Many states have laws against destroying/removing/moving survey monuments. In my state it says : "marks upon any tree, post or stake which is a monument designating a point, course or line in the boundary of a parcel of land".
So, in the case of this photo, which shows a painted piece of re-bar with a 4" reveal (no cap), a thin grade stake with flagging to mark the location of the rebar, would you say the re-bar constitutes the "monument"? Is the grade stake also considered a "monument"?
Over the years I've seen many such stakes, flagging tied to tree branches (and either tied to the monument or not), and other such ephemeral annunciations of the location of the monument. Are these also considered "monuments"?
Depends.
I'd collect it as a piece of data to do analysis with, if it fits, then go out and flag it as accepted.
If it doesn't fit, it's still a data point, and potentially going to be a found monument not accepted, and not Flag or identify. And not set anything unless my Surveyor tells me to do so.?ÿ
Flagged tree branches are not monuments.
Grade stake is just a visual que like a flagged tree branch, as it's also not a very robust object to hold a position for the intent.
IMHO.
?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
Regardless of the perceived quality of the materials, or the standard of care in placing them; the question is (as it was once eloquently put by the Maryland Court of Appeals) is: Has it 'developed a reputation' in the neighborhood as monumenting a property corner??ÿ If so, it's a monument.?ÿ ?ÿ?ÿ
Something for lawyers to argue over. IANAL, but here's what I would guess.
Surveyors would usually consider only the rebar to be the monument, and the wood or flagging to be an aid to finding it, as the exact position of those accessories does not control anything. The stake could be anywhere within a foot of the rebar.
If someone pulls the rebars, whoever relied on them and/or paid for the survey is likely so sue or call for enforcement of this law.
If someone went on the site of construction they were opposed to and were caught removing a bunch of wood stakes, including wood stakes by boundary rebars, they would have a strong chance of being charged under this law as well as others.
Possibly, but less likely, if an adjoiner hired a survey that upset someone who then pulled the wood but not the rebars, they might be charged if it could be proved who did it. The argument that only the rebar was the monument would carry some weight in defense.
If old, faded wood was removed, leaving the rebars, it would be rare for anyone to get upset, and unlikely even then for the law to be applied.
Now let's see what the experts say.
?ÿ
The iron rod may be a monument. Sometimes an iron rod is just an iron rod. If it is a monument, the lath is an accessory.?ÿ
Some surveyors resemble monuments.
They sit on one place.
They are rusty.
They have corrosion behind the ears.
You have to wash your hands, after handling them.
And, last but not least, they don't know where they are, how they got there, or if they are in the right place! I resembles that last remark!
Nate
I generally agree with Mark. Curtis Brown classifies monuments as natural, artificial (like the iron rod), record, or legal. The BLM Manual also goes on to detail what a monument is there to signify: a corner. I especially like the BLM's rather abstract avoidance of defining a monument as it presupposes a surveyor's understanding of what a monument really is.?ÿ
In the case of your photo, that iron rod may or may not be a monument. We as professionals need to understand what it is. I see that and suspect it could be anything from a lot corner to a piece of landscaping equipment, although chances are high it's just a control point.?ÿ
Getting into the legal weeds as to whether or not you would be at risk of prosecution for removal gets sticky. I've heard arguments to this effect but it really just emphasizes a lack of understanding when it comes to the spirit of the law detailed by the likes of Brown, the BLM, Proverbs 22:28, and various other really old references ???? , etc.
IMHO, Wattles did a perfect job of describing monuments.
@bill93?ÿ ?ÿA Third-degree Felony on a construction site is a First-degree Felony. A Third-degree Felony in your client's backyard is a laughing police officer.
A monument is what the State ststutes say it is, as read by the courts. The answer is different in almost every jurisdiction.?ÿ
Not a simple question. I was commissioned?ÿ as county surveyor to do a survey of several miles of county road through a ranch that didn't want it to be a county road. I started with a control traverse setting big spikes with lath marked Delta 1, etc. Point to point traverse. After which the rancher pulled all the stakes but didn't touch the spikes, hired a lawyer and called the sheriff on me. The lawyer explained in a public meeting that the stakes they pulled out "41feet 3 and 14" from the road so obviously the county surveyor is wrong about the county road" (note they used a 25 foot tape measured slope distance and non perpendicular to the edge of a gravel road).?ÿ Thus we can't say they disturbed a monument, but they Definately caused harm to the survey process and the rancher definitely thought he was disturbing "monuments". Eventually I finished the survey utilizing the intact traverse points
Add that it always was a county road
The first thing I would consider would be the rebar, the wood marking it's location is meaningless as evidence.?ÿ I would, however, question heavily the position of the rebar for the simple fact that it is sticking 4" out of the ground. That's a huge liability that I doubt many surveyors would assume.
I would invoke Justice Potter of the supreme court. I can't define a monument but I know it when I see it.
In 1964, Justice Potter Stewart tried to explain "hard-core" pornography, or what is obscene, by saying, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced... ut I know it when I see it ..."
To me, to qualify as an artificial monument it would need to meet some very basic requirements. Is there a record associated with it being placed and has it been accepted as representing a boundary divide. The material and condition are irrelevant. Many original corners in older subdivisions here were hub and tack, some just a scribed stick of spruce, others a cedar post or a chiseled x in a rock. Without some degree of provenance and acceptance, it doesn't necessarily carry any weight. I don't believe any artificial 'monument' can exist completely free of the context in which it was set and agreed upon.?ÿ
Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get me.
@bill93 So who would be an expert? An attorney or a surveyor?
In Idaho we had 100 plus years between GLO and recording. The same is true in many places, along with those who still don't require it. While a record is helpful it is not a must.
I may have confused the issue with my question (What constitutes a monument). I would have assumed that the rebar, monument or not, marking a boundary line, even though uncapped, would be considered illegal to remove. The main question was whether the lath adjacent to it served any marking purpose other than to announce more easily, the existance of the rebar.
I've seen such lath (or similar wood stakes) all over the woods around here, in various states of dis-repair over the years. It's sounding like the question of legality of touching, moving or otherwise disturbing those would result in the answer: "It depends".