What would a Retracement Surveyor Do?

I've been around a lot of acreage descriptions, and they typically are problematic at best. But I think the pecking order of things is something like: intent; natural barrier calls; distance; bearings; area; coordinates; and whatever Aunt Zoe and Uncle Jed wanted in their unrecorded portfolio shoe box. Unless the dog ate it? 😉

Seems the intent is to have 28 acres. Let the judge figure out the rest if you can't sort it out with property line agreements and a potential re-plat to maintain harmony in the universe.

Get a big retainer.

Do you think the intent of the 1910 call for Govt survey to be saying "don't use what Doe is using" or is it just stylistic difference between deed authors? Also, where is this located? Terrain? Vegetation? Land values? What do the landowners say? Are all controlling corners in place and original? What is the local standard for these situations?(sounds like "hold the fences"). Should 1950 work be better than 12 feet in a quarter mile, or was that a north-south fence he held? No one complains about the 1950 12 feet, but do they know about it now? Is there a fence along the east line SW/4 SW/4 9? Why would one treat that fence any different than the 104 rods fence in S8?

The answer is obvious. The line will be where you decide it should be. You have given us all sorts of information, but........there is always more information. It's all those little bits of this and that that end up flavoring the final mix of choices until we decide where will make our stand and defend it.

My initial concern lies with the south boundary of both sections. Are the existing monuments those that would have existed in 1901 had a sharp surveyor been called in to locate the original description of the 260 acres (or is it the south 104 rods)? If they are of such vintage, do you get a fairly straight line when connecting the monuments along the south side of the two sections? Oh, by the way, forget all the foolishness about the world being curved and the supposed brilliance of the original surveyors following a perfect curve from the North Pole, which doesn't really exist and never did. Anyway, back to the task at hand. You mention fences. Is there strong or weak reason to believe that they adhere to some location determined by some method over 110 years ago? Are there 100+ year-old trees confirming this alignment?

It's late. I could probably come up with 20 more questions that MIGHT have enough impact to bend my way of thinking. But, I'm going to bed. Time for the experts to jump in and settle all of this for you.

> Do you think the intent of the 1910 call for Govt

I think it means they mailed it in: Every W1/2 of SW1/4 is 80ac

> Is there a fence along the east line SW/4 SW/4 9? Why would one treat that fence any different than the 104 rods fence in S8?

Yes there is.

Steve

> Seems the intent is to have 28 acres. Let the judge figure out the rest if you can't sort it out with property line agreements and a potential re-plat to maintain harmony in the universe.

So you think the intent was for a gap between the parcels?

Steve

> The answer is obvious. The line will be where you decide it should be.
I hope so.

> You have given us all sorts of information, but........there is always more information.

Probably not. I've researched this one pretty heavily. For what it's worth the neighborhood is happy with the status quo. The south side of the section is covered with a state highway or has original markers graded out. I'm working with the third generation of these monuments an I am as confident as I can be in them.

Steve

I raised this question because of the propensity of some so-called surveyors to discount old information (visible in the field or discovered in research) because it doesn't agree perfectly (that darned 0.04' again) with something written on a deed. That is why I try to look at every piece of information that is based on a different time period differently from other information. Sometimes your physical evidence is your strongest evidence.

Recently I received a call questioning a monument I set because it didn't fall on the centerline of a paved road. By far the oldest physical evidence locating the section line was a cemetery laid out in about 1870 of clear dimensions and clear offset from the section line. We had checked both the perimeter and the relative alignment of the oldest lots. The road had been your typical dirt, then gravel, county road until the 1940's when handed off to the State for improvement. The State DOT has absolutely no highway plan information on this. BTW, the centerline sort of wanders from side to side anyway, so picking any one point makes the others look off.

> Edit: Current Deeds in the W1/2 of the SW1/4 of Sec.9 call for the north 28 acres and the south 52 acres. Nothing about the middle 0.38 acres.

I'd call that 0.38 acres wiggle room. It's always a little better having too much than not enough. :-X

:snarky:

95% of my PLSS colleagues 'round here are retracement surveyors for the original eight corners set in a section by the GLO, thank the Lord, but the numbers dwindle quickly for the interior break down of any sort.

The problem demonstrates the degree to which you are a retracement surveyor in the colonial states sense. I think most of these guys would fall in love with the fences and have no problem citing the non-current deed from over 40 years ago.

A quarter of my colleagues would show the gap, and this same quarter would ignore the corner set in 1950 since the surveyor didn't seem to care about the BLM rules. Additionally, these surveyors would not believe they have any responsibility to honor the deed language of the original break down because it's over 40 years old.

Half would parallel the south line of the W1/2 of the SW1/4 at 104 rods deeming it the senior parcel. Thus, setting another pin +/-2ft of the pin set 2005. So, these guys accept the intent of the original deed, but cannot break away from the cold hard calculations. Even though another surveyor did just a decade ago.

The remaining quarter would accept the fence or offer a slightly hybridized solution at least holding the pin set in 2005 as the west end of the line and the 1950 pin.

Steve

I think a gap or overlap is rarely if ever intentional.

Does the research include the original GLO plat and notes? Was Section 8 and/or 9 perfect sections? From some of your statements I assume the field work is done or at least under way.

> Does the research include the original GLO plat and notes? Was Section 8 and/or 9 perfect sections? From some of your statements I assume the field work is done or at least under way.

As much of a GLO plat and notes as you're gonna get from 1847. No they did not claim these to be perfect, and yes the field work is complete unless someone on this board sees something I don't in the evidence.

Steve

What I see is that the DOE parcel (260 acres) is 104 rods on the west end but not necessarily so on the east end by virtue of the Cardinal direction call instead of a "parallel to" call. There also could be, and probably is, a slight angle point at the southeast corner of section 8.

The title of this thread is “What would a retracement surveyor do?” Based on the title one would assume that the boundaries of the parcels have been created on the ground sometime in the past. Is this really true? We have no way of definitely knowing based on the facts in the OP given. We only have a small portion of the story.

“The only way for a boundary to be fully defined is for it to take a two-step process: 1) a conveyance that creates the boundary, and 2) an action by the landowners to physically establish its location”. (JB Stahl)

Based on the descriptions/timeline given the first step has been accomplished, there were conveyances out of the original Smith parcel (are the conveyances that happened before Smith important? Maybe so, maybe not.)

What about the second requirement to fully define the boundary? We have (a least a portion of) the written record, but are we missing some important facts? The OP doesn’t state much in being able to determine the second requirement. Can we presume that the first conveyances were marked on the ground by someone? Are there fences and/or other occupational evidence along the lines? If so, when were they placed? By whom? Why were they placed at those locations? How have the landowners treated the lines? Why did the 1950 and 2005 surveyors do what they did? What evidence did they have/find? What other lines/corners did they mark, why and how? How have the landowners treated/recognized those lines/corners? For how long? Are there any other surveyors that we do not know about?

From Adams v Hoover “In surveying a tract of land according to a former plat or survey, the surveyor's only duty is to relocate, upon the best evidence obtainable, the courses and lines at the same place where originally located by the first surveyor on the ground. In making the resurvey, he has the right to furnish proof of the location of the lost lines or monuments, not to dispute the correctness of or to control the original survey. The original survey in all cases must, whenever possible, be retraced, since it cannot be disregarded or needlessly altered after property rights have been acquired in reliance upon it. On a resurvey to establish lost boundaries, if the original corners can be found, the places where they were originally established are conclusive without regard to whether they were in fact correctly located, in this respect it has been stated that the rule is based on the premise that the stability of boundary lines is more important than minor inaccuracies or mistakes. But it has also been said that great caution must be used in reference to resurveys, since surveys made by different surveyors seldom wholly agree. A resurvey not shown to have been based upon the original survey is inconclusive in determining boundaries and will ordinarily yield to a resurvey based upon known monuments and boundaries of the original survey. Moreover, in relocating lost monuments the question is not how an entirely accurate survey would have located the lots, but how the original survey stakes located them.”

We simply do not have enough information. Are we really performing a “retracement”? Probably, even presumably so. But without more evidence can we be sure and can we correctly locate the lines that have been previously run and marked?

There are several things that are probably certain based on the information given in the OP – there is NO middle 0.38 acres and the "controlling corners" on the exterior of the sections are probably not the originals nor probably not what was used prior to 1901.

> What I see is that the DOE parcel (260 acres) is 104 rods on the west end but not necessarily so on the east end by virtue of the Cardinal direction call instead of a "parallel to" call. There also could be, and probably is, a slight angle point at the southeast corner of section 8.

Using parallel vs. cardinal only makes about 0.8ft of difference in the last 1/4mile.

For better or worse, all the solutions I have entertained to create a PI at the east side of Section 8.

Steve

> What about the second requirement to fully define the boundary? We have (a least a portion of) the written record, but are we missing some important facts? The OP doesn’t state much in being able to determine the second requirement. Can we presume that the first conveyances were marked on the ground by someone? Are there fences and/or other occupational evidence along the lines? If so, when were they placed? By whom? Why were they placed at those locations? How have the landowners treated the lines? Why did the 1950 and 2005 surveyors do what they did? What evidence did they have/find? What other lines/corners did they mark, why and how? How have the landowners treated/recognized those lines/corners? For how long? Are there any other surveyors that we do not know about?

The areas are fenced. Age varies, but all involved believe the fences to have occupied the current locations, "as long as I can remember."

> We simply do not have enough information. Are we really performing a “retracement”? Probably, even presumably so. But without more evidence can we be sure and can we correctly locate the lines that have been previously run and marked?

Mandatory recording didn't start here until three decades ago. I don't think surveyors were licensed here until about 50 years ago, but I do believe the fence was laid out using the GLO monuments from the south by someone within what was decent tolerance for the time because of a second part to this survey in Section 8. Could of been someone who hung out a shingle and owned a tape and compass, could have been the landowners.

Regardless of who it was, they did a good job for the time frame and everyone has been satisfied with the resulting occupation for 80 years.

> There are several things that are probably certain based on the information given in the OP – there is NO middle 0.38 acres and the "controlling corners" on the exterior of the sections are probably not the originals nor probably not what was used prior to 1901.

Agreed.

Steve

I would have to state emphatically that no gap exists (based on the information provided). The cardinal reference shouldn't be too tough to figure out. In that era around here it would be parallel with the nearest regular aliquot line. In this case it sounds as though you have actions of the owners to follow (fence).
In the end the call me be too ambiguous to impose a Survey solution. At that point you should involve the owners. It is a simple task to get them to agree on holding what they've been doing. Memorialize the agreement in accordance with your laws and move on. If it turns nasty get the Attorneys involved, but there is no reason for that to happen if you guide the conversation.
I wouldn't even suggest a 'boundary adjustment' or 'correction deeds'. The former can be costly and isn't warranted. The latter is subject to pitfalls of form and should be avoided at all costs.
My .02, Tom

Yes Brian, there is always more to stories like these. Not so sure it is a typical retracement survey, wherein we retrace facts and evidence to render our opinion. Worrying about a couple tenths is a non-issue. But this is more of a convoluted mess that may require some property line agreements amongst the owners. We are just the messenger of problems that others created, and offer solutions. I'd be looking at re-plat or would just plain old fashioned punt and find something else to do. 😉

$0.02

Yeah, up here in the sticks of pa, gaps are not terribly uncommon, and an agreeable line change where both neighbors sign off that the line is where they always thought it was is always a good solution if you can get it.