The Role of Land Surveyors in Society

I've only skimmed it so far, but it looks very nice! I've added it to my reference folder.

Thanks!

Very nice article Dave! Very well said and very important for surveyors to read/understand the message.

dropbox link
https://www.dropbox.com/s/tpwrkf8yyottycb/The%20Role%20of%20Land%20Surveyors%20in%20Society.pdf?dl=0

save it
read it
print it
read it again 🙂

Thanks Dave... many karma points have been earned

Great article Dave! I have saved it and will use it.

Good Work Dave!!!

(A humble suggestion...NEEDS MORE PICTURES...LOL)

DDSM¹

¹ Dan Dan the Survey Man

Dan B. Robison, post: 364581, member: 34 wrote: Good Work Dave!!!

(A humble suggestion...NEEDS MORE PICTURES...LOL)

DDSM¹

¹ Dan Dan the Survey Man

Yes, that is next.

Great article, thanks Dave.

Dave please provide an example of where a surveyor applied title rules to a boundary location. I want to understand what you mean by the statement. thanks for your help

DANEMINCE@YAHOO.COM, post: 364602, member: 296 wrote: Dave please provide an example of where a surveyor applied title rules to a boundary location. I want to understand what you mean by the statement. thanks for your help

I have been reading rules and trying to subdivide them into title rules and boundary rules. It's not exactly black and white and there can be variation and mixing, etc., so on and so forth.

An example is, the rule uncalled for monuments don't control a description appears to primarily be a title rule. Say, for example, Moe grants Larry a Lot beginning at the northwest corner of Lot 1, thence east 100'; thence south 200' to the south line of Lot 1; thence west 100' to the southwest corner of Lot 1; thence north 100' to the point of beginning. So Larry goes out there and finds a monument 200' east of the point of beginning, therefore he thinks he acquired a 200' wide lot because monuments control course and distance. On the other hand, say Larry and Moe pull a tape 100' east from the point of beginning and set a stake at the northeast corner of Larry's lot; it would be improper to reject the stake mutually set by the parties just because it's not called for in the Deed.

There is a case (I have to find it later) I found where a grantor conveyed a strip along a creek for 740'. Later the grantor and a third party, who worked for the Forest Service, went out there and paced off the 740' and set a stake and blazed a tree so the grantor could grant the next strip of land to the Forest Service guy. Naturally the pacing job was about 50' long so the first grantee wanted to apply the monument rule but the Court said no because it's not called for in your Deed. I think they were correct in that case because the grantee would have unjustly increased the length of his strip based on the actions of a third party. On the other hand, if the owner had represented to him that that is his boundary and he acted in reliance on it, then it would be a different question, particularly if a substantial period of time passed (in the case it was only a year or two to the appeal).

Title questions tend to be over what the nature of the estate transferred was and generally where and how large the parcel transferred is. Monuments that substantially increase the size of the parcel or are not called for don't normally control a boundary of a Deed. So if a Deed course goes to a 1/16th Section Corner, the question of fact is where is the corner? If no monument exists establishing that corner then it would be improper to run to the next monument, say at the quarter section corner monument. But if a monument does exist and is the accepted 1/16th corner then it may be proper to use it as the corner called for in the Deed although the monument itself is not called for in the Deed.

So I'm looking at it with a reasonableness test. If the uncalled for monuments substantially fit the size and shape of the Deed then it is a question of location where precision is generally not controlling especially if time has passed, no monument is original (one is as good as another), the monuments and possession lines substantially conform to one another, the only evidence controverting an old monument is a measurement, and there is apparent reliance on old possession lines. On the other hand, if the monuments unreasonably enlarge a parcel, the monuments don't fit the general size and shape of the parcel, a particular monument does not represent the same corner called for in a Deed then rules of title or deed construction will apply.

My intention above is to apply a sort of stream of consciousness of my thoughts on the matter over the past few months. This is kind of how I trained my mind to think about it. Is it a title question between the original parties (which will descend down the chain of title) or a boundary location question which is not strictly bound by title rules (or rules of construction).

DANEMINCE@YAHOO.COM, post: 364602, member: 296 wrote: Dave please provide an example of where a surveyor applied title rules to a boundary location. I want to understand what you mean by the statement. thanks for your help

From the article, I'm guessing he means that when you give each owner the entire mathematical figure (placed and rotated on something or other) they think they have title to, you are not giving an opinion on where the true extent of the boundaries are (especially when dealing with older deeds). Many elements of title; surveyors only deal with extents, which are found from all the evidence; not just the metes of the deed.

Great article. Here is an link to slides for a seminar Gary Kent just did for TAPS http://www.taps-inc.com/photos/Surveyors_Role_TN_20160326.pdf

Dave Karoly, post: 364617, member: 94 wrote: I have been reading rules and trying to subdivide them into title rules and boundary rules. It's not exactly black and white and there can be variation and mixing, etc., so on and so forth.

An example is, the rule uncalled for monuments don't control a description appears to primarily be a title rule. Say, for example, Moe grants Larry a Lot beginning at the northwest corner of Lot 1, thence east 100'; thence south 200' to the south line of Lot 1; thence west 100' to the southwest corner of Lot 1; thence north 100' to the point of beginning. So Larry goes out there and finds a monument 200' east of the point of beginning, therefore he thinks he acquired a 200' wide lot because monuments control course and distance. On the other hand, say Larry and Moe pull a tape 100' east from the point of beginning and set a stake at the northeast corner of Larry's lot; it would be improper to reject the stake mutually set by the parties just because it's not called for in the Deed.

There is a case (I have to find it later) I found where a grantor conveyed a strip along a creek for 740'. Later the grantor and a third party, who worked for the Forest Service, went out there and paced off the 740' and set a stake and blazed a tree so the grantor could grant the next strip of land to the Forest Service guy. Naturally the pacing job was about 50' long so the first grantee wanted to apply the monument rule but the Court said no because it's not called for in your Deed. I think they were correct in that case because the grantee would have unjustly increased the length of his strip based on the actions of a third party. On the other hand, if the owner had represented to him that that is his boundary and he acted in reliance on it, then it would be a different question, particularly if a substantial period of time passed (in the case it was only a year or two to the appeal).

Title questions tend to be over what the nature of the estate transferred was and generally where and how large the parcel transferred is. Monuments that substantially increase the size of the parcel or are not called for don't normally control a boundary of a Deed. So if a Deed course goes to a 1/16th Section Corner, the question of fact is where is the corner? If no monument exists establishing that corner then it would be improper to run to the next monument, say at the quarter section corner monument. But if a monument does exist and is the accepted 1/16th corner then it may be proper to use it as the corner called for in the Deed although the monument itself is not called for in the Deed.

So I'm looking at it with a reasonableness test. If the uncalled for monuments substantially fit the size and shape of the Deed then it is a question of location where precision is generally not controlling especially if time has passed, no monument is original (one is as good as another), the monuments and possession lines substantially conform to one another, the only evidence controverting an old monument is a measurement, and there is apparent reliance on old possession lines. On the other hand, if the monuments unreasonably enlarge a parcel, the monuments don't fit the general size and shape of the parcel, a particular monument does not represent the same corner called for in a Deed then rules of title or deed construction will apply.

My intention above is to apply a sort of stream of consciousness of my thoughts on the matter over the past few months. This is kind of how I trained my mind to think about it. Is it a title question between the original parties (which will descend down the chain of title) or a boundary location question which is not strictly bound by title rules (or rules of construction).

Sorry, in my new quest to learn as much as I can, I must pick your brain if you don't mind....

So here I have constructed a theoretical survey.....

DIAGRAM 1

In diagram one, let's say the lot/block monuments are found as per a large platted subdivision map. Those obviously control the right of way line.

For this purpose let's say the distance between them is perfect with the plat.
When using the 'math' you come to the corners of your lot and find said pipes, with offsets shown from the platted dimensions and angles (all right angles)

They are all within reason and fit the shape and measurements very reasonably. You then accept these pipes.

Your plat then ditches (so to speak) the lines from the plat and just shows the dotted lines on the sketch with new bearings and distances as measured.

This would be a title issue, correct?

Also, while I'm asking, the stone monuments do control the line of the street, correct? Or do the pipes and the platted right of way bends with the pipes? I would assume not. The pipes control the line, but the terminus is at the ROW line.

So the plat then looks like diagram 2.... (disregard fence)

DIAGRAM 2

Now, the fence shown on sketch 2, would come down not to a title question, but to a boundary question. Correct?

How did it get there, why there, when, etc. And do the owners believe and act as if the fence is the boundary...

Rich., post: 364789, member: 10450 wrote: How did it get there, why there, when, etc. And do the owners believe and act as if the fence is the boundary...

Everything in your post is a question of location. They are not title questions. Whether the pipes control the boundary location is a question of fact. Once the question of location is answered then the title carries up to the boundaries as located, however they are located. Relevant questions are who set the pipes, when were they set?

In California, it was common until the last few decades for the subdividing engineer/surveyor to set stakes/pipes with no statement on the map saying they did it. My subdivision was platted in 1955, the map has open circles on the key points indicating dimension points. There is an open 3/4" iron pipe at all of those open circles, it is commonly understood that Joe Spink set those. He did not a few set 1-1/2" pipes with tags at a few major points on his maps but not the lot corner stakes or the centerline pipes. My fences are right on, they didn't get there by accident.

Let's just say for the sake of argument, that the fence in your second diagram is proved to be an established boundary (either implied boundary line agreement or long-term acquiescence). If that is the case then the doctrines I am familiar with assume the title per the respective deeds carry up to the fence line regardless of its accuracy.

This is a question of accuracy, not precision.

Bear in mind, the old pipes may be goat stakes or they may be unknown or not accepted by the property owners. Perhaps they were guessed in by someone just guessing. On the other hand, their proximity to the corner and the fact that they look like common survey monuments would place a strong presumption that they mark the boundary per the Deeds although they don't meet our expectation of precision. This presumption shifts the burden of proving they are a monument to proving they aren't a monument.

May be off topic a little:

In Rich.'s example and question above. I agree that the stones, as original monumentation, control the right-of-way. With that said, his plat seems to indicate an overlap based on the front lot corners found.

For the final map:

Do you do nothing and let the right-of-way "varies". I try not to do this.

Do you set a new monument at the intersection of R/W as constructed from original stones and lot-line as constructed from found monuments, draft a very descriptive note on the map explaining the situation (why the two monuments are there) and file it for the next guy? I have done this with emphasis on VERY descriptive note.

I've seen plats that treat the situation like this: monument found, offline xxå¡xx'xxx" 0.37'. I don't do this but, it sure seems easy.

As I type this, I realize it's somewhat of a style issue.

Thanks (again) to all y'all. This place rawks, indeed.

Dave has become one of the most knowledgeable surveyors I've known with regard to recognizing and explaining the boundary establishment doctrines, particularly as viewed by the California Courts. This article should be required reading of anyone who is or desires to become a boundary surveyor. Much of it will be over the head of a relative beginner, but it gets the point across that it's the surveyor's job to find the boundary where it was intentionally established, even if that's not precisely where one would lay it out if carefully measuring to follow the language of the deed.

It is also notable because Dave is not an attorney but demonstrates extensive familiarity with and knowledge of common law by which the courts have attempted to communicate to surveyors what their proper duty is and how to evaluate available information to accomplish that duty. One does not need to have graduated law school to have a solid grasp of the small portion of law that directs the purpose of our practice.

I'm looking forward to more articles and that book you've been talking about Dave.

back-chain, post: 364826, member: 7900 wrote: In Rich.'s example and question above. I agree that the stones, as original monumentation, control the right-of-way. With that said, his plat seems to indicate an overlap based on the front lot corners found.

Did Rich say that those old pipes were Original monuments, Resurvey, or UFO? I don't think he said one way or the other... it would make a huge difference to me.