The monument is the corner

isn't a better way of saying that being the monument is the end of a line?

Thanks, Holy.

It really is that simple, isn't it.

JBS

> This comment is offered in response to all the drivel below about the 2" bar being a gnat's-butt from matching someone's idea of mathematical perfection.
>
> The monument is the corner. It is really that simple.

It sounds as if you didn't follow that thread. The question was whether the 2 in. iron pipe in question that was placed in 1982 could have defined a line of a parcel that had been conveyed years previously and that formed the boundary of the parent tract subdivided. That was a question that Paul didn't provide enough information to answer.

While you may want to feel that any marker ever placed by any surveyor in the vicinity of any parcel corner automatically and permanently alters the location of an existing boundary, I don't get the idea that you'd find much support for that view in California law.

I disagree !!!!

The monument is only the corner if it is undisturbed! I'd hate to count the number of times that I've seen where a corner pin (pipe, whatever) is pulled out, a hole dug or drilled, a corner post or power pole is set, and the pin is driven along side. Are you going to tell me it is still the corner? I hope not! It may still be a "monument", but is sure as heck ain't the corner.

And other examples can go on and on such as Kent's story about a pipe moving 0.18' a couple of weeks ago. While I tended to scoff at Kent's insistance that he proved it had moved 0.18', if he can prove it then the monument no longer represents the corner.

I truly hope you don't believe what you stated because absolute statements will always have a contrary.

Is the monument the corner...

...the minute it is set? ...if the landowners don't even know it's there? ...if the surveyor blew an angle and put it 7.5' from where he or anybody else intended it to go? ...f it is one of four monuments all intended to mark the same corner (real situation I'm faced with this week)?

The monument is the corner when the affected owners rely on it to mark the limits of their occupation and control of a parcel of land and an error in the description does not nullify the validity of the monument.

Once the monument has been in place for a specified length of time by statute, the affected owners cannot challenge it.

If there has been reliance on the position of the monument to control the position of an improvement that requires municipal approval, the monument cannot be challenged
after a reasonable or specified length of time.

A surveyor, who has no ownershiop interest in a parcel of land, has no authority to deny the validity of acts of the owners that create a boundary by establishing a monument that differs in location from an 'original' monument.

The surveyor's primary professional obligation is to detect, and provide a means to correct, errors in our land records system.

Richard Schaut

Once again, I disagree ....

except for an original GLO corner set by someone with authority to set it, a surveyor's mistake does not create title or ownership!

Once again, I disagree ....

"mistake" - Are you kidding?

That pipe was not set by mistake.
It was set to mark and perpetuate the deed corner and has been recognized as such.

>That was a question that Paul didn't provide enough information to answer.

I have done my best to do so. It may dribble in at times, but I am not dwelling on this 24/7. I am also of the opinion that the 2" pipe would stand up as being the corner for all the instruments that are common to it in any court of law. It has been in place, undisputed, for 28 years.

The monument IS NOT NOT ALWAYS the corner

In California, a surveyor's primary responsiblity is to protect the public. Sometimes there is a need to re write A description, in the example of where a lot line adjustment or a boundary line agreement is decided upon as the best solution to a particular problem. Genreally deeds are considered to be binding on the parties and not something to be casted aside at the whim of a surveyor. Especially since the surveyor is usually not bound by the terms of the agreement, as they are not a party to the agreement.

A survey performed by a private surveyor under state authority is ALWAYS SUBJECT TO COLLATERAL ATTACK. The private surveyor does not enjoy the same legal status as a surveyor working under federal authority. The are laws that protect the federally executed survey, these safeguards simply do not extend to the private survey.

So the monument is NOT ALWAYS the CORNER. The corner is a legal construct that exists seperate and appart from the monument, with respect to the private survey. The federal survey has different rules and this is the arena where the case can be made for the corner and the monument being one and the same.

When we are egaged in our primary function to protect the public, we are asked to gather evidence. We examine the evidence and arrive at a professional opinion. A professional opinion is not the regurgitation of dogma, but rather a professional expression coming at the END of a rigorous process.

Perhaps we could better serve the public interest if we consider a few questions, with regard to acceptance or rejection of physical evidence in realtion to measurement evidence.

Is the difference material?

Is the difference di mimimus?

Will acceptance of the physical evidence cause controversy and disharmony in an otherwise peaceful community?

Will rejection of the physical evidence cause controversy and disharmony in an otherwise peaceful community?

Will acceptance or rejection result in defeating the intentions of the parties to the agreement?

Will acceptance or rejection interefere with a SENIOR RIGHT?

Is there any evidence that defeats the presumption that monuments control?

These are just a few of the consideration for acceptance or rejection of a physical evidence.
If you do not have the answers to these questions,based upon evidence, then I would suggest that you maybe failing your primary responsiblity of protecting the public.
🙂

An Original Monument In The Original Position Is The Corner

If the original monument moves it merely becomes a witness to the fact that the corner is nearby. Our job is to recognize that fact, not correct it in every case.

For those that would change the record because they somehow find some diminimus difference, I say they are in fact corrupting the title.

For instance on a 100' square lot they would have you believe it is necessary to change the bearing of a line by 1 second because they have found that the corner monument has moved 0.00048 feet, 56/10,000ths of an inch, less than the width of a black hair.

In some cases these corrections are less than the actual real world error in doing the survey, yet these surveyors persist.

Paul in PA

I missed the prior thread, but I would agree with Holy. The monument is the corner.

Merlin

This is the reference thread..

http://beerleg.com/index.php?mode=thread&id=17012

and I might add, it's not 'drivel'. Dr Watson deals in drivel;-)

The disturbed monument isn't a monument

> I missed the prior thread, but I would agree with Holy. The monument is the corner.

Well, don't you have to fudge the definition of what a monument is to conclude that some surveyor's mark that has been beaten up, pushed around, bent over, pulled up and replaced by fence builders is still a monument of any sort, let alone one that proves the location of a boundary corner described in a writing?

The monument IS NOT NOT ALWAYS the corner

Check CA Stats 321-322. They deal with established physical boundaries that have been in place and honored by the affected owners for a period of 5 yrs on deeded land.

Ignorance of the law is only valid for lawyers and judges because they are not qualified to enter onto the land, recover and evaluate established physical evidence.

Richard Schaut

The disturbed monument isn't a monument

From Wigmore;’s compendium on “Evidence”, 2nd. Edition, Vol. 5 Section 2476:
“It is not necessary, and it is not humanly possible, for the symbols of description, which we call words, to describe in every detail the objects designated by the symbols. The notion that a description is a complete enumeration is an instinctive fallacy which must be got rid of before interpretation can be properly attempted. …”
See also Judon Fambrough's 'Use it or Lose it' article Mcmillan posted which can be found at www.recenter.tamu.edu, Tierra Grande archives, for a Texas specific explanation of when physical evidence trumps a record.

A writing simply tells a surveyor where to look, the established physical evidence tells the surveyior where the boundary is.

Surveyor's have no obligation to perpetuate a record, that is the owner's responsibility and the owners have the authority to alter a previously established boundary but neither said owner nor their lawyer are qualified to replace the existing inaccurate record description with a correct one; only a competent surveyor is qualified to provide that professional service.

Richard Schaut

The disturbed monument isn't a monument

Know your state laws, Richard! All titles in the United States are held adversely! All titles are allodial, so your attempt to nullify the rights of the adjoining landowners to shift their boundaries is expressly forbidden! Remember, a comptetent surveyor could clean this whole thread up with a one paragraph affidavit recorded in the Miscellaneous Records!

The disturbed monument isn't a monument

its all in the details of the job.
Sometimes it is, sometimes its not...it all depends on the details.

The disturbed monument isn't a monument

I have to say that TRAINING and/or an EDUCATION lets you know the answers aren't as simple as first believed.