Speaking of gun barrels, When we used to run straight record lines there was a bend in the line of some sort every time the gun barrel was flopped. I'd hate to think how many monuments we set off line. Or did we?
The areas of gap or conflict exist only in the mind of the surveyor.
I don't know about that. I think if the line was meant to have bends in it then it would have been drawn that way in the first place. But at the end of the day keeping the peace in the neighborhood is what ends up mattering the most.
I treat them as closing corners...until it's time for them to not be closing corners
I think if the line was meant to have bends in it then it would have been drawn that way in the first place.
The adjoining properties will have monuments set at their corners which are on the "straight line" of the senior property. They will have error in them and they will be offline. There will be no longer a straight line for the senior property. It is only a matter of how much of an angle point will be established by the monumenting of the adjoiners. Whether it be 0.02' or more. The straight line passes through the monuments and is straight in theory only. In this case after 80 years this straight line now has angle points that are 12' and 4' larger than how the line was defined on paper.
Every present day subdivision in a typical city block that shows the rear line being straight between the adjoiners is in the same situation. The adjoiners pins at their rear corners are the actual corners not some theoretical straight line from one end of the block to the other.
at the end of the day keeping the peace in the neighborhood is what ends up mattering the most.
Agreed. Any way to avoid areas of question left behind. Finish with the owners at peace with a straight line or a bent line if possible. If not possible finish with a boundary exhibit instead of a finished survey.
The straight line passes through the monuments and is straight in theory only.
Ha! Then why even have maps at all?
I don't disagree with the general idea of what you're saying, but I think at some point you have to decide that the maps we make actually matter.
I feel that the adjoining out parcel corners that are over the longer line monument there respective side lines but in no way define the larger tract line or their true rear line. I get the feeling that back title to the adjoining out parcels is harmonious with the existing larger tract. Therefore, you can't convey what you don't own. Just my two cents after a bourbon.
Agreed!
After 80 years of monumentation and occupation you don't think they own it?
Since when were we licensed to determine ownership?
Since when did I say we were?
"After 80 years of monumentation and occupation you don’t think they own it?"
A portion from, "A Surveyor’s Responsibility and Possession Boundaries" by Knud E. Hermansen
Given these reasons and others, it is often hard for some surveyors to accept that a surveyor is without authority and may be liable for failing to disclose where the lines of occupation differ from the location of the boundary as established by the operative records. The surveyor must understand that in these cases the procedure and who applies the law is just as important as the facts and circumstances used in establishing the boundary. Courts often quote “where the boundaries are is a question of fact, what are the boundaries is a question of law.” It is the distinction between fact and law that requires lines of occupation be litigated in order to be recognized as the boundaries.3 The surveyor, as a fact finder, ought not to and can not decide questions of law. Stated in other words, a surveyor is well within their purview in sifting the facts and applying rules of construction to opine the record boundary is at a certain location and the occupation line at another location — but the surveyor should avoid deciding the ownership boundary is at the occupation boundary or that certain improvements across the building set-back line or boundary are there by parol license or may be maintained by some equitable doctrine.4 (It should be made clear that an attorney, well versed in the law, is in no better a position to decide on their own motion when the occupation lines are to be treated as the boundary.)
The full paper can be found here: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://umaine.edu/svt/wp-content/uploads/sites/105/2012/11/PossBoundary.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwia1JPFh62IAxV1FlkFHassCZcQFnoECEIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw15Bz2mfqj8-PIi3va9zrGg
This is something that I have been stressing. We are the finders of facts and do not have the authority to decide the differences between tile and ownership lines. Several among us feel that it is their obligation to make legal calls.
We are the finders of facts, we note discrepancies observed and document them but are not empowered, by any means, to make a call on ownership. Some will argue that we are Quasi-Judicial representatives of the court and that is just wrong by every means.
"I always begin from the position that humans create boundaries then use maps as a proxy."
In fact, the Court has recognized for centuries that monuments were set first and the map is a record of what was done in the field! In the eyes of the law a map is a record of work performed, not a "plan" of what is meant to be done. This is why monuments control in almost all cases, not the map or plat.
