Survey Myths being advanced…

Wire stretched between wooden posts sticking out of the ground is always the boundary line.

There is only one correct solution in every situation. That, of course, would be MY SOLUTION.

The FIRST solution I jump on, is the right one.

N

"Property lines don't change"

People do, however, do things to affect property lines.

The rest of the story:

Quote from Brian:

I have not read your proposed text yet. However, be sure to teach actual property boundary law as it applies to land surveying. DO NOT perpetuate the many "surveyor myths" that have been advanced by past "experts" whose incorrect views have infiltrated our once proud profession., in fact, expose and defeat them.

I am sure you have read some of my posts on the bogus theory of Bouman and Robillard in the Clarks book on surveying.

This bogus theory teaches that only the protracted subdivision of section lines are the only evidence of those boundaries and should be put on the ground at the exact protracted positions. All other evidence is to be ignored.

You could try and expose this bogus theory and do us all a favor.

Keith

The topic question relates boundary law or theories purported by textbook, lecture, or print article authors.

Keith is on the right track here.

The center of section is always at the intersection of the quarter corners.

That is a good topic and right in line with my bogus theory!

That one should assume an old fence signifies either original agreement or good faith effort at locating a title line.

Conversely that one should assume that a fence is just a fence.

That the first surveyor's attempt to mark a title line gives rise to original surveyor status simply by virtue of being first.

That reliance by a portion affect location of all.

That after a five minute search, you declare the section corner "lost", proportion in a new one, and head to the next job before the farmers can load their shotguns.

:good:

I certainly agree that the term 'always' makes it a myth, but I would suggest that maybe the center of section is the intersection of opposing ¼-corners, and that when a monument is set at that intersection, (properly and with due care) it then represents the intersection.

A few to start with (other than the C1/4):

The plat or survey or whatever "drawing" is the best evidence of intent. (think back to the Garfunkel Subd.).

That there are actually 3 types of surveys we can perform: 1) original survey 2) resurvey/retracement 3) First surveyor (the erroneous concept advanced by Brown, Robillard, etc., where the "opinion" of the "first surveyor" is open to collateral attack based on methods and measurements.

That unless a monument is specificaly called for in the deed, it cannot hold unless it is at the exact called for distance.

The many erroneous "presumptions" that exist. Especially the one that a fence is presumed to be only a fence unless it is proven to be otherwise.

That a valid boundary by acquiescence or agreement is somehow an "unwritten transfer".

That a boundary cannot be established without a survey first being performed by a licensed land surveyor.

That boundaries are established by surveyors, and as such, any action taken by the landowners is secondary to what a surveyor has done.

That only a court can issue an opinion on where the boundary line is.

That there are many different lines that we must find and show ie: "record line, "deed line", "plat line", etc.

I think that a boundary law course should start right from the very basics such as what is a property boundary? How are boundaries created and who can create them? Can boundaries "move", and if so by what operations of law?
The course should, at the least, include an intense study of statutory and common law. I cannot see how boundary law could be thoroughly covered in just one or two courses, but I have been wrong before.

Erasures in field books make field books inadmissible in court. That one's been around forever.

Just last year a seminar presenter said that Texas surveyors were in violation if they didn't put the State Board's contact information on each document/correspondence leaving the office. (He was using an extrapolation of a rule that says it must be shown in the surveyor's office). He was challenged and back pedaled.

Our own State investigator said that Texas surveyors could only place their seal on documents with certifiable boundaries. This was in contradiction to the rule regarding affixing seals to any work the surveyor felt competent in (ie topographic surveys, control surveys, volumetric reports, etc.)

Dad to this day "returns to the place of beginning" in his descriptions because he was instructed early in his professional career (I think by Ted Madsen) that you shouldn't use "point of beginning" because it denotes a precise location that mathematically isn't true (closure error).

I find it's the "experts" that promote this kind of crap so as to fool people into thinking they really are "experts". I find it intellectually insulting.

The myth that avulsion is fast and accretion is slow...

DDSM
(Happy Birthday Jim)

You are right, if you are the first one there and there is no other evidence!

"A Surveyor Can't determine Intent"

There are surveyors, at least one in CA claiming to educate others, who are adamant that a boundary surveyor has no place determining the intent expressed in a deed when performing a boundary survey. In fact, some will proclaim that if you do determine intent, you are incompetent or negligent and should have your license revoked.

To that I reply - shout "BILLSHUT!!!" (or something like that)

It is impossible to survey a boundary without discerning the intent as expressed in a deed. If you purport to survey boundaries without having determined what the intent expressed in the deed is, you really must be incompetent because while you purport to be surveying the boundary, you are also stating that you have no authority to make a determination what the boundary is. So whatever you are surveying, it would be the boundary only by coincidence as it apparently can't be your intent to be surveying the boundary since you believe you have no right to know what the boundary is.

Boundaries are created according to the intent of the creating party or parties and the deed description is an attempt to express that intent in writing. Sometimes what they write is clear and expresses that intent without any ambiguity. Sometimes the words seem clear enough until physical evidence of the line as originally established by those parties indicates a differing location (latent ambiguity - not a possible new line by unwritten rights), and sometimes they really screw it up and create an unworkable/unlocatable description (patent ambiguity). There's no reason that a surveyor shouldn't attempt to resolve a latent ambiguity if the evidence exists to do so with reasonable certainty.

The other myth is actually a set of myths that others have alluded to: That there is one correct way to perform particular survey tasks and services and that all other methods are demonstrations of various levels of negligence or incompetence. i.e. "The W 50' of Lot A is always exactly 50' perpendicular distance from the West line of Lot A (as I would measure it today, with my total station). Any measurements made by and stakes set by the landowners making the original deal be dammned!"

or... "The C 1/4 is always at the intersection of the lines between opposing exterior 1/4 corners. If a monument happens to be in the vicinity of that position, but not where my measurements today would place it, it may represent unwritten property rights, but it isn't the C 1/4."

IMO, anyone who has this attitude either 1) doesn't have much experience, or 2) has become too smart to be taught anything more or to learn from (or even recognize) new experiences.

I hope I never become that smart.

One of the biggest myths which is perpetuated is the simplistic concept that the PLSS does not really vary much from state to state and that the most recent "Manual" from the BLM is the ultimate authority in retracing surveys in all of the PLSS.

Personally, I think that some major changes need to occur within the BLM, but as that is not going to happen anytime soon, it's best to teach the concept of the flexibility of a state by state approach to retracements taught by surveyors with extensive boundary resolution experience in each state.

That is right.

There are only two types of survey. Retracing an existing boundary or staking a brand new one. Generally it is presumed that the parties establish their boundaries.

If the first surveyor stakes the boundary and the property owners ignore his work then those monuments are probably meaningless.

On the other hand if the first surveyor stakes the boundary and the property owners put the monuments into use then they become original monuments. The following surveyor's duty is to recover them, not establish a new location.