What would you do?

Depends on your state law concerning establishment. You need to collect the evidence along each lot and determine whether the line has been established by the junior markers or not. What have the landowners done and does what they have done establish the boundary. It's not all about whether its on the line of off the line but rather what your state law is.

Probably not the answer you were looking for. It may not apply in your state but it would in mine.

The subdivider couldn't sell what he did not own. That's the answer to one scenario, and
the subdivider intended to divide and dispose of all his property. That's the answer to the other.
The monuments are points on line.

Don

Hi Don,

I agree, the found monuments are points on the north / south lot lines of the subdivision and should be held for direction. But would you set other corners just a few feet away?

Mark

> The subdivider couldn't sell what he did not own. That's the answer to one scenario, and
> the subdivider intended to divide and dispose of all his property. That's the answer to the other.
> The monuments are points on line.
>
> Don

Yes, Don, that is all true. However, I think the question was about the location of the boundary line(s), not ownership.
So the answer would be (as Leon stated) based in the law, dependent upon facts, which are derived from evidence, which should be properly collected by the surveyor.
In other words, we need more evidence.

Dunno.
That's harder.
I'd need to know more about the specific situation.
Sorry.
Now that the football game is over, you're probably going to be getting a LOT of wise advice:-)

Don

If the existing monuments don't mark the boundary corners then, yes, I would set monuments at the corners so that anyone walking out there is on notice that the old monument may not be the corner.

I'd agree based that the boundary has not been established. So then you would correct the error. But I would look into what the landowners have done, whether they have built improvements based upon the previous markers, whether they have relied upon the markers and how they have treated the markers as a boundary or not. Time would be a factor. So that's why I said it depended on state boundary law (unless it's a federal boundary).

Having read some Kali law here it probably doesn't apply to much there.

So now if the boundary hasn't been established and you are going to correct the error shouldn't you pull the old non boundary markers once the new ones are in? Haven't you already determined they are not boundary corners? I suppose their position should be referenced on the plat as points that established the line in one direction. You could simply state the distance from the corner along the line to the position of the errant marker that was removed.

So now it's a few decades later and the surveyor decides your markers are not on the line. Should he do what you did and move it again or not? Maybe the lines will be established by then and he can leave them alone. Or maybe the tweaking will go on forever, job security.

Before this gets going, I just want to say that I intended this to be a completely hypothetical scenario. There is no additional evidence other than what I already said. No evidence of occupation or anything like that.

Is it acceptable to put breaks in a line that is supposted to be straight?

If your client is asking to set corners, can you avoid making this into a pin cushion scenario?

And what would you show on the map?

Those are the things that I'm trying to get at.

Thanks,
Mark

What would you do? I hate pin cushions, BUT...

I would set new irons on the East-West line. As it has been said, "You cannot sell what you never owned". Those irons 2-3 feet off line are wrong and have always been wrong. I would try to track down the surveyor that set them so they could come correct or pull them, in hopes to avoiding the pin-cushion and if my iron was so far out like that, I would want you to call me.
As for the map, I would show any of the irons that did not get pulled after my contacting the PS who set them.

I take it the O.P. is Penni, not Cali and certainly not Uti or Texi for that matter.

Everytime someone calls California "Cali" I jump around yelling at my computer like Jim Harbaugh LOL.

Did you know there is a Frisco, TX full of 49er fans? I think it's a suburb of Dallas.

If this were in California then I would ask where are we? Is it Redwood timberland with 6' diameter trees? In that case nobody would probably care enough to waste years and 100s of thousands of dollars in the California Court system which is unable to resolve anything anyway.

On the other hand if it is in downtown San Francisco then people would probably care and unless you have direct evidence of an agreement just forget about it.

What would you do? I hate pin cushions, BUT...

The Law favors repose.

I wish there was one set of answers chiseled into stone but the world of legal matters such as boundaries is not like that.

It is not a moral issue of virtue versus evil.

It is an issue of imperfect people relying or not on imperfect boundaries which don't meet our sometimes unreasonable expectations of perfection.

Advice number one to newspaper editors: don't print a colorful 49er section speculating on "is this the new dynasty" before the danged game.

I don't know Dave, a 6 foot diameter Redwood tree is probably worth some bucks, but you probably can't cut one down California (SP) so who cares where the line is.

Hey, I've been called a lot worse than from Uti. I've been to foreign countries like California and Texas. Nice to visit but ain't moving there. I just applied for a passport so I'll still be able to visit if I must.

some key questions...

How long has the senior line existed?

How long have the junior monuments been there?

Are they obvious or hidden?

Are there improvements built in reliance upon the junior monuments?

Do the junior property owners know about them?

It isn't a math or geometry problem, it is a question of fact to be developed from the evidence. The presumption is the senior boundary is a straight line between the senior monuments but that could change depending on the evidence.

Well our adjoiner took a 13 footer, unfortunately it is on the State Forest, oops. Triple stumpage. It may have been 3 or 4 suckers though (I'm not sure).

2' of play and the boundary is still running through the 6' tree so it is jointly owned.

Just kiddin ya. I can still buy some redwood so they must be whacking them somewhere.

Utah is somewhere around 70% federal land. The way things are going in twenty years a human won't be able to set foot on it, maybe not even fly over. Maybe we will be able to take nature hikes on Google Earth by then. The timber removal ended over a decade ago. In the mean time the bark beetles got most of it. Now fires are clearing the rest. I suppose it's better to have the carbon in the air than in a human structure somewhere. Maybe you have to clear away the old carbon before you can start capturing new carbon. So it's probably just a form of natural.

:good: :good:

> Before this gets going, I just want to say that I intended this to be a completely hypothetical scenario. There is no additional evidence other than what I already said. No evidence of occupation or anything like that.
>
That's the problem with hypotheticals... there IS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, the surveyor has simply failed to gather it and include it in the hypothetical. Hypothetically, is it ok for a surveyor to proceed with their determination when they don't have enough evidence to make an appropriate decision?
> Is it acceptable to put breaks in a line that is supposted to be straight?
>
You aren't "put[ting] breaks" in a line. The bearing breaks are already there. The retracing surveyor's job is to recover the evidence and to report the evidence. Then the surveyor is expected to derive an opinion regarding the boundary location based upon an analysis of the evidence, determination of the facts, and an application of the appropriate legal principle.
> If your client is asking to set corners, can you avoid making this into a pin cushion scenario?
>
Before I can answer this question, I must first determine if the existing monuments are the best available evidence of the corners. With the evidence given, there is no evidence that any of the monuments were set in bad faith. Without evidence of bad faith, there is nothing to accept or reject the existing monuments on. Boundary law isn't established by measurement standards.

The real problem with the hypothetical is the statement, "the line is intended to be straight." Why do we surveyors continue to hold the world to some impossible standard of perfection when we, ourselves, have been unable to achieve it. One simple fundamental principle (maxim of jurisprudence) states that "the law will never require an impossibility." That's like saying that the 1/4 corner was "supposed to be at midpoint and on line between the section corners." They simply aren't because it was impossible to achieve that result.

> And what would you show on the map?
>
With the above answer in mind, it is my job as the surveyor to determine the boundary locations. If I can find no evidence of bad faith, or any evidence preventing the monuments from being accepted as properly marking the corners they were intended to represent, then the monuments mark the corners. I would simply report the record bearings and distances along with the measured bearings and distances.

JBS