The Pincushion Effect by Jeff Lucas...

As mentioned in the thread below you can get 20% off by typing in coupon code JULYBOOKS11 (good to end of month).

He may have only one thing to say, 373 times.

His blanket statements such as "Property law and the law of boundaries demand that an existing monument that has already been placed to represent a property corner be honored by all following land surveyors." as repeated in the synopsis are (let's be polite) curious.

Perhaps someone can share how he backs that one up. 🙂

PS: OK, to heck with polite, it is just flat silly. But I suppose he can spin the construct of a situation where it is true.

Which Pincushion Corner is he refering to, if they were all established by a licensed land surveyor?

Well, not having read Lucas' book yet but being quite familiar with his writings in periodicals for years i would have to say that he is indicating that in the arrogance shown by surveyors who set a monument (rod etc) a tenth off an existing monument is astounding not to mention the fact that the original monument already monuments the line even if not exactly on the corner. Certainly some state Legislatures lacking the understanding of monumentation have passed laws requiring such foolishness such as pin cushion corners (ie. Florida) Sadly too many surveyors have come to think that if there is not a point (physical in nature) at the exact corner or angle point in a boundary that it is "not monumented" even if there is a marker within a reasonable distance. one of the finest examples of this would be City Street lines in a city such as boston where the very buildings themselves act as the monuments using the offsets from their corners and foundations as recorded by City surveyors for the last couple centuries.

How about this:

"In making a resurvey, the question is not where an entirely accurate survey would locate the lines, but where did the original survey locate such lines. Clark on Surveying and Boundaries, 2d Ed., Sec. 411, page 495; Kahn v. Delaware Securities Corporation, 114 Fla. 32, 153 So. 308; LeCompte v. Lueders, 90 Mich. 495, 51 N.W. 542; City of Racine v. Emerson, 85 Wis. 80, 55 N.W. 177; Dittrich v. Ubl, 216 Minn. 396, 13 N.W.2d 384. As stated in 8 Am. Jur., Boundaries, Section 102, page 819: "The object of a resurvey is to furnish proof of the location of the lost lines or monuments, not to dispute the correctness of or to control the original survey. The original survey in all cases must, whenever possible, be retraced, since it cannot be disregarded or needlessly altered after property rights have been acquired in reliance upon it." It is generally held, therefore, that a resurvey that changes lines and distances and purports to correct inaccuracies or mistakes in an old plat is not competent evidence of the true line fixed by the original plat. See Dittrich v. Ubl, 216 Minn. 396, 13 N.W.2d 384; Cragin v. Powell, 128 U.S. 691, 9 S.Ct. 203, 32 L.Ed. 566; City of Racine v. Emerson, 85 Wis. 80, 55 N.W. 177, 178."

and: "As stated in 8 Am.Jur., Boundaries, Sec. 59, page 78: "Purchasers of town lots generally have the right to locate their lot lines according to the stakes as actually set by the platter of the lots, and no subsequent survey can unsettle such lines. In the event of a subsequent controversy the question becomes not whether the stakes were located with absolute accuracy, but whether the lots were purchased and taken possession of in reliance upon them. If such was the case, the rule appears to be well established that they must govern notwithstanding any errors in locating them."

AKIN v. GODWIN
49 So.2d 604 (1950)

I can find many more if you are interested.

How about Texas:

"The Law Governing How to Find the Original Surveyor’s footsteps.
When finding the lines of a survey, "[t]he cardinal rule is that the footsteps of the original surveyor, if they can be ascertained, should be followed." Hurr v. Hildebrand,388 S.W.2d 284, 288 (Tex. Civ.App.-Houston 1965, writ ref'd n.r.e.); see also Humble Oil & Ref. Co. v. State, 162 S.W.2d 119, 132 (Tex.Civ.App.-Austin 1942, writ ref'd) ("The primary objective in locating a survey is to `follow the footsteps of the surveyor'; by which is meant to trace on the ground the lines as he actually ran them in making the survey."). If the actual lines and corners run by the original surveyor can be found, they are controlling, even if they are inconsistent with the calls and references in that surveyor's field notes. See Wheeler v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co., 151 Tex. 418, 252 S.W.2d 149, 151 (1952) (stating that the footsteps of the original surveyor are controlling and prevail over calls for course and distance); Thatcher v. Matthews, 101 Tex. 122, 105 S.W. 317, 318 (1907), (stating that when the actual lines run by the surveyor can be found, they constitute the true boundary and cannot be made to yield to course and distance calls); Teal v. Powell Lumber Co.,262 S.W.2d 233, 226-27 (Tex.Civ.App.-Beaumont 1953, no writ) (stating that "if the footsteps of the original surveyor can be identified and followed, they will control the location of the line or boundary in question even though they may not be in harmony with the field note calls").
When one can locate on the ground with certainty and without inconsistency the objects or monuments designated by the original surveyor "as marking the lines he actually traced . . ., the survey must be laid out from those points, and extraneous evidence cannot be admitted to contradict the assertion of the surveyor that he actually went to the points he so designated." Humble Oil, 162 S.W.2d at 132-33. However, if the location of the actual footsteps of the surveyor cannot be established with reasonable certainty, "all the surrounding facts and circumstances should be considered in order to arrive at the purpose and intent of the surveyor who made the original survey." Hurr, 388 S.W.2d at 288.
Thus, although the original surveyor's marks and calls are generally controlling, when the when the surveyor's marks have disappeared over time, the lines and corners of the survey may be established using any evidence tending to show their location that is "the best evidence of which the case is susceptible." See, e.g., City of Carrollton v. Duncan,742 S.W.2d 70, 72, 76-77 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1987, no writ); Angelina County Lumber Co. v. McKnight,265 S.W.2d 246, 249-50 (Tex. Civ.App.-Waco 1954, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Taylor v. Higgins Oil & Fuel Co., 2 S.W.2d 288, 300 (Tex.Civ.App.-Beaumont 1928, writ dism'd w.o.j.). Courts generally consider the "best evidence" to be "that evidence which is the more specific and definite as against that which is merely general and indefinite or descriptive." Taylor, 2 S.W.2d at 300."

TH Investments, Inc. v. Kirby Inland Marine 218 .W.3d 173 (2007)

Perhaps you can post cases and/or laws that require that an existing monument that has been placed to represent a property corner, has been represented as the property corner, and has been relied upon by the landowners, NOT be honored by all following land surveyors.

The Monument holds

> His blanket statements such as "Property law and the law of boundaries demand that an existing monument that has already been placed to represent a property corner be honored by all following land surveyors." as repeated in the synopsis are (let's be polite) curious.
>
> Perhaps someone can share how he backs that one up. 🙂
>
> PS: OK, to heck with polite, it is just flat silly. But I suppose he can spin the construct of a situation where it is true.

Easy, the measurement does not define the boundary. The boundary is defined by the original monuments placed by the original surveyor. Measurements are simply evidence of where the boundary is, one needs a preponderance of evidence to define the boundary. The measurement is just one form of evidence. Another way to look at it: measurements do not have a physical presence, a monument is physical evidence. So, to be brief: the monument holds

I know that some actually believe that the procedures in Chapter 3 of the Manual, apply to all subdivision of section surveys.

Some even have the really bogus opinion that only the subdivision of section surveys as completed by the chapter 3 methods are legal and all other existing corner monuments are simply "property corners" and are NOT the aliquot part corners.

Keith

Original Surveys in Texas

>
> How about Texas:

Brian, I think you may not be realizing how the term "original survey" is used in Texas. It doesn't mean the Lucas sense of first surveyor to pound a stake. It means the survey that actually was used in creating the boundary in question. For example, most of the classic Texas boundary cases deal with disputes about the boundaries of original land grants from the sovereign. The boundaries of those land grants were typically established pursuant to law in some fashion at the time of the actual grant from Spain, Mexico, the Republic of Texas, or the State of Texas. The original survey was that which fixed the boundaries at the time of the grant and which was typically referenced for description in the grant itself.

Another example would be the survey that placed the lot boundary markers shown on a subdivision plat and referenced upon it. That would in Texas be said to be the original survey of the subdivision. The first survey to drive a stake at some protracted corner is not considered an original survey, merely an attempt to realize the original surveyor's scheme, to follow his footsteps.

How about Wisconsin"

"In resurveying a tract of land according to a former plat or survey, the surveyor's only function or right is to relocate, upon the best evidence obtainable, the corners and lines at the same places where originally located by the first surveyor on the ground." Pereles v. Gross, 126 Wis. 122, 129, 105 N.W. 217 (1905) (emphasis added); see also 12 AM.JUR.2D Boundaries § 57 (2007).
¶ 19 The object of a resurvey is to furnish proof of the location of the original survey's lost lines or monuments, not to dispute the correctness of it. 12 AM.JUR.2D Boundaries § 57. If the original corners can be found, the places where they were originally established are conclusive without regard to whether they were in fact correctly located. Id. The priority of calls is, first, the natural monuments to which it refers; second, the artificial monuments the surveyor places to mark the boundaries; and, third, the courses and distances marked on the plat or survey. Miller v. Lavelle, 130 Wis. 500, 504, 110 N.W. 421 (1907); see also Timme v. Squires, 199 Wis. 178, 185, 225 N.W. 825 (1929) (natural monuments control over courses and distances).
¶ 20 Wolfe, the original owner, testified that he watched Wegner place the original stakes and that the stakes were in the same location when he sold the property to the Hannemans and when he showed the stakes to the realtor involved in the Hanneman/Geiger transaction. Thiessen testified that because the pipe did not meet his accuracy expectations, he decided not to use it as a boundary marker."

Do you suppose Thiessen was on the losing side?

GILBERT v. GEIGER
747 N.W.2d 188 (2008)

> Perhaps you can post cases and/or laws that require that an existing monument that has been placed to represent a property corner, has been represented as the property corner, and has been relied upon by the landowners, NOT be honored by all following land surveyors.

Lucas didn't say anything about how the monument was placed, representation, or reliance. Nor did he say anything about the condition of the title at the time the monument was set.
One size does not fit all.

The continual expounding of these simplistic mythical "rules" encourages the surveyor to jump on a rusty old post and call it gold without a thorough investigation of the entire situation at hand. I suspect he writes in that manner to illicit controversy rather to impart knowledge.

> How about Wisconsin"
>
> "In resurveying a tract of land according to a former plat or survey, the surveyor's only function or right is to relocate, upon the best evidence obtainable, the corners and lines at the same places where originally located by the first surveyor on the ground." Pereles v. Gross, 126 Wis. 122, 129, 105 N.W. 217 (1905) (emphasis added); see also 12 AM.JUR.2D Boundaries § 57 (2007).

"first surveyor on the ground"? Would that include a survey to establish an existing tile boundary? I suppose the case only involves the resurvey of a subdivision survey.

> ¶ 19 The object of a resurvey is to furnish proof of the location of the original survey's lost lines or monuments, not to dispute the correctness of it. 12 AM.JUR.2D Boundaries § 57. If the original corners can be found, the places where they were originally established are conclusive without regard to whether they were in fact correctly located. Id. The priority of calls is, first, the natural monuments to which it refers; second, the artificial monuments the surveyor places to mark the boundaries; and, third, the courses and distances marked on the plat or survey. Miller v. Lavelle, 130 Wis. 500, 504, 110 N.W. 421 (1907); see also Timme v. Squires, 199 Wis. 178, 185, 225 N.W. 825 (1929) (natural monuments control over courses and distances).
> ¶ 20 Wolfe, the original owner, testified that he watched Wegner place the original stakes and that the stakes were in the same location when he sold the property to the Hannemans and when he showed the stakes to the realtor involved in the Hanneman/Geiger transaction. Thiessen testified that because the pipe did not meet his accuracy expectations, he decided not to use it as a boundary marker."
>
> Do you suppose Thiessen was on the losing side?
>
> GILBERT v. GEIGER
> 747 N.W.2d 188 (2008)

In the situation where an original survey set the monuments that were used to then create the title, fine, no issue with that. Again, I suppose the cases only involve the resurvey of original subdivision surveys.

What about the times that the first survey is to mark and existing boundary and is done incorrectly, and there has been no reliance on that monument? Or perhaps when you have no clue who set it or how? Or when the plat does not show methods, procedures, or relationships to other controlling boundaries?

One size does not fit all.

Original Surveys in Texas

Yes Kent, I do fully understand what the courts are saying, the decisions are well written in plain english/Texican.
From what I've read, the Texas courts hold the same principles in such circumstances as most other states. Original monuments set by the original surveyer are better evidence of the "true" corner than mere measurements ie. courses and distances stated in a deed or drawn upon a plat.

Maybe reading a little further in the description of the book would help.

"Property law and the law of boundaries demand that an existing monument that has already been placed to represent a property corner be honored by all following land surveyors. In this way a land surveyor is either an original surveyor establishing boundary lines and corners for the very first time, or the land surveyor is a following surveyor whose only duty is to "follow in the footsteps" of those who went before. Nevertheless, surveyors routinely ignore this core principle and the pincushion corner is a direct result....This book explores the full effect of the pincushion corner by exploring how the phenomena started and why it exists, and explores remedies to end the practices that allow the pincushion corner not only to exist, but to flourish."

Reading the book would probably go further in understanding his intent. Buy the book, read it, check the references, and understand the principles he advocates before taking the knee-jerk "Lucas is an idiot" approach.

My copy should be here later this week.

I don't pretent to be speaking for Jeff, but I have not seen or heard any evidence of Jeff advocating accepting any "old rusty pipe" without further investigation, analysis of all the evidence, and proper application of the appropriate laws.

I guess you would have to actually read the cases to find out what the issues at trial were, wouldn't you.

Who ever implied that one size fits all? Certainly not me. I would suppose that even Jeff would agree with your "blanket statement" that one size doesn't fit all.

The Lucas style does no appeal to me. There are too many variables in boundaries to cover in the format he uses.
I have read several of his magazine articles and scanned a few others.
I do suppose that in a 373 Page Hardcover text his style could be different, and he could flesh out his opinions a bit beyond what I have read.

You can preview the index, intro and a couple pages (explanation of pin cushion).

Looks as if it is a long needed good book to me and I’ll buy it.

This is the fork in the road folks. Are surveyors going to measure themselves into oblivion of come back to boundary law principles of our past. Are surveyors going to be boundary professionals, expert technicians, or relics of bygone days?

I can't dispute that a pin cushion corner is a failure of surveyors to resolve a boundary problem. If the corner in place is wrong then it should be worked out with the landowners. When the surveyor has done the job there should be only one corner in the ground which is the corner. I think that is what Lucas is alluding to. You don't add your marker to the junk pile, you work with the landowners to clean up the mess.

This requires lost skills and knowledge well beyond precise measurement technology and math. You're going to need to contact the adjoiners. You are going to need to seek out all the evidence and apply some boundary law. It's going to take a lot more time to complete some surveys. The more surveyors that have passed before only increases the problem to be resolved if a pin cushion is in place. Pin cushions are bad, look bad and physically prove a failure of surveyors to do their job. It could lead to the demise of land surveying as currently being done or maybe with regards to a pin cushion corner not being done. Why should society continue to license, protect and pay a land surveying profession that can't locate boundaries?

So is it his "style" of writing you find objectionable or is it his opinions and interpretations of property boundary law you object to or fail to understand after only reading a few articles and "scanning" a few others?

Read his Sept 2010 article in POB for his take on the "first surveyor on the ground" concept.