Someplace in PLSS land, where:
(a) Section boundaries/breakdowns have been established for 50 to 75 years;
(b) Where those boundaries have been honored by perhaps a few dozen different survey companies with near same Section breakdown results;
(c) Where the boundaries of 100 to 200 separate parcels within any given Section are established and recognized. And, till now accepted.
The historical result/fact being that the communities are established, fences are in place, roadways constructed, boundary disputes nonexistent, and neighbors live in harmony...albeit very infrequently are all boundaries based on “proven” Section control location.
Now, along comes a surveyor with a calling to “make things better”. A professional land surveyor who by self-proclaim is the “king” of proven corners, in an area where perhaps only 10 to 20 percent of all existing Section control is based on actual proven corner location. Although it certainly doesn't happen every day, but when he does successfully manage to “prove” a corner (and thus giving the community a new corner location in place of an old/established/accepted local corner location), a once quite community can suddenly become anything but (quiet).
I now have the pleasure (just kidding, certainly this is not a pleasurable matter) of dealing with the fallout of his determination to “make things better”...first hand. A recent client has called and informed me that a new “correct” survey has been made by his neighbor's surveyor. I am informed that as a result of a newly proven Section corner (location approximately 20 feet away from the ALC), I will need to provide a “free” resurvey of his 10 acres, that I will need to pay for new fencing, and that I will need to pay for new deed instrument preparation/recording.
I leave it to the imagination how many other surveyors might be getting similar calls throughout this particular community. Also, quite possibly in a few months/years the situation could repeat itself in another quite community as this professional surveyor continues his quest “to make things better”.
When thinking about all the 100's or 1000's of old surveys done by my company over the years – and, many other surveyors within the area might also ponder their own potential head aches – what might be the chances of getting calls from other former clients? Certainly, we would all like to “make things better”, but is this responsible behavior for a professional land surveyor when the result of such behavior is the very real litigation likely to be stirred up within an otherwise quite community? I can not cite chapter/page/verse, but over the years I seem to recall various stories about the danger to a community wrought by the over zealous surveyor, whose goal seems to be the perfect survey perhaps to demonstrate superiority over his peers, and whereas a trail of litigation always seems to be right behind.
I would welcome, and very much appreciate, hearing from others regarding this matter. What would you do if faced with a similar problem? In my situation, the other surveyor has already taken it upon himself to set his “correct” monuments. Now, I can either dig in and tell my client that I will not comply, and anxiously await the legal process to get started. Or, I can go ahead and make a new survey of his property, in which case litigation involving his other neighbor is likely to occur.
What would you do?
(When using the term “proven” Section control, I am referring to the actual physical process of digging up charred remains of Section and Quarter Section corner pine witness trees, described and recorded in field notes of the original Government Land Office survey of early 1800's, and then using bearing and distance measurements shown in those field notes to find/set the “proven” corner. Also, I do know a little about the process of proving Section/Quarter Section corners, having proven a number of them over the past 50 years, and having recently done work on State lands in rural sparsely populated areas for the DNR where proven corners were the expectation, and where I was able to prove around 75% of the original government corners set circa 1840. However, much of the work I usually do is in built-up established areas where (all but 1) local survey companies have for decades honored the in-place ALC (accepted local corner), and where Section breakdowns are based on these ALC's.
Surely, in a perfect world all Section control corners would be based on the proven position. However, in this area of Florida, for one reason or another much of the original lightered wood post survey monumentation was destroyed within the first 50 to 100 years after completion of the original GLO survey. Thereafter, re-established old survey monumentation evidence within the area of discussion is a hodgepodge of various surveys the majority of which was never based on actual proven positions. Possibly perhaps, due to laziness, incompetence, economy or worth of the land, the approximate Section lines have over the years simply matured into being recognized as real Section lines. Regardless of how the Section lines came to be, what are you going to do today? Property lines, though a majority are certainly not based on proven corners, are real, they are established, and until recently they were accepted.)
Sounds a lot like this:
Does FL have a statute regarding acquiescence?
Sounds like the surveyors in the area ought to hold a collective meeting with the guy and read him Cooley and whatever case law applies.
Sounds like you have a very imaginative surveyor and he/she needs to learn about civil actions for negligence. Review your state statutes on what constitutes acts inconsistent with uniform and resonable standards of professional conduct, fraud and deceit,practice by reason of incompetence, habitual or gross negligence ....you get my gist...send a letter to the piece of S8&t surveyor itemizing every issue that you don't agree with and maybe a copy of Justice Cooley's dictum or even call him on the phone...not every day you get to have fun like this.
B-)
Pablo
Richard,
Took awhile to read, but very interesting. Thanks much for the link.
I had a Florida Supreme Court case in the 1970's (Seddon v Harpster, Lake Co.) where I went against the established interior section lines, including the "presumed by others" North-South mid-section line, along which was a very old county maintained road. By possession, Harpster (my client) owned West of the road, and Seddon by possession owned East of the road. However, based on my survey and my 6 hour testimony/explanation/reasoning to the court, Harpster gained 14 acres and a building all situate east of the road as the Supreme Court (as well as the trial court, and the District Court of Appeal) agreed with me. This case became a landmark case and has been talked about in various attorney/land surveyor seminars and continuing education courses over the years. However, after a few years I began to have second thoughts, and if called upon today I would have personal problems with what I did in the 70's which was in accordance to law. But, as the laws (re: adverse possession) have since changed in Florida, what I did then would not be allowed by law today. Actually, right after I did the survey the State of Florida made the appropriate changes in its laws. So, when I say I would not repeat today what I did in the 70's, it is not to say that I would violate the law. Certainly not.
However, I am now put into the “squeeze”, and my client is trying to force me to comply with his demands. This is why I am seeking opinions of yours and any others regarding what you/they would do. This surveyor I referred to has already thrown down his mark upon the ground, and I find myself in a very uncomfortable position.
Bill,
Re: acquiescence; in this particular matter all fencing is new, and there is nothing regarding evidence of acquiesce of any length of time.
Liked your suggestions. I have thought of a few other possibilities myself|-)
Pablo,
Hey, thanks for your ideas:-D
What did the other surveyor find that caused to him to disagree with the commonly accepted PLSS corner? You sound like you've had a lot of experience in "proving" section corners, so do you agree or disagree that he found the original position?
There is a similar situation going on in northern Lake County. Several sections carved into everything from 40 acres right down to 1.25 acres. A surveyor working in the adjacent section set the common section corner 55 feet away from the corner previously utilized thus jeopardizing hundreds of established boundaries. I am involved and am waiting for the “phone call”. Irrespective as to the “correct” section corner I’m satisfied with my analysis and conclusions arrived at using the “corner that fit”.
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
Have a great week! B-)
I was wondering if (a very rare occasion if true) all the parcels in this neighborhood are reliant solely on the one corner "in question"? Are they metes and bounds parcels? Subdivision lots?
Concerning the parcel you surveyed (where the client is now upset), were you performing a resurvey or not?
If this shakes out as it should, I hope the surveyor that is trying to "correct" the long established boundaries is held responsible for his actions. If a few troublemakers would be made to pay for the chaos they create, maybe a few other surveyors would "wise up".
More details would be helpful in finding the appropriate case law.
What I'm trying to get at is most boundaries are not reliant on bearings and distances from one corner. Remember the ORIGINAL monuments control, not the measurements, and it is highly unlikely that the one section corner in question is the controlling monument for each and every corner of each and every parcel in the adjoining sections. How were the parcels created? When? By whom?
Try this case: Willis v Campbell
> Bill,
>
> Re: acquiescence; in this particular matter all fencing is new, and there is nothing regarding evidence of acquiesce of any length of time.
>
> Liked your suggestions. I have thought of a few other possibilities myself|-)
I guess Bill was referring to your statement in the original post: "The historical result/fact being that the communities are established, fences are in place, roadways constructed, boundary disputes nonexistent, and neighbors live in harmony...albeit very infrequently are all boundaries based on “proven” Section control location."
Here's another case: Tyson v Edwards one of my favorites;-)
"It is not the surveyor's right or responsibility to set up new points and lines establishing boundaries except when he is surveying theretofore unplatted land or subdividing a new tract. Where title to land has been established under a previous survey, the sole duty of all subsequent or following surveyors is to locate the points and lines of the original survey. Later surveyors must only track and "trace the footsteps" of the original surveyor in locating existing boundaries. They cannot establish a new corner or line nor can they correct erroneous surveys of earlier surveyors, even when the earlier surveyor obviously erred in following some apparent original "over-all design" or objective.
The reason for this lies in the historic development of the concept of land boundaries and of the profession of surveying. Man set monuments as landmarks before he invented paper and still today the true survey is what the original surveyor did on the ground by way of fixing boundaries by setting monuments and running lines ("metes and bounds"), and the paper "survey" or plat of survey is intended only as a map of what is on the ground.
The surveying method is to establish boundaries by running lines and fixing monuments on the ground while making field notes of such acts. From the field notes, plats of survey or "maps" are later drawn to depict that which was done on the ground. In establishing the original boundary on the ground the original surveyor is conclusively presumed to have been correct and if later surveyors find there is error in the locations, measurements or otherwise, such error is the error of the last surveyor. Likewise, boundaries originally located and set (right, wrong, good or bad) are primary and controlling when inconsistent with plats purporting to portray the survey and later notions as to what the original subdivider or surveyor intended to be doing or as to where later surveyors, working, perhaps, under better conditions and more accurately with better equipment, would locate the boundary solely by using the plat as a guide or plan.
Written plats are not construction plans to be followed to correctly reestablish monuments and boundaries. They are "as built" drawings of what has already occurred on the ground and are properly used only to the extent they are helpful in finding and retracing the original survey which they are intended to describe; and to the extent that the original surveyor's lines and monuments on the ground are established by other evidence and are inconsistent with the lines on the plat of survey, the plat is to be disregarded. When evidence establishes a discrepancy between the location on the ground of the original boundary survey and the written plat of that survey the discrepancy is always resolved against the plat."
You use the term established. To me that has meaning - that the boundary is fixed by law. An established boundary location can't be moved. Even finding a long lost section corner doesn't move an established boundary. Also the boundary establishment by law didn't move the original section line (if established in another location). This is all way into the common law of boundaries and not the mathematics of aliquot proportion of sections. If we are going to elevate the proportional math to the top of the list we will never get it right. Landowners and their actions establish boundaries. If all goes well they do it according to an original survey. But that's the myth and the dream. In reality $%^& happens. The courts have given us the law, best to understand and follow it.
It's great to locate a long hidden section corner. The sections lines never move but boundaries don't always get established according to the hidden original plan. The law goes with reality and equity. Once the boundary is established and relied upon (value expended) we can't switch back to the perfect original plan. Surveyors should understand this.
From Clark:
"Surveys cannot revive the rights of original owners of tracts as against an established boundary, since the survey merely establishes the line, not the title."
The PLSS case cited for this paragraph is Grell v. Ganser Wisc. 1949
http://wi.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19491011_0020.WI.htm/qx
Fear not, the "proven corner land surveyor" does not have the authority to undo what it sounds like the land owners have already taken care of. He can do no more than you, that is to render an opinion, but his opinion appears to be in opposition to the vast majority of case law in Florida and in the US. He sounds like a menace to the land owners and to the profession, but he can only go as far as allowed by the parties involved.
Now convincing your former client of that may take some doing. I would take a little time and prepare some talking points complete with real property law regulations, case law citations, and quotes from relevant accepted survey doctrine such as Cooley and Lucas. As I understand it, even the new Manual addresses this and warns against this type of revisionism. I would lay it on him at a meeting and then just politely and firmly stand your ground.
Stephen
Yes, he did find the original position; that being the position supported by the charred remains of pine tree witnesses re GLO field survey notes.
Northern Lake County can be interesting territory. That's where my Florida Supreme Court case came from. Ever hear of Altoona?
After trying all of the "Nice" ways to convince him/her to change his ways(Don't take too long doing so), it is time to get nasty. That is probably what it will take. You may have to put together a case to get a license revoked.
Be careful and have fun.B-)
Brian,
To my knowledge no one has ever challenged this particular surveyor. Apparently lots of surveyors are intimidated by his reputation for proving corners. Their fears arising from the almighty proven corner mantra. Hence, the rationale, valid or not, that his work is correct solely because...
Within this particular Section (actually all 4 adjoining Sections are involved) there's a mixture of fractional parcels, metes and bounds parcels and recorded subdivisions.
As to my particular parcel, it's a new metes and bounds parcel taken from a fractional parcel. The new “proven” corner is the Northwest Section corner, and the POB of my parcel is the Northwest corner of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4, with its North boundary being the North section line.
Also, the best I can tell is that all of the parcels within the Section have all been surveyed by mathmatical section breakdown procedures from the 8 recognized and long accepted control corners. Also, it appears all of the 1/4 corners were likely established via single proportion between the accepted section corners. This is pretty much standard fare for most of Florida. Also, over the course of my career (I have worked from Dade County (Miami) to Duval County (Jacksonville) to Bay County (Panama City)...pretty much all across Florida) in every section I can recall ever having worked in, centers of sections were located by the intersection of mid-sections lines running between the 1/4 corners, and breakdown of the four 1/4's usually being based on how the 1/4's are depicted on the Township Plat.
Stephen,
As regards to ever mentioning anything about the “law”, I will never again open my mouth and explain anything to a client. If I knew how, I would simply reference here one of my earlier posts concerning this topic. Anyway, bottom line is this: I had to hire an attorney and take to court one of the State Boards I am licensed under, all because, according to them, I was practicing law by explaining what (i.e. the law) my survey was based on. Even though they (the State) lost their desire to see it through, and the matter simply died, the experience taught me to keep my mouth shut unless I am in court and am called upon to explain myself in that forum.
Also, since my sad experience I have advised every surveyor I know to do likewise.
