Recording requirements greatly reduce the number of pin cushions and when they do occur one knows which came first, and why there are others.
For the record I have never found such a pipe so how does one drive a pinched (crimped) top pipe without destroying the pinch? Back in the 80's the office ordered 2"x 24" pipes with the bottom 2-3" smashed flat and that flat part cut in a V like our lath. Those drove real nice but I guess they cost too much and we stopped getting them.
I drove the pipe first. Then I had a nice set of vice grips large ones where we had welded some flat steel on them. And had a pair of channel locks squeeze and tighten squeeze and tighten. Or if you were lucky you could get them pre cut and crimped. They drive just fine. It’s the thicker walled pipes that hold up not the thin walled conduit type stuff. If you got them pre cut it and crimped man they were nice.
Calling all Texas surveyors. Please educate those in the other 49 States on how to do it correctly.
I get a kick out of the survey report method of a survey that takes eight pages of text to describe a six-sided tract. In some other States, the same tract would be described with metes, but no bounds, in six or less lines of text.
Several years ago, prior to my accident, I received a call from a fellow surveyor who was in the midst of doing a survey for a tract that was a portion of the tract I had surveyed a couple of years prior to that. He told me how he was finding everything great until he got to this one corner that fell in the road bed of a rural crushed limestone road. His metal detector assured him there was nothing at the corner or anywhere nearby. He grabs a rebar to reset the corner. It goes down about three tenths and starts bouncing back up. He grabbed his chisel and built a moat around this bar until he discovered his bar was neatly resting on the top of my bar. My sledge must of have been bigger than his and had knocked all the magnetism out of the bar.
A couple of years later, the same fellow was helping me on a survey. One existing corner did not appear to exist. Identical situation. I'm the one doing the search and working very hard trying to find the bar I could remember setting with great exertion. Same story. No magnetic signal whatsoever, but, there it was.
Could that "no magnetic signal" be one of the reasons for a few of the pin cushions we find??
@holy-cow just had one of those this weekend. Pacing through the woods along a back line. Ding ding mag locator goes off. I start kick all the fall leaves and making a nice circle see the pin. Get a good radius cleaned out around the pine tie some new flagging on. Locate Ck distance back to last pin. It was off about a foot. I grab locater start searching around nothing. I said well may it is what it is. But grab tape pull back the distance and start probing with bush axe well there it was dug it out only a couple tenths under the dirt. Flag locate it. And carry on. That thing never set off the locater. One of the pinched tops along the front I knew had to be there same thing looked and looked. Last day I computed a distance between the two rods either side along the arc and just dug. Found it. Sometimes you just know it has to be there and just dig.
Could that "no magnetic signal" be one of the reasons for a few of the pin cushions we find??
I guess so. But stones cedar stakes those surveyors before us and still to this day find them. And they didn’t have the precision equipment we have today. Cris oak post burned in the ground. Coke bottle turned upside down no located is finding those. You just find enough evidence and then go back and narrow down the location and start scratching the earth. I spent most of the weekend on this project that truly should have only taken a few hours. But when discrepancies arise you just have to bite your tongue and keep going till you have done your due diligence to prove the mons you found are what you found. It’s hard if a crew chief is not given the plats deeds and only some coordinates to search by. Or at-least the PM or someone has looked over the evidence research and sorta give. Them some guidance beyond just coordinates. I probably spent a half hour to an hour looking over the plats and such I had after my first initial pass before going back and saying something isn’t right and looking more. Of course this thing had been done in the 70’s and many small lots vacated into larger ones and still many lots that have never been touched or buion just grown up etc. so not much possession evidence either.
Sometomes passing a strong magnet over the area suspected of harboring an iron will leave enough magnetism for the detector, especially if the iron is shallow.
There is a large power line over part of our church property that seems to work like the bulk eraser used with old tape recorder reels. I have rejuvenated a corner iron with thst method.
I also experimented with a strong pulse magnetizer where I could find no monument and wound up finding a 16d nail. Still no big iron there, though. Experimenting with a known iron demonstrated effects at distances corresponding to depths of 6 inches.
I wonder if there would be a market for such a tool. It consisted of a 14 inch diameter coil with multiple turns of wire and a high voltage capacitor bank discharged into the coil. Think of a defibrillator driving it. Dangerous voltage if not used carefully in my crude implementation, but it could be turned into a safer version.
@bill93 Every metal detector should add that capacity to discharge magnetism to an area where there is no tell tale sound from the detector. The first company to add this capacity to their detectors will corner the market.
If you can show by clear and convincing evidence that the parties to the original deed knew about that monument and its location when they executed the deed then that monument may be controlling of the property described in it. That's a pretty heavy burden in most cases. And it's dignity would be in the nature of estoppel, not hierarchy of deed calls.
It's an easy one, 1957, yellow painted Iron pipe with a homemade cap, 8 years before the first deed showed up. Slam dunk. That's what good lead paint can do. LS102. Anyone disputing that one should never survey again.
Back in the days when surveyors were men.
OK, it existed in 1957. Still to be proven is that both of the parties knew about it when the originating deed was exchanged and agreed that it was controlling. Then answer the question- if they knew about it and considered it controlling why wasn’t it called for in the writings?
@norman-oklahoma Are you arguing that monuments can't be controlling if the parties were not aware of them at the time of exchange of deeds? I can show you millions of property owners who are unaware of the monuments that control their properties. All urban subdivisions where the vast majority only presume where the corners of their property lie and have actually never been aware of an existing monument. What am I missing when you say the parties had to be aware of it for it to be controlling?
If monuments are called for in the writings we may presume that the parties knew about them. If they are not called for we can't make that presumption. The fact that they existed, that each of the parties knew about them, and considered them controlling has to be proven - the burden of proof is going to be on the party that wants to consider such monuments controlling. Not impossible to prove, but its a very high bar.
If by chance both parties want to consider uncalled for monuments controlling then we have a case of unwritten boundary agreement. If a surveyor sets monuments that each party is aware of, perhaps because they are are reasonably visible, that forms an objective basis for the parties to agree. They can memorialize such agreement by actions, or they just let them sit unchallenged for an extended period of time and they ripen.
There are no called for monuments in this area for any old deed that I've seen.
You will have to prove these monuments wrong.
If math is the thing no monument in a large area (400 acres of 1-5 acre tracts) will ever fit and none are called for.
The commencement point for the deeds is the NW corner of the SE4SW4, thence 440'E, thence 770' south to the POB, thence NxxE, 120', ect, ect to the POB, that description doesn't close by about a foot.
There is one notable pin cushion with 4 conflicting monuments which is the commencement point.
If you were to reject these monuments I guess you would put some math in a program, crank on it for a while and set some shiny new pins somewhere in the area, there isn't any physical acceptance for these monuments by occupation except there are some barb wire strands on a tree nearby one, so I guess that might count.
I've got no rational reason to reject these monuments. I suspect all across the county similar situations arise. Probably that's why beginning in the era of computers in the late 60's and forward pin cushions proliferated. I ain't gonna put any here.
One corner, one monument!!!
Prove it wrong!!!
If you can show by clear and convincing evidence that the parties to the original deed knew about that monument and its location when they executed the deed then that monument may be controlling of the property described in it. That's a pretty heavy burden in most cases.
The fact that they existed, that each of the parties knew about them, and considered them controlling has to be proven - the burden of proof is going to be on the party that wants to consider such monuments controlling. Not impossible to prove, but its a very high bar.
How are you defining "controlling"? Are you thinking in terms of evidentiary burden of proof in a trial? I know from your previous posts over the years that you're aware that a PLS needs only a preponderance of the evidence to make his determination. I find it unlikely that you'd set a new rebar and cap in close proximity to a non-pedigreed axle wrapped in five flavors of deteriorating flagging and a bit of colored cloth.
It seems like you're trying to use caution about presumptions, and I agree with that, but the inverse of your reasoning is hard to accept: If you can't conclusively prove a monument was observed by the, often deceased, parties of the first part of a land conveyance, the monument is not controlling?
There are no called for monuments in this area for any old deed that I've seen.
I'll presume that there is a call for Section, Township, Range, etc. That's a call for the GLO work, which is a call for the monuments of that work.
There are grounds for accepting found uncalled for monuments of unknown origin. It just isn't on the basis of some fictional "original surveyor doctrine". It's on the basis of doctrines of unwritten boundary establishment. Scenario: Owners exchange deeds without any monuments set or called for. They don't know just exactly where their common line actually is. So they hire a surveyor who sets his marks. If both parties approve of them they act in accordance with them, and that's classic unwritten boundary establishment. But if either one or both does not like the results, and chooses not to accept them, there is no agreement and those "original surveyor" monuments are not controlling. It's not the setting of the first set of monuments that has any special meaning, it's the acceptance of them by the parties that matters.
Notably, a person cannot be expected to have an opinion about something they do not know exists. Therefore, if one side does not know about the existence of a monument, they can't agree to it being controlling.
Furthermore, if the parties to this first sale and subsequent survey, call them "A" & "B", agree and then "A" sells to "C" and "B" sells to "D", "C" & "D" will be bound by the agreement "A" & "B" made, whether they know about the survey and its monuments or not. The common problem for the surveyor is to prove that "A" & "B" actually made such an agreement when the current owners are "X" & "Y".
How are you defining "controlling"?
I simply mean that if a monument is called for and is undisturbed, then it controls the location of the corner. And if a monument has been accepted by the adjoiners as the basis for an unwritten boundary agreement it becomes controlling. Nothing more.
If ..I were to find a fresh yellow cap in the vicinity of an old axle or rifle barrel I'd certainly be leaning toward acceptance of the clearly older monument. But it's not a slam dunk. Monuments can get disturbed, maliciously or accidently. Luckily almost all of my career has been spent in recording state where pincushions are more rare, and when they do occur we have a better idea of the provenance. Usually a case can be made for accepting the older monuments, but some thought is in order. The simple existence of a remote piece of iron, no matter how old it might be, just isn't enough.
From the Washington case of Merriman v. Cokely:
"At issue is whether the boundary line claimed by the Merrimans was sufficiently certain and well defined before Ward Willits erected the barbed wire fence in 2002.....The trial court here found that from 1993 to 2002 the area along the lot line marked by the original survey stakes became overgrown with blackberry bushes, weeds, and ivy. The Merrimans did not dispute this finding on appeal, and it was supported by substantial evidence in any event. Despite this finding, the Court of Appeals majority held that the survey markers and adjacent posts were sufficient to establish a certain, well-defined, and physically designated boundary. But where the disputed area is overgrown, more than isolated markers are required to prove a clear and well-defined boundary. A fence, a pathway, or some other object or combination of objects clearly dividing the two parcels must exist. ..... Illustratively, in a case in which there was no fence and no defining point of cultivation (apart from a row of pear trees along the purported boundary line), we held that no well-defined boundary was established. ...... In another case, the Court of Appeals found insufficient a retaining wall constructed of railway ties that extended a short distance into the beach area of the disputed waterfront property, since there were no other “monuments, roadways, or fence lines” along the disputed boundary. .... The three widely spaced markers in this case, set in a thicket of blackberry bushes, ivy, and weeds, did not constitute a clear and well-defined boundary. Substantial evidence supported the trial court’s findings to this effect.....Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals ...."
I'll presume that there is a call for Section, Township, Range, etc. That's a call for the GLO work, which is a call for the monuments of that work.
All the deeds in the area call for the SW1/16th corner, it has 4 monuments attempting to establish it. I've never given any credence to any of them. This area is a patchwork quilt of adjoining descriptions and they are monumented with pipes, rebar, and these really nice old 102 stamped monuments. I don't shift anything from the Thence east, Thence south reference call from the SW1/16 to the point of beginning. It's interesting, but not authoritative.