> As for how many surveyors can name a recent court decision, how many know where to find recent court decisions??
Seriously, are the states some of you guy work in putting survey licenses in f#$%ing Cracker Jack boxes. You can’t pass the state specific portion of the licensing exam here without a firm understanding of Maryland case law.
> Seriously, are the states some of you guy work in putting survey licenses in f#$%ing Cracker Jack boxes.
LOL!!! [sarcasm]Yes, they used to do that for Civil Engineers[/sarcasm]
However, from what I've seen and experienced, there seem to be a few more "younger" surveyors that have a better grasp on some of the boundary law, but it has been my experience, certainly in the "older" group, that knowledge of boundary law could use a bunch of improvement. And yes, I used to be severely lacking in that area, and while I'd be the first to admit that I don't know it all, I believe I'm definitely improving.
Absolutely. Dave Ingram posted about one he was involved with a couple of years ago. Court held area over record monuments (calls to adjoiners) if I remember. He was kinda upset at the time, and maybe still thinks the court got it wrong. But it was an interesting case that might be searchable on this site (might have been on POB).
One needs to keep an open mind.
jud
Funny, I always thought the surveyor's responsibility was primarily to the public domain and to maintain harmony so the services of litigators were unnecessary.
Where a major or minor conflict arises between the written record and what exists as physical features the professional guides his client through the proper rocks and shoals to the appropriate harbor, whether amended deed or proper placement of a home on a subdivision lot. The professional should be the person of first resort, the courts the personage of last resort.
Acceptance and reliance
> What about the acceptance and reliance of the landowers? How long did the error go "un-noticed"? What are the laws in your state, etc. etc. etc.? When you change the facts, the solution will probably change.
There is probably still some evidence that could be gathered on acceptance and reliance.
The statement that the grantor and grantees viewed the monuments is important, but so far the only information about that seems to have come from the grantor. His information is of limited value as evidence because he has an interest in having the monuments accepted.
If any of the original grantees are still around (other than the ones involved in the present dispute), and would corroborate the grantor's statement about viewing the monuments, and/or point out where they have understood the line to be, that would help.
Were any third parties present when grantees were viewing the monuments? Did one or more of the original grantees, or their successors, later point out the monuments to friends, relatives, or people working on their properties? Who set the marker posts by the monuments? Can any of these people be found, and asked to identify the corners in the field and tell what they know about them?
Evidence of occupation or use that agrees with the monuments would be very valuable. It doesn't sound as though there are any fences, but the marker posts are some help. And something might be done with cultivation lines or mow lines shown on old aerials. The area has probably been flown several times in the past 23 years. Continuous occupation wouldn't need to be shown since it isn't an AP situation. The question is whether the grantees used their land in conformity with the monuments.
If any of the monument markers are good-sized pipes, posts, or timbers, their shadows might be visible on an aerial. A marker post shadow that agreed with a cultivation line would be pretty persuasive, if such a thing could be found.
Did the Famous Surveyor leave any records?
Acceptance and reliance
Everything you brought up is really good and if all those things can be found - great.
But it sounds like it is already too late to get any further unbiased testimony as a surveyor has already not only spread the news about the conflict, but has placed new monuments in the ground, precipitaing the current conflict. We need to remember that the testimony evidence needs to be gathered BEFORE we let the monument vs deed distance/measurement cat out of the bag.
However, lets not forget where the presumptions (the burdens of proof) actually lie. Why do we as surveyors insist (sometimes to unreasonable lengths) on holding the bearings and distances in a description until it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the original monuments placed by the original surveyor are the best available evidence of the corner? That sure sounds bassackwards to me.
Acceptance and reliance
> We need to remember that the testimony evidence needs to be gathered BEFORE we let the monument vs deed distance/measurement cat out of the bag.
It’s true, the situation will be a good deal harder to settle, now that the measurers have gotten into it. Sounds like Mr. Harmon has dealt with this kind of thing before. I believe he will figure something out.
> Why do we as surveyors insist (sometimes to unreasonable lengths) on holding the bearings and distances in a description until it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the original monuments placed by the original surveyor are the best available evidence of the corner? That sure sounds bassackwards to me.
If the measurers had been properly trained, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Perhaps the best answer to your question is another one—what is wrong with surveying education today, and what can be done about it? That subject deserves a new thread.
surveying education today?
> If the measurers had been properly trained, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Perhaps the best answer to your question is another one—what is wrong with surveying education today, and what can be done about it? That subject deserves a new thread.
From what I've experienced, it isn't the surveying education at all, but the lack thereof. The guys that I've worked with that have obtained even a minimum level of education in surveying have understood boundary law quite well. The guys that have no education are the most likely to be your "expert measurement technicians".
Education instills a desire for lifelong learning. Therefore, those with an education are more likely to stay up-to-date with court decisions and other happenings within the profession. Those that lack the education are typically the same people that can't recite an opinion issued by the court in recent history; some can't recite one period.