor to help you monument and properly document your solution."
The fence is shown in the proper location on the survey map that the guy drew up and recorded. The problem is that the stakes he placed in the ground, and the property corners he drew on his map, are, in one specific case, over 100 feet away from the fence!
"Hire an attorney who is competent in property boundary law in your state."
I don't think the neighbors have a problem. I have a problem with the surveyor! I guess my first question, to a lawyer, would be if a survey map, drawn and recorded in 2003, has any kind of legal standing against deeds conveyed and recorded in prior years. Or possibly how to handle a case where that map, and the deeds, are not consistent.
Who wrote your deed and added the reference to the survey. Why didn't they just use the previous deed description or even the original. Looks like a tax description to me lifted from a tax notice. This causes all sorts of problems.
Probably the true intent of the conveyance was to convey all the property owned. If some land was intended to be retained they should have noted it or have some use for it.
You are likely to blow the doors open here if we get into the gap - overlap thingy.
Survey Done Competently But Lines Are In Error?
"Was there in fact a hearing on your complaint?"
After filing the complaint, I got a letter saying that the Practices Committee of the Board would do a formal investigation of my complaint and that they had assigned an investigator to review it. My complaint consisted of all deeds, surveys, and emails/letters between myself and the surveyor, and between my consultant friend and the surveyor. My complaint was that there were significant differences (over 100 feet and 3+ degrees) between the legal description of the properties and his survey.
I next heard, yesterday, that the case manager had recommended the investigation be closed with no further action. He concluded that the surveyor did the work in a competant manner.
So, after filing my complaint, my only contacts were the above two letters.
"Did you attend said hearing with contrary information?"
I don't think so, beyond the Board meeting where they agreed to open the investigation and the meeting last week, where they agreed to close the investigation. I was not notified, beforehand, that my complaint was to be addressed at either of these meetings.
"You just may have precluded any legal basis for action against said surveyor."
I would just like him to return the money we paid him for his survey, or for him to re-do the survey, or for him to pay for a new survey, or for him to correct his recorded survey!
The problem you have is a typical one and has to do with location on the ground of what you own. These problems are caused by writings and actions of people over extended periods of time and are not usually caused by current surveyors opinions. The survey merely brings them to light.
Here, you have a typical situation where there is conflicting evidence of the location of the boundary lines per field and record evidence. The surveyors opinion is evidence of ownership and so are the deeds. If you end up with a conflicting surveyors opinion, then you have a problem that can be fixed. THat does not mean either surveyor made any mistakes, merely that they have differing professional opinions. This happens all the time where legal matters are concerned. Attorneys argue differing outcomes and legal rules, courts overturn each other and have dissenters in their ruling opinions.
Neither the deeds nor the maps are conclusive or outweigh each other. Neither surveyors opinion is controlling over the other. Assuming you end up with two surveyors in disagreement, and that one can not convince the other to reconsider and change their opinion (usually this would take an offer of new evidence that was not found by the other surveyor), then you could try to get a written agreement from the adjoiners to the line you want. If that fails, then you have to file a legal action and get the court to rule on which survey opinion they agree with, or they can rule the line is in a completely different location than either surveyor opinion. If you don't like the ruling of the court, then you can appeal their decision and see if a higher court will rule in your favor.
The mistake, if there is one, is probably in purchasing a property without first obtaining a surveyors opinion of what you are buying. But it appears as though you may have purchased with full knowledge of the surveyors opinion and simply chose to ignore it.
Whatever the case may be, it is one of the risks of owning land and the costs are the responsibility of the landowner. If we could all get our money back for unpopular professional opinions, advice, or legal decisions, we could all get rich. Of course then no one would be willing to offer professional services and we may be back to the duel or small armies to resolve boundary disputes.
I do wish you luck in resolving the matter peacefully and successfully.
More Likely Your Deed Does Not Match The Survey
I'll stick with my comment "Your Deed Does Not Match The Survey" versus the opposite.
I see a lot of problems based on conditions you state and from what I read between the lines in maps and deeds. Your survey was probably more work than the surveyor ever imagined, hence part of his reluctance to stay engaged.
A survey of a parcel with multiple exceptions over many years is always a challenge. Here in a metes and bounds state those exceptions are also in metes and bounds and can be fitted in. In a PLSS state there seems to be a great desire to stay with familiar aliquot descriptions, your own deed being no exception. In my opinion metes and bounds deeds should have been on record for your area. In my opinion the survey maps have more and more reliable information than the deeds, however all is still not clear. I do not see that the survey maps highlight critical items. For instance the P.O.B. of the survey tract should be referenced in BOLD text, it should include the deed book and previous map reference. Ties from reference monuments to the POB should be noted as "ties".
Each exception should be shown and notated with it's POB, deed and map reference. Common lines to the surveyed parcel should include a course # reference, bearing and distance, deed/map and measured on the exception side. The survey deed/map information goes on the side of the same line. It is a cross indexing of information. Done properly it allows a future surveyor or knowledgeable layman to know what was in the surveyor's mind when he made his conclusions. It is easy to have reference to an ancient exception deed and/or survey, a more recent adjoiner deed and/or survey, a chain of PQ deeds and/or surveys and the most recent conclusions. Showing a pipe here but the line there without good referenced reason is unacceptable.
I see no problem in a different POB along the way. Each should include it's ties to reference monuments. In the end you survey should begin with a complete plat of Government Lots 5 & 6.
Once a metes and bounds survey is complete, a metes and bounds correction deed should be filed.
I live in West Easton, PA but my brother worked for Alcoa and lived in Oakmont in the '70s. We visited quite often and were in Oakmont to see Franco Harris's immaculate reception at his neighbor's football party. Quite a day. We were also there the weekend Johnny Miller won the US Open. Many of the golfers rented whole homes in Oakmont for the week, some on my brother's block. I enjoyed those cobblestone streets.
Paul in PA
OK, El-Lobo
You are actually the kind of client I like. You want a real survey, and you want no shortcuts.
My candid advice is to circulate in your area, and visit all the surveyors in your area, and show them your general work sketch, along with your plat from the previous survey, so that they can wrap their mind around it fast.
Explain what your problem is.
One of these surveyors will likely have the ethics and cajones to either:
1.) Explain why the 1st survey is correct. (Expect to pay him for his time)
2.) Be willing to survey it correctly. (Expect to pay MORE than the last survey, and it will take some time)
Either way, be willing to invest a bit of one on one, sort out the surveyors, and you will likely wind up at the bottom of this mess.
Just my 2 cents, from Arkansas.
I find surveyors often live by the 3G syndrome.
GET the job (cheap price)
GET it done (Fast Service)
GET on to the next (Shortcut the job, and git er done)
These guys have liability, and actually plan to pay on their shoddy work, if they HAVE to!
HAND (Have A Nice Day)
Nate
Nate, Paul, Duane, et al.
Thanks for all of your help/opinions. I am fairly certain I know what happened, and why.
Here are the facts:
1) The whole parcel is well defined (in all deeds and surveys) as: "That portion of government lot 6, section 10, towhship 10 north, range 9 west, W.M. lying westerly of state route 4, northerly of south valley road and easterly of Salmon creek."
2) The northerly boundary of the whole parcel is the Naselle River.
3) We own this whole parcel except for 3 parcels of land that were sold off, the first in 1908, the second in 1942, the third in 1948, as indicated in both the deeds and the survey, with this wording: "Excepting therefrom those portions conveyed in Volume 56 of Deeds at Page 50, being tax 26, Volume 114 of deeds at page 571, being tax 13, and volume 145 of Deeds at page 685, being tax 28, records of Pacific County, Washington."
4) There are no recorded surveys of these three tax lots, and each deed has verbiage giving the 'metes and bounds' of each lot.
Here is the problem:
1) The starting point for the first two of the tax lot deeds is: "The Quarter corner between Sections 10 and 11, Township 10 North of Range 9 W.W.M."
2) The starting point for the third tax lot deed is: "Northeast Corner of Northwest quarter of Southwest quarter of section ten Twp 10 North Range 9 West of W.M."
3) The third tax lot deed references the second (adjacent) tax lot deed with this wording: "Thence, east along south line to county road 167 feet." The corresponding description, in the second tax lot deed, reads such: "Thence east 150 feet more or less to County Road."
4) This is the only connection between tax lots 2 and 3. That is, tax lot 3 mentions tax lot 2, but tax lot 2 never mentions tax lot 3.
Here is the premise:
A surveyor should be able to start at either of the two section/township/range corners called out in the above deeds and get to the other one using the 'metes and bounds' found in the three deeds.
Here is an assumption:
If one were to do this, there would be an discrepency of either 17 or 34 feet along the common boundary of tax lots 2 and 3. (My guess is that the numbers 150' and 167' in the above two deeds are simply reversed, that is, deed 2 should read 167' while deed 3 should read 150')
Here is a question:
If there is this discrepency, how would it ever be resolved, how will it affect the boundary of our property, and, most importantly, how will it affect a survey?
Here is the final fact:
Our surveyor only used the first starting point for his survey (tax lot 2, or "The Quarter corner between Sections 10 and 11, Township 10 North of Range 9 W.W.M.")
Here is a final guess:
All of the above is how the surveyor defined his terminology 'ambiguous'!
"Excepting therefrom those portions conveyed in Volume 56 of Deeds at Page 50, being tax 26, Volume 114 of deeds at page 571, being tax 13, and volume 145 of Deeds at page 685, being tax 28, records of Pacific County, Washington."
So who added the reference to the survey in your deed? I'm not sure the reference to the survey is all that controlling but I'm just curious how that got in there.
There are patent and latent ambiguities. A patent ambiguity would be one that could be recognized directly from the deed. A latent ambiguity is one that become apparent when further evidence is found on the ground. If a latent ambiguity is found then evidence of the boundary location found on the ground that differs from the deed can be used to locate the boundary as well as testimony from knowledgeable parties and such. The goal is to get the boundary located where is was intended to be from the start and where it has been located.
Whether there was a latent ambiguity before the survey there probably is one now as the survey marks a line different from where you say all has thought it was before the survey. The latent ambiguity allows extrinsic evidence from outside the deed to be considered in the boundary determination.
Take for example the pipe at the fence corner. It's not called for in the deed. You need to get some info about the pipe (or best have a surveyor gather the info). Interview older past owners, find out if there was some survey (non record) that someone has that indicates placing the pipe or the pipes origin. Who built the fence to the pipe, for what purpose and when. Maybe its just a pipe a landowner(s) put in the ground, maybe its a past survey marker. It could take a lot of effort to sort it out and you may not be able to.
"So who added the reference to the survey in your deed? I'm not sure the reference to the survey is all that controlling but I'm just curious how that got in there."
Here is the timeline. Up through 2003, there were no surveys and there were 4 property owners (our original, plus the 3 current tax lot owners.) 'Our original' owner traces back to the people who conveyed the three tax lots (in 1908, 1942, and 1948).
In 2003, our property was sold, and the conveyance deed had the aforementioned metes and bounds (govt lot 6 less the 3 tax lots). The purchaser of the property then hired our surveyor to do the first survey of our property. That is the survey I posted previously. He put the stakes in the ground, drew up the map, recorded the map with the county. This map had the aforementioned tax lot references at the top left of the map.
That is, the legal description of the property, in the conveyance deed, was simply duplicated on and made part of the recorded survey map.
Our property was then sold to someone else and we purchased the property from them. We again hired the same surveyor to do a boundary line adjustment that did not involve the disputed boundaries. Basically, the original parcel was 8.5 acres and we split off 2.4 acres. The 6.1 acre part is the one with the disputed boundaries.
We sold that 6.1 acre parcel, and the conveyance deed for that sale referenced the boundary line adjustment survey map, which was also recorded with the county. There are no differences between the 8.5 acre and the 6.1/2.4 acre survey maps, with regard to the disputed lines. I believe the surveyor is the one who included his boundary line adjustment survey map into the conveyance deed. At least he was the one who recorded the survey map with the county.
We then bought back that parcel (we held the paper and the buyers defaulted), then quit claimed the 6.4 acre parcel to our daughter, who is the present owner.
Since the survey maps show metes and bounds for the 3 tax lots that are diffent then the metes and bounds within the deeds referenced by the survey maps (angular difference of 3+ degrees, distances over 100 feet), one or the other is in obvious error.
Neither the iron pipe or the fence show up in any of the deeds. They both show up in the two survey maps.
(In my newbie opinion, which is always humble!):-)
Have you solved this problem?What resulted in?
Have you resolved this matter??ÿ
You may have to go to El Lobo's page and send him a message to get your answer.
Never came back and told any end of the story.
