I have just read the Lucas article in the latest POB magazine and it discusses a case in Missouri and the problem is with the subdividing of a PLSS section.
Before I comment further, I will need to read the actual case as I am not sure from the article, on which line the court held?
Right up front, it appears to be another example of the bogus theory that the section subdivision lines are ONLY at the exact position as protracted, and not previously monumented.
Comments?
Keith
I believe, the 'court' did it correctly.
Which line did the Court accept; the one based on the monument or the one based on the new paper corner location?
I took it as, they accepted the existing pipe, but on rereading the article doesn't really say.
That is sorta the conclusion that I came to?
Will have to read the court case!
Another case akin to cutting off the wrong leg but doing a beautiful job of sewing up the wound (that analogy is a Lucasism).
So Dave, which line did the Court decide on?
Skimming the link Doug provided, the Court held that the existing pipe called for in numerous Deeds is in fact the Government lot corner.
"Specifically, the court noted that it was 'not unreasonable for Mr. Arnold to have believed, in his professional judgment, that the `existing pipe' from which he commenced his survey was the proper commencement point for a survey of the [Adamson property].'"
and
"The trial court determined that Arnold acted in a reasonable manner under the circumstances and did not breach any duty to Appellants. We agree. Arnold's survey utilized existing physical monuments to locate the boundaries and corners of the Adamson Property as described in the deed of title."
I thought the article was too vauge. Just another excuse to bash surveyors based on one bad decision.
Doe it make any difference to the court once they have ruled what a surveyor has to say about the court's decision? NO THEY DO NOT, they expect compliance. He kids what do you think happens when DADDY decides it's bedtime? Like it or not your a$$ is going to bed.
[msg=157526]Previous thread on topic[/msg]
Unless the Superior Court comes along after the reversal to make the same decision but at least they cooked up different reasons.
OOF!
ogomgomg
It is PURE FOOLISHNESS to try and make this out,SOLEY, as problem caused because a surveyor who failed to execute a proper retracing survey, not accepting found monuments. Apparently, the surveyor WHO CAUSED ALL THE HAVOC was unable to follow even his own preious surveys. Nope nopey nope more going on here than a surveyor failing to accept a found monument... gotta love it- the client's for the guy that makes a hash of everything blames the other surveyor for negilgence...
from the case
("t is one of the settled rules of the law of boundaries that calls for courses and distances, quantity, etc., will, in case of a conflict, be controlled by, and yield to, one for a natural object or landmark or permanent artificial monument."). The trial court had before it the various deeds and the testimony submitted by the parties concerning the Adamson property and found that while it is now known that the "existing pipe" was not the actual government corner, there was overwhelming evidence in the chain of record title that the point where the "existing pipe" was located was recognized as the "government corner" in many prior surveys and deeds.
Dane
I like your comment so much I think I will frame it and hang it on my wall.
>Just another excuse to bash surveyors based on one bad decision.
If your sample size is based solely on reading appellate decisions for boundary dispute cases, then half of the surveyors in the U.S. are always going to be wrong.
Hasty isnt it ironic
Hasty is the name of the guy who caused all the problems, is it an apt name I wonder?
Sorry line bender,
I didn't remember that your thread was about this same court case.
Keith
What I have taken from the article is a reinforcement of the concept that Jeff Lucas has frequently made before, particularly in the case of the State of Missouri. He is only reinforcing concepts explained clearly by Justice Cooley and others going much further back in time.
The concept is that although state legislatures, in their own well-meaning way, have adopted "minimum standards" which will apply subsequently to all surveyors and surveys.
Minimum standards, when they relate to the care of research, the standardization and perpetuation of monuments, the mathematical closure required in certain surveys, tend to benefit the public. Going beyond that and requiring that a certain outcome be obtained through an inflexible process depending on say. manuals of instruction not in existence during the original surveys, or any other arbitrary schemes simply reduce the professional surveyor to a technician who is required to follow a rote approach.
This case is an example. The surveyor needs to understand that the courts are not bound to follow new laws which apply to surveyors, and not to the rights of property owners. The courts will follow the professional surveyor and not the technician, regardless of "minimum standards".
:good: Well said Mr. Zeiss.
