I am working on a small boundary survey (7 acres) in West Virginia. The east line of the property runs in a north-south direction and is approximately 1100' in length. The deed description for that line reads as follows:
"...to a hickory; thence, southerly 1100 feet to a fence post at the corner of the Hoback land, on the main Swanson Road..."
I recovered the fence post. I also recovered a stone with an "X" about 230' south of my northeast corner, where the "Hoback land" corners. (See sketch)
A survey in 1998 recovered these same corners, and extended that line north and set a rebar at the distance recited in the deed. I recovered that rebar as well. About 14' southwest of that rebar is the hickory tree called for in the deed. The 1998 survey does not show the hickory tree or make any mention of it. That hickory tree is at a 3-way intersection of the remnants of an old barbed wire fence line. Also, between the hickory and the stone, is a white oak with 2 hack marks and barbed wire remnants, marked as a line tree. I have no doubt that the hickory tree is the original corner.
The 1998 surveyor created a gap between the two properties. Has the rebar become the corner? Has the passage of 17 years relegated the original hickory tree to "just a tree"? What are your thoughts?
That's where his data collector said the corner was. He didn't need any other evidence, I guess. So you have a 14 ft pincushion.
A key question would seem to be whether there has been any reliance on the iron.
Did he split the property or just retrace. Seems to me that there are only two title interests involved as opposed to three. Regardless, as mentioned before, acquiescense plays a part at this time.
There have been no major improvements based on the set rebar. They did encase the rebar in concrete and set some t-posts along the line. There isn't much that could be done with this portion of the property, as it sits on the back side of a hill, pretty steep. It is all wooded and there isn't any timber to speak of in the questionable area.
He retraced the boundary. Yes, there are two interests involved. There is no discrepancy with the line between my client and the "Hoback Land".
Show the lines just as you showed us. I believe the original corner is still the original corner. Show the other as a hatch area. Indicate the claim of the other surveyor. Get parties together and work it out. Might take a few Attorneys to fix it.
The Quasi-Judicial Function of Land Surveyors
Personally, I would never perpetuate garbage like that, but I would show on my map the conflicting rod/t-bars along line and "show" WHY either through a note, annotation, ect, of how I came to my conclusion.
I'd love to ask the guy who set the rebar what his problem with the Hickory was. I'd hold the "ancient" evidence, show my client the problem, and go about with business as usual.
I don't see a gap if you have direct evidence relating to the original deed and lines of occupation. I see a surveyor that in 1998 boned a retracement and set a monument to perpetuate the error of his ways.
Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get me.
What did the 1998 retracing surveyor say when you called him?
IMHO the hickory tree is the corner...
> The 1998 surveyor created a gap between the two properties. Has the rebar become the corner? Has the passage of 17 years relegated the original hickory tree to "just a tree"? What are your thoughts?
>
>
And...your client stands to "lose" 14 feet if you do the job correctly. Any way you can get the other surveyor to correct his survey?
I would do my survey per my professional opinion, note/show what other "evidence" I found (the rebar) and explain what where the lines are in my notes.
If you perpetuate the rebar as the corner, I think YOU would be creating an overlap that will almost certainly require an attorney to rectify,
It's not possible to speak with him about it.
I agree. I have went through several different scenarios, playing devil's advocate, to try and use his corner but I cannot get away from the hickory tree. I spoke with a couple surveyors here and came up with the same thing. I figured I would bounce it off the surveyors here to see if anyone mentioned anything I haven't considered. Thanks guys.
I need some more information.
Was the 1998 survey a retracement of your tract, or the one to the east? Is that survey of record in the chain of title?
It just dawned on me that the tree is a natural monument, and when called for in the deed is the corner, regardless of where it may be relative to anything else...
Brian Allen pointed it out the other day. The owners need to be brought in. Did he set the rebar where the owners remembered another hickory tree? In any event I would hold off recording a survey until I had the rest of the story...
The 1998 survey was a retracement survey of the parcel to the northeast. It is on record.
Does the description previous to the survey call for a bend at your corner?
I wouldn't give any weight to it being recorded. That still doesn't make it correct. Is it a law to record retracement surveys where you are?
The tree has been there a lot longer than 1998.
Just show your findings and thoughts adequately.
I take his answer to mean that the description showing the pin instead of the tree is now in the chain of title.
Don't fall in.
I like your sketch. You show where both solutions are. Now you make your determination that the Rebar was wrong and show the resulting encroachments. Contact the other surveyor and provide a copy of the deed with Hickory Tree highlighted. Ask why he did not recover the evidence. Prepare for a loud response.
No, the deed descriptions still call for the hickory tree. The 1998 survey was recorded because the surveyor's client recorded it. WV is not a mandatory recording state.