Boundary establishment doctrines such as acquiescence and implied BLAs move the boundary.
They don't move the boundary; they give effect to the physical boundary per the Deeds.
The 1/16th corner is the 1/16th corner where it is not where it "should" be mathematically. So on and so forth.
Carl,
Any hint at what those changes in BLM might be?
Keith-
It would create a firestorm for poor old Carl, take up a lot of bandwidth here, send some of us to the Romper Room, and it wouldn't change anything.
But thanks for asking.
Carl,
I am having my own problems with the hierarchy of Cadastral Survey in the Washington Office.
Being real non-responsive!
But, we will pursue!
Keith
Dave,
I agree with your take on the myth(s), but have a problem with the word choice used.
“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.”
I don’t see them ever becoming original monuments. The first surveyor stakes his opinion as to where the boundary is (per deed or map…), but that does not elevate the monuments to original status.
In reality the marked line is the boundary due to owner acceptance, honoring over time, reliance and the belief that the line so marked is the true boundary.
> That is a good topic and right in line with my bogus theory!
Now, I'm pretty sure you didn't mean to say that, did you, Keith?:-)
Don
Keith-
You have my full support.
Best of Luck.
Carl
Let me put it this way.
If a Deed was delivered, then the grantee said to himself, "I need to hire a Surveyor so I can know where my boundary is" then did so, then the Surveyor came and set the monuments subsequent to the Deed and the Grantor watched all of this and silently agreed with the location of the new boundary.
That is the very definition of an original boundary and there are literally hundreds of Appellate Decisions to this affect. It's to the point where the Courts don't even cite the authorities, they simply say, "it is well settled..."
> Dave,
>
> I agree with your take on the myth(s), but have a problem with the word choice used.
>
> “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.”
>
>
> I don’t see them ever becoming original monuments. The first surveyor stakes his opinion as to where the boundary is (per deed or map…), but that does not elevate the monuments to original status.
>
I have to agree with Dave. They are either original monuments or they are not. A surveyor can only be either a retracing surveyor or an original surveyor, there is no other "duty".
> In reality the marked line is the boundary due to owner acceptance, honoring over time, reliance and the belief that the line so marked is the true boundary.
True. That is why they are "original". If the line has been previously marked, the following surveyor's only duty is to find where the original monuments were set - then the "new" monuments are merely replacements.
Ok, coming around to this idea.
But, if this is the case, then there doesn't appear to be a need for the First-Surveyor Concept.
> But, if this is the case, then there doesn't appear to be a need for the First-Surveyor Concept.
.... and that is a good thing, throw away the non-existant. 🙂
Perhaps the "myth" that should be discarded is that there is any such thing as an "original monument." This golden goose has been elevated in surveyor's consciousness for a long time. Yes, there are "original surveys" and there are "retracement surveys." When we speak of monuments, we have "controlling monuments." A monument set by an "original survey" (defined as a survey performed prior to the conveyance) is a "controlling monument" only after it is subsequently relied upon by the landowners in accordance with a rule of law which establishes their boundary. A monument set by a subsequent surveyor (the first, second, third, etc.) is a "controlling monument" only when it is subsequently relied upon by the landowners whose actions establish the boundary. A fence post set under the appropriate conditions with proper intent of the landowners and subsequently relied upon by the landowners establishing their boundary is a "controlling monument."
The surveyor's duty in every retracement survey is to recover the evidence necessary to prove which monument is the "controlling monument." That determination requires retracing the footsteps of the "original surveyor." It also requires retracing the footsteps of landowners through time. When the existing boundary has not been established (by the owners) it's the surveyor's duty to understand and apply the rules of construction to determine the intended location of the boundary. The surveyor's opinion and the monuments he sets are entirely meaningless (i.e. not a "controlling monument") until they're subsequently relied upon by the landowners to establish their boundary.
First show me the monuments, then show me the evidence and rule of law supporting which is the "controlling monument."
JBS
:good:
"A Surveyor Can't determine Intent"
One of the most damaging (in my opinion) "myths" is that property can be conveyed by "unwritten" means. I have forever read and been taught terms such as "unwritten conveyances" or "unwritten property rights" (including a variety of "unwritten" methods for creating a boundary).
I've research court cases from across the country and can find not one single case which affords the concept even the slightest thought. The statute of frauds, active in every jurisdiction, prevents the notion entirely.
The legal doctrines supposedly associated with the unsupported concept are actively taught as taboo under the guise that determining "unwritten" boundaries is not within the surveyor's purview. This popular "myth" promoted by our profession has stripped the profession from their responsibility to determine boundary locations which is the very purpose for which we are licensed. It has been the root cause of untold boundary disputes caused by inaccurate surveys performed contrary to legal principles.
The courts have continually chastised our profession by using such words as "technically correct but maverick survey" and by stating that the "visitation of the surveyor" might be seen as a "great public calamity!" Why do the courts see it that way? Because the surveyors are being taught that "it's not their job" to determine boundaries, when the public requires them to provide that service. Not only is it expected of us, no other profession is allowed to make the determinations.
Which brings up another "myth"... Only courts can determine boundary locations (or property lines).
JBS
Great post JB,
There seems to be some surveyors who only accept "original" monuments and will therefore ignore "junior" monuments that are not on that senior line.
Talk about a myth!
I have never really considered "original" monuments that much more holy, then subsequent monuments that have been set and accepted by the land owners.
The myth is the senior line between "original monuments" can never be bent through junior monuments that were established on a retracement of the senior line.
Again, I think of and refer to my many 1/16 sec. cors. that I established on the senior section line of the PLSS. The above myth would not accept those monuments.
Keith
Thank you for the clarification JB. We (I) sometimes (too often) say and/or write "monument" when we are actually refering to "corner". The corner is what we are supposed to finding, the monument may or may not be evidence of the corner location.
