Town corner

OK, it is not Germain to try to be overly perfectionistic, in this. What does all this do to title? What is the community impact?

It is ok to kink the section line, and it is ok to do it how you show.
Do what serves the community the best.

Don't fret over a few feet, of 1917 land.

N

Section 5-9 of the 2009 BLM manual: "In conducting a resurvey, care must be exercised to avoid disturbing satisfactory local conditions such as roads, fences, or other improvements marking subdivision of section lines and that may correctly define the extent of established bona fide property rights."

Personally if I thought that 4" pipe had been there for 100 years, undisturbed, I'd probably hold it, but of course I don't have all the facts. What vintage are the monuments at the 1/4 corner & section corner? Any chance they've been remonumented since 1917, or worse yet proportioned back in after being lost?

Nate The Surveyor, post: 409780, member: 291 wrote: OK, it is not Germain to try to be overly perfectionistic, in this. What does all this do to title? What is the community impact?

It is ok to kink the section line, and it is ok to do it how you show.
Do what serves the community the best.

Don't fret over a few feet, of 1917 land.

N

With all due respect I completely disagree. A defensible boundary is defined by evidence and law. Correct is an identity, not a distance.

You can not sell something you did not own. That said, could the monument have moved over time. In California monuments do move sometime in different directions. What is the ruling of courts in your area. You are in the field and best know conditions in your area, so you are the best one to judge property lines, that is why we get the big bucks. Are the section corner original corners? Sorry, I'm not a lot of help, just throwing my 2 cents in the mix.

David Baalman, post: 409783, member: 11919 wrote: Section 5-9 of the 2009 BLM manual: "In conducting a resurvey, care must be exercised to avoid disturbing satisfactory local conditions such as roads, fences, or other improvements marking subdivision of section lines and that may correctly define the extent of established bona fide property rights."

Personally if I thought that 4" pipe had been there for 100 years, undisturbed, I'd probably hold it, but of course I don't have all the facts. What vintage are the monuments at the 1/4 corner & section corner? Any chance they've been remonumented since 1917, or worse yet proportioned back in after being lost?

They are very old, pipes with lead caps. It does not define the corners on the town plat, but I know that this type of monument dates back to that time in this area. They were still being used 20 years later to the mid 30's then you don't see them again.

What if EVIDENCE and LAW disagree with each other?
What if your little perfect retracement, disagrees with the 1917 surveyor's retracement?

I ain't answering the question of HOW Mr. Moe should survey this. I am merely spreading the carpet wider, so he can do what he needs to do.

N

ACD Surveyor, post: 409785, member: 494 wrote: You can not sell something you did not own. That said, could the monument have moved over time. In California monuments do move sometime in different directions. What is the ruling of courts in your area. You are in the field and best know conditions in your area, so you are the best one to judge property lines, that is why we get the big bucks. Are the section corner original corners? Sorry, I'm not a lot of help, just throwing my 2 cents in the mix.

It's interesting you bring that up, for this boundary there are a couple of moving monuments; this one however is in a stable flat area and has been there a long time, I even saw it 30+ years ago doing another job, wasn't interested in it then.

Mixing surveying and law sometimes creates results that may be difficult to disseminate. The evidence indicates there is no question as to where the SW Town boundary corner is located. Whether or not a portion of 'town' that actually lies in section 20 has clear and marketable title is a question probably best answered by others. A surveyor's discovery and location of a boundary doesn't necessarily imply any warranty of title.

"Just the facts, ma'am." As Sgt. Joe Friday put it so many years ago.

There is no conflict in Title. Smith's boundary is the Section line, as is Jones's and the Town's. The developer of the town did not attempt to sell someone else's property but they did (maybe?) attempt to establish the Section line.

The key question of fact of fact is where is the section line located. Legally it is straight, in fact, it may not be perfectly straight, as a practical matter. Straight is a relative quantity, a legal quantity, not a mathematical quantity.

I can't say either way but a pipe (if it is prominent, visible, and known to the property owners) that has been there 100 years is pretty strong evidence of acquiescence in an established Section line.

paden cash, post: 409791, member: 20 wrote: Mixing surveying and law sometimes creates results that may be difficult to disseminate. The evidence indicates there is no question as to where the SW Town boundary corner is located. Whether or not a portion of 'town' that actually lies in section 20 has clear and marketable title is a question probably best answered by others. A surveyor's discovery and location of a boundary doesn't necessarily imply any warranty of title.

"Just the facts, ma'am." As Sgt. Joe Friday put it so many years ago.

I don't disagree with this. The pipe may be evidence that the Town overlaps into the adjoining Section. If that is the case then the overlapping portion, perhaps we can call it the Ghost Triangle of the Town, is not owned by the Lot owner in the Town, it is owned by Smith.

I didn't get my name for nothing. Enough said.

Dave Karoly, post: 409794, member: 94 wrote: I don't disagree with this. The pipe may be evidence that the Town overlaps into the adjoining Section. If that is the case then the overlapping portion, perhaps we can call it the Ghost Triangle of the Town, is not owned by the Lot owner in the Town, it is owned by Smith.

I think I understand the paradox here. But just for the sake of argument; you state above the "Ghost Triangle" is not part of the estate that lies in "Town", but owned by Smith. Can a surveyor really legally determine ownership?

paden cash, post: 409798, member: 20 wrote: I think I understand the paradox here. But just for the sake of argument; you state above the "Ghost Triangle" is not part of the estate that lies in "Town", but owned by Smith. Can a surveyor really legally determine ownership?

I don't think a Surveyor should determine who holds Title, leave that to the Title Insurance Company.

However I do think a Surveyor can determine a reasonable opinion as to where a boundary is located by the best evidence available. In cases like this, however, I acknowledge that a Judge may disagree with me so it would be best for the Town and Smith to get together and agree or Smith can choose to leave sleeping dogs lie.

People get hung up on rules, most of these times these rules only exist in their own minds. In this case, the rule in some peoples minds is the section line has to be straight for a 1/2 mile. Is there a lot of case law to back this up? Maybe but I doubt it. Is there a lot of case law that says monuments and occupation govern? I say yes.

I think is this case people look at the corner being over 15' off and say thats too much. Keep in mind there is no distance a corner is out of any give position before you use it or reject it. In some cases a corner might be out of postiion by over 100 feet and is should still be used and there might be cases where a corner is off only a 0.10' and it should be rejected. By out of position I mean where the math says it should be.

In my area, a survey that was done a 100 years ago, they may or may not have even go south a 1/2 mile to locate the next corner. They may have just measured down and set the pin in the fence or the fence got built to the pin. This example is very common in my area and most times I would try and use the pins.

Nate The Surveyor, post: 409788, member: 291 wrote: What if EVIDENCE and LAW disagree with each other?
What if your little perfect retracement, disagrees with the 1917 surveyor's retracement?

I ain't answering the question of HOW Mr. Moe should survey this. I am merely spreading the carpet wider, so he can do what he needs to do.

N

My issue is much less with throwing out options than with the supporting idea.There are people on both sides of every line we Survey. The quality of their lives is a higher consideration than the perceived value of their land. This is especially important to me after growing up without much because of a crappie Surveyor.
A defensible boundary decision starts with a gathering of pertinent evidence and ends with the application of the proper laws. Evidence can lead us to competing doctrines but does not in and of itself conflict with law. Thinking outside the box is great right up to the point we elevate Surveyors Proverbs above established legal doctrines.

Who surveyed the town in and what was the reason for establishment? Was it the GLO, Railroad, Mining Company...... Does the plat for the town close? We have had a few of these almost exact situations come up in the last few years and as usual, it all depends and varies on a case by case basis.

How did you determine the brg going north from the 1/4 cor?
How did you determine the brg going south from the 1/4 cor?

N

Nate The Surveyor, post: 409869, member: 291 wrote: How did you determine the brg going north from the 1/4 cor?
How did you determine the brg going south from the 1/4 cor?

N

The section has monuments at all eight corners