yes
Ya really think that is legal.......land owners establishing their boundaries?
A big step there!
Keith
Perry has it.
yes
> Ya really think that is legal.......land owners establishing their boundaries?
>
> A big step there!
>
> Keith
IT'S ONLY SIX INCHES! THAT'S THREE FOR ME, AND THREE FOR THE NEIGHBOR! Sorry about the yelling. (I felt like Richard S. there for a minute.) I doubt anyone will arrest the landowners for splitting the difference.
Unless we're talking New York City or having to move a building or something, bothering the courts over 3" either way seems pointless and certainly a waste of money.
yes
We have two versions of the same boundary.
The property owners can certainly agree to a compromise solution.
Personally, for me personally if the fence is already up and it is based on a good faith survey then I would just go with it especially when it is only 6".
yes
Yes it is only 6 inches. Then why exactly did two "surveyors" reject the 80 year old monument between the two shiny new worthless pieces of rebar? Probably because they just couldn't resist "proving" the original surveyor couldn't measure as good as they could, ie. dropping their pants and having a measuring contest. Yep, only six inches....... laughable.
No not laughable, really sad........
yes
I agree with that.
If I understand the OP correctly, the disputed boundary wasn't marked. The concrete monuments are on his other boundary (not in dispute yet) but one surveyor rejected them and apparently came up with a new solution for the area and the other surveyor did something else (obviously) which resulted in a different solution for this one boundary.
I have a feeling there are discrepancies between the record and the existing monuments that are out there so depending upon how the discrepancies are resolved and which monuments are used/rejected changes the answer.
What is sad is the two Surveyors can't get together and resolve this problem but the property owners certainly can do it by agreeing to a solution.
:good: ditto on that
yes
> I have a feeling there are discrepancies between the record and the existing monuments that are out there so depending upon how the discrepancies are resolved and which monuments are used/rejected changes the answer.
>
When there are "discrepancies" between the distances recited in the deeds, or on a plat (the record) and original monuments, the only discrepancy is in the mind of the surveyor.
"Since the physical position of monuments referenced in a conveyance reflect the original boundaries of a particular parcel, a subsequent surveyor must attempt to conform his or her survey as closely as possible to the prior surveyor's work. Hence treatises and courts frequently recite an admonishing maxim, namely that a surveyor must follow in the footsteps of the original surveyor. See Rudolph Galiber's Testimony (Tr. 1B, p. 35.), Marvin Berning's Testimony (Tr. 2, p. 112-114). The purpose and result of this principle is to give effect to the intentions of the parties at the time of the survey as well as ensuring the continuity of boundaries over time. Accordingly, "[t]he general rule governing the determination of boundary lines by resurvey is that the intent of the new survey should be to ascertain where the original surveyors placed the boundaries," not to determine new modern boundaries. Thein v. Burrows, 13 Wash.App. 761, 537 P.2d 1064, 1065 (Wash.App.1975); see, also, U.S. v. Champion Papers, Inc., 361 F.Supp. 481 (S.D.Tex.1973)"
885 F.Supp. 727 (1995)
NEWFOUND MANAGEMENT v. SEWER
My field notes are my record of what I did, found, determined to be boundaries in the field and were signed by me and officially approved and are now in the records of the United States and available to all.
Keith
The right surveyor
Can either surveyor explain what they have done and what the other surveyor has done? The surveyor who can explain the reason for the difference is likely the correct surveyor.
If one surveyor has not shown all of the evidence used to determine the boundary, then they should be considered wrong. How can one expect another to follow in his footsteps without leaving enough to follow?
At this point I would do what the judge ordered. As a surveyor my first question for Gary would be what made him believe the first survey moved the line 10 inches? Second, if the record shows the cast marks are original the.survey would not consider any evidence beyond Those bounds. Any surveyor that does is violating rule 1.
yes
Brian,
The first new survey, to our west, cut into our property by 10-12 inches for a 155' depth. Then a fence was erected which eliminated our vehicle access into our 400 foot deep back yard.
With this easterly shift of one lot by 10-12 inches, brought along a domino effect of another neighbor 2 houses over which placed her fence on the property of the neighbor 3 houses over. The neighbor 2 houses over, to the west came over to me and was all worried about now her fence wasn’t on her property. I told her I would take care of this. She is in her 80’s.
Our surveyor only gained us back 6” on the west, which did show the newly erected fence is on our property, but encroached into another neighbor’s property to the east by 6” and he is all worried that he is now losing property. He is in his 80’s as well.
It gets better-
The one big lot to our east was developed in 1997 and split into four. An error was made in the legal description of the first corner lot which dictates the location of the other 3 and now there is a 3 foot void to our east and overlap between the first and second lot. This was found by our surveyor but wasn’t explained. On the print received from our surveyor there is a note attached to our easterly boundary “2.8’ gap in descriptions” After doing the trig. and converting all four lots, to the east, into a AutoCad drawing I know where the error occurred.
We are in the city - no subdivision -just typical houses off streets –I am not sure which way the neighborhood is laid out.
This is truly a mess and nothing is as it was and nobody is sure where anything is.
When does one just turn their back and walk away shaking their head and laughing and being glad it’s not them that needs to deal with all this?
I have held the dummy end of the laser measuring unit a couple times while working with the surveyors at the firm I once worked at, I am no surveyor – more towards the mechanical / electrical engineering.
Gary
> At this point I would do what the judge ordered. As a surveyor my first question for Gary would be what made him believe the first survey moved the line 10 inches? Second, if the record shows the cast marks are original the.survey would not consider any evidence beyond Those bounds. Any surveyor that does is violating rule 1.
Linebender,
First, I want to again thank everyone taking time in helping us through this situation and putting up with a new person to this forum.
Update – defendant did not agree to splitting the cost of a third surveyor so now we are left to decide which of the two new surveys will be used and I don’t think the 80 year old monuments are going to be considered.
If we measured – (with our “100’ Stanley Hi-Visibility Long Tape 34-096 Made in the USA” tape) from the cast in concrete monument at our SE corner (of our lot), over to the east, the newly placed SE iron (of our neighbor to the west lot) by the first surveyor we were 10-12” short of our 95’ frontage.
With this easterly shift of one lot by 10-12 inches, brought along a domino effect of another neighbor 2 houses over which placed her fence on the property of the neighbor 3 houses over. The neighbor 2 houses over, to the west came over to me and was all worried about now her fence wasn’t on her property.
Anything that has happened with respect to the four lots that share property lines on our east all uses the same type of cast in concrete monuments and there are 5 of them and now two of the five are moved. Our surveyor move the NE corner as well.
Gary
You seem to be interested in understanding land surveying. Below is a Michigan case surveyors often refer to. It seems to apply to your situation well.
The Michigan court in Diehl v. Zanger (39 Mich. 601 [1878]) analyzed a situation wherein a city engineer reconfigured an earlier subdivision, moving corners to make the mathematics fit and causing numerous encroachments under his procedure. Justice Thomas Cooley, in writing the decision, stated, "The litigation grows out of a new survey recently made by the city surveyor. This officer after searching for the original stakes and finding none, proceeded to take measurements according to the original plat, and to drive stakes of his own. According to this survey the practical location of the whole plat is wrong, and all the lines should be moved between four and five feet to the east. The surveyor testified with positiveness and apparently without the least hesitation that 'the fences and buildings on all the lots are not correctly located,' and there is of course an opportunity for 48 suits at law and probably many more than that."
"When an officer proposes thus dogmatically to unsettle the landmarks of a whole community, it becomes of the highest importance to know what has been the basis of his opinion. The record in this case failed to give any explanation, but the reasonable inference is that the surveyor has reached his conclusion by first satisfying himself what was the initial point of the original surveyor and then proceeding to survey out the plat anew with that as his starting point. Of course by this method if no mistake is made, there is no difficulty in ascertaining with positive certainty where, according to the original plat, the original street and lot lines ought to have been located; and apparently the surveyor has assumed that that was all he had to do."
Justice Cooley continued: "Nothing is better understood than that few of the early plats will stand the test of a careful and accurate survey without disclosing errors. This is as true of the government surveys as of any others, and if all the lines were now subject to correction on new surveys, the confusion of lines and titles that would follow would cause consternation in many communities. Indeed the mischiefs that must follow would be simply incalculable, and the visitation of the surveyor might well be set down as a great public calamity."
"But no law can sanction this course. The surveyor has mistaken entirely the point to which his attention should have been directed. The question is not how an entirely accurate survey would locate the lots, but how the original stakes located them."
Gary wrote
If we measured – (with our “100’ Stanley Hi-Visibility Long Tape 34-096 Made in the USA” tape) from the cast in concrete monument at our SE corner (of our lot), over to the east, the newly placed SE iron (of our neighbor to the west lot) by the first surveyor we were 10-12” short of our 95’ frontage.
You cant place a square peg in a round hole. The 80 year old monuments probably control the lot frontages, not the exact record measurement.
Let me ask you another question. What kind of understanding regarding the location of your boundary did you and your neighbor have before the survey? Was there anything you could point at and tell one another that is our line? You say you have a common drive. What's the story behind that? How was it constructed? When? Shared cost?
MOVED?
Your surveyor MOVED the marker? Where was it, 10-12 inches over? The weight / reliance of a marker not in it's original and undisturbed location drops significantly.
Is this flatland or a steep incline? A 14.2' difference in 100' will change the length by 1'. (101^2)-(100^2)=201, (201^0.5)=14.2
MOVED?
I think Gary is referencing MOVING in terms of giving himself the entire 95 ft. from the opposite corner. So he is measuring 94' 2" to the new mark and his reasoning is that the line moved because of that. That's my understanding anyway.
It appears they are trying to give everyone in the neighborhood the record frontage when there may be less than the record frontage to give. The easy solution would be to proportion between the 80 year old monuments but that can't be done until there is a determination made if the line in question has been previously established. There is also the mediation alternative. But to me it sounds like the second survey has done that in a sense because it is about half of the 10" in dispute. I don't like the idea of the second survey exceeding the bound of the 80 year old mark at the SE corner however. That's just starting another dispute.
Linebender,
There was no understanding between the neighbor to the west as to where our west and their east boundary was, but with the errors in GIS maps of the city misled them into believing they had no driveway and their easterly property line went through their garage which prompted them into getting a survey.
Nothing existed to point at for the placement of the four corners of the neighbors’ lot to our west.
Our lot and the two lots to the west were all owned by the same family and between brothers and sisters properties were swapped and adjusted over time. Our lot did include an additional 5’ to the west but was deeded over to a family member back in the fifties for access to their back garage. When we moved here over 20 years ago we opened up our west side to gain easier access into our back yard. Over the course of three different PO to the west we were sharing the driveway. No costs were shared but I did keep it clear of snow in the winter like I do for about 3 other elders in the neighborhood.
Gary
"Simply put, a corner monument is a corner monument ONLY when it occupies the position of the property corner."
Okay . . . but in who's eyes?
Anything natural or unnatural is a corner monument if anyone with an interest perceives it to be a corner.
A surveyor does not have an exclusive right to determine what is or is not a "monument", just because it doesn't fit mathematical confines. A surveyor can only determine that a found monument might not agree with records or with numbers and make a report to the findings and how the findings were determined.
It appears that more than one property owner has more than one opinion as to what is the corner of their property. One might be correct, but each of the monuments have value to the land-owners . . . i.e., they're both monuments, cause for now, they both have purpose/value.
Anyway . . . I'm really missing the whole point of my post . . .
I's like to know . . . for myself, if the two surveys actually address the disagreement between the two owners, or are they just surveys that indicate a final determination by each surveyor?
In other words, do both surveyors give enough "pertinent" information for a judge(or anyone else), to actually understand each surveyor's reasoning for their final determination as shown on the survey map? Or is the judge just seeing a difference(in the surveys), that now must be explained by a third surveyor?
. . . just curious . . .
MOVED?
Anything that has happened with respect to the four lots that share property lines on our east all uses the same type of cast in concrete monuments and there are 5 of them and now two of the five are moved. Our surveyor move the NE corner as well.
Sounds like he moved two monuments, but hey I could be misreading the post.
MOVED?
> Your surveyor MOVED the marker? Where was it, 10-12 inches over? The weight / reliance of a marker not in it's original and undisturbed location drops significantly.
>
> Is this flatland or a steep incline? A 14.2' difference in 100' will change the length by 1'. (101^2)-(100^2)=201, (201^0.5)=14.2
Spledeus,
I might have mis-spoke. Nothing was moved just added to. The concrete markers are still in place on our east boundary. Our surveyor just added to. Ones head would just spin trying to understand what is happening.
Gary
