"If my survey uncovers evidence the line is now bent, I say so."
Under what authority to you alter respected title lines that have long standing harmony to bend lines to Jr. points found?
I don't bend the lines, I report them as recovered. That includes explaining the evidence on my recorded map and walking the owners through correcting the record to reflect the established lines..
the original descriptions of the two parcels are in harmony and fit the evidence.The (1940) map shows that lots are to adjoin the ‘good’ line.
If this is your professional opinion how do you get from that to this?
their presence (off line monuments) creates an area that is either a gap in two described parcels, or a conflict in description.
If you really believe what you state in the first quote you can't believe what you state in the second. Retracement surveys by definition never change a legal description. They give the legally described course and the as measured course. The "good" line either passes through existing monuments or it doesn't. Nothing is created. I do question on what basis the rerod at the NW corner of the south parcel was set on the survey shown. It seems the general line of existing monuments would be six or seven feet north. Why ignore the general line of existing monuments and set a new monument? I imagine there is a reason, we just can't see it. There are two directions a professional survey might take here and neither one creates a new issue or leaves behind an old issue. The surveyor should suggest all parties involved to agree that the existing monuments are not on the good line and place new marks on it or if they would rather bend the common line through the existing monuments do what is required to make that happen. Document the agreement as part of the survey. If they won't agree there is no survey completed.
I think this is a situation where occupation would carry a lot of weight. If the adjoiners are occupying to these random pipes then maybe you have a headache brewing, but if the occupation is closer to the original line then I think I'd be pretty comfortable holding that line and rejecting the pipes.
Surveyors who call out ‘off-line’ monuments like this, what is your intention?
Their intention is to dodge responsibility.
"Their intention is to dodge responsibility."
"Dodge" carries a certain connotation. "Avoid" is a more appropriate word. The surveyor - presumably - was tasked with resolving the northerly parcel and not with solving all the world's boundary problems. He determined that the intermediate found monuments did not control the lines of the parcel he was surveying. He went the extra step of showing where they fall in relation to the controlling line. He is not obliged to resolve all the boundaries of the adjoiners as well. That would be making the perfect the enemy of the good.
He is not obliged to resolve all the boundaries of the adjoiners as well.
No, and you're right. My comment was intended more so for paper pincushioners and that doesn't really apply here.
I hope the surveyor feels obligated to solve the common boundary between the client and the adjoiners. The OP seems to have this feeling thus the question. The notation of off line monuments show that the surveyor knew of their existence and that their opinion is they aren't on the boundary. It also shows the surveyor did not address the conflict missing an opportunity to add value to the outcome.
"I hope the surveyor feels obligated to solve the common boundary between the client and the adjoiners."
I agree. If you take protecting the public seriously, before concluding your survey you should ask yourself if you've generally made things better or worse for all the parties involved. I view clouding numerous titles as the latter, even if technically defensible.
The surveyor can identify issues with title, in many cases it's possible to clean up those issues with the survey. However, ultimately boundaries are the purview of the landowners.
If it can't be cleaned up by the surveyor the landowners need to participate in that effort, if they refuse the surveyor can't force it to be accomplished.
However, by explaining how title problems can damage the value of the property often will push the landowners along to a solution.
For those who think that this surveyor should have done something other than what he did - can you show us an example of what you are thinking of?
For those who think that this surveyor should have done something other than what he did – can you show us an example of what you are thinking of?
Well, I wouldn't show the pipes on the line like he did; I might do details. Obviously CAD makes that easier to do and that survey looks older so maybe it wasn't really possible for him. I'd also write a narrative where I explicitly say I'm not accepting the pipes. There's a chance the pipes are simply so far off the line that I wouldn't show them at all, but that would depend on what my research turned up and what a basic topo of the area showed as far as occupation.
In argument of no particular position, I give this example and how this practice can play out:
Image 1 is a portion of a retracement survey of a group of very old contiguous parcels. The line shown here was in total 3,500' long, and had four adjoining parcels in common. This surveyor held that line from end-to-end, (more specifically from a found old stone, to a found 1/2" iron rod), calling out the offsets of every other monument along the way. The newly described contiguous parcel was conveyed using this survey as description. (note that the text 'West od line' I believe is just a typo, should say 'West of line')
Image 2 is a portion of a later retracement one of those adjoining parcels. The description of this parcel called for gun barrel's as its corners, which from record had been present for at least 80 years. The barrels were found to fit record, between themselves and the other corners, had many wraps of old flagging, and occupation showed multiple installations of fencing, ancient to modern, in harmony with the monuments.
I don't know that the larger parcel retracement was incorrect, I believe that his holding of the senior line was 'technically' the 'correct' resolution. However, I also don't disagree with the adjoiner resurvey. (notwithstanding the fact, if it wasn't obvious, it's my work). In my retracement, the 70+ year old land owner led me to the gun barrels, told me how his grandfather showed them to him as a boy, how he and his neighbors always knew of them and honored them.
Would anybody seriously discard those barrels? Declare them wrong and set a shiny new rebar some 12.5 feet away, even if it was to my owners benefit? I certainly wouldn't do it. However, I felt my survey had to reflect what the record showed, that from the adjoining parcels deed description, there now existed an area with 'no claim' and an area of conflict. I recognize those are legal fictions, but if a purpose of a survey is to reconcile the record with the evidence, I feel no authority to brush this patent discrepancy aside.
My client, being made aware of it, shrugged his shoulders, put his map in the file cabinet and said "Well, we've always just known those shotgun barrels are the corners". Regrettably, the (new) owner of the large parcel is likely unaware of this 'issue' (and the many more around it, on this line and others), because their surveyor chose to just draw the line, labels the offset monuments, and move on.
Roast me, roast him, or both, what would you have done?
Roast me, roast him, or both, what would you have done?
I go monument to monument (measured) on almost all of my surveys, so that's probably what I would have done here and then shown the record span of the 3500' line.
The gun barrels have been there for 80 years, occupied to by the fencing and never disputed? They have become the corners. I don't see how this is even a question.
Well if an owner showed me a gun barrel I might be more inclined to hold his corners. But seriously this testimony is golden and there should be no question of location. It troubles me that so many believe that because the record indicates a line with no bends that somehow monuments that appear to be off line are not on it in a legal sense. Of course every intermediate monument must pass the legal test based on the facts of the situation but if it passes the test the original line passes through it. The areas of gap or conflict exist only in the mind of the surveyor. Good example here, No roasting intended. Just a discussion.
