So for the past 20 years the location of your west line has been uncertain to both you and the owner to your west? How does the deed for the 5 ft from the 50's read? Are there any of those 80 year old marks to your west?
You're in Bay City? Or Battle Creek?
yes
What happens when you measure 95' west from the concrete monument at your southeasterly corner?
Did there used to be a concrete monument at your southwest corner per the 1930s survey?
Disregarding the 1930s Survey is definitely not the right thing to do.
If your west boundary was marked by that or other survey in the past then the Surveyors should be retracing evidence of the boundary, not marking it in a new location.
> So for the past 20 years the location of your west line has been uncertain to both you and the owner to your west? How does the deed for the 5 ft from the 50's read? Are there any of those 80 year old marks to your west?
Linebender,
Jan 13 , 1950
“A certain piece of land in sec 16, T14N R5E described as follows:- Commencing at a point on the north side of Murphy st as now laid out, said point being 400 feet distant easterly as mentioned along the N side of Murphy st from the east side line of Sidney st, formerly Lincoln st, as now laid out; thence running northerly and parallel with the east side line of Sidney st 155 feet; thence easterly and parallel with the north side of Murphy st 5 feet; thence southerly and parallel to the east side line of Sidney st 155 feet to the north side line of Murphy st; thence westerly along the north side line of Murphy st to place of beginning.”
I have never look for any markers laying this 5 foot piece to our west but I like what you are getting at. But I doubt there was any survey done when this 5’ x 155’ piece was transferred between families.
Gary
> You're in Bay City? Or Battle Creek?
Bay City, 160-016-126-016-00
yes
> What happens when you measure 95' west from the concrete monument at your southeasterly corner?
Dave,
Our tape mark at 95' is west of the newly placed monuments by 10" from first survey and 6" from the second survey. We gain a full 95' frontage when we hook the tape on the new rod which was placed 6" to the east of the old cast monument and then measure to the second new rod at the SW corner.
> Did there used to be a concrete monument at your southwest corner per the 1930s survey?
Not to my knowledge was there ever a monument at the SW corner of our lot.
> Disregarding the 1930s Survey is definitely not the right thing to do.
This is exactly what confuses me the most.
> If your west boundary was marked by that or other survey in the past then the Surveyors should be retracing evidence of the boundary, not marking it in a new location.
The first PS said “they didn’t know who placed those monuments”
So at one time your tract was 100x155 on the deed. This tract was split off from a parent family tract. There is an explanation why your 95 ft may not be 95 ft. If the tract to the west was deeded out first it would get full measure and your tract would get the remainder. This could bre 95 ft. More or less
> So at one time your tract was 100x155 on the deed. This tract was split off from a parent family tract. There is an explanation why your 95 ft may not be 95 ft. If the tract to the west was deeded out first it would get full measure and your tract would get the remainder. This could bre 95 ft. More or less
Linbender,
Our lot was 100' x 400' back in the 40's which is east of then a 50 x 155 foot lot.
In 1950 a 5' slice was deeded to the lot on the west of us only a depth of only 155' which was add to the 50' x 155' lot on our west.
Now we have a 5' sliced off our description for 155’ north then it widens to a full 100’ for the remainder north. So there is a jog on our west and a straight 400’ on our east.
> "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 . . .
Retired69,
Point well taken.
First surveyor hired by the property owner to our west was informed that based on the GIS maps they had no driveway and the GIS placed the property line, between our two lots, to be running through their garage. During the survey every effort possible was taken to provide land to their east – into our lot so they owned enough of the driveway to block us out of our back yard and then immediately erected a fence on the newly claimed property.
Our surveyor knew that we were in dispute of first surveyor so they did a more in-depth study of the whole NW ¼ section as well as the NE ¼ of the NW ¼ section to confirm or deny accuracy of the first surveyor.
Gary
I Hereby Certify
Is this statement of accuracy typical throughout all the states or is it just specific to Michigan?
“I hereby certify that this survey and description shown hereon complies with the requirements of Public Act 132 of 1970 as amended. That the ratio of closure on the boundary of said survey exceeds 1’ in 5000’ and is within the acceptable limits of the surveying profession.”
Another question (2 part)
Is there a compliance that the GPS equipment has to conform to and is there a recertification or recalibration required?
Gary
I Hereby Certify
Mississippi doesn't require a statement at all. Your stamp is considered to serve that purpose.
First surveyor hired by the property owner to our west was informed that based on the GIS maps they had no driveway and the GIS placed the property line, between our two lots, to be running through their garage. During the survey every effort possible was taken to provide land to their east – into our lot so they owned enough of the driveway to block us out of our back yard and then immediately erected a fence on the newly claimed property.
Surveyors are supposed make a lawful boundary determination without respect to their client. It's hard to believe this statement.
Our surveyor knew that we were in dispute of first surveyor so they did a more in-depth study of the whole NW ¼ section as well as the NE ¼ of the NW ¼ section to confirm or deny accuracy of the first surveyor.
There would be no need to resurvey the entire quarter. Please read and reread Justice Cooley's opinion. Your neighbor's down the line who have been at peace with their boundary for years should not have to now worry about their boundaries because of your dispute. You asked a good question early on that both surveyor's should have to answer about why those 80 year old marks were not used.
I Hereby Certify
Regarding this discussion, I always thought that laws pertaining to surveying are generally laws that pertain to the practice of surveying . . . which is measuring.
I'm not aware of any laws that require or legislate that a surveyor has to properly determine a boundary line beyond all reproach, but only that a surveyor will perform his job of research and measuring to a certain degree completeness and accuracy. The rest becomes an opinion(attorneys love to bring this up in trial all the time).
I know, for me, my certification is to the process I used being in compliance with pertinent laws. Although I expect my lines to be a rather true opinion of their true location, additional data on my survey map indicate how I derived the lines that I indicate and if need be, why I believe a line should be where I show it.
I often also indicate potential weakness or quote available information that supports my opinion or that might bring a line into question.
> First surveyor hired by the property owner to our west was informed that based on the GIS maps they had no driveway and the GIS placed the property line, between our two lots, to be running through their garage. During the survey every effort possible was taken to provide land to their east – into our lot so they owned enough of the driveway to block us out of our back yard and then immediately erected a fence on the newly claimed property.
>
> Surveyors are supposed make a lawful boundary determination without respect to their client. It's hard to believe this statement.
>
>
> Our surveyor knew that we were in dispute of first surveyor so they did a more in-depth study of the whole NW ¼ section as well as the NE ¼ of the NW ¼ section to confirm or deny accuracy of the first surveyor.
>
> There would be no need to resurvey the entire quarter. Please read and reread Justice Cooley's opinion. Your neighbor's down the line who have been at peace with their boundary for years should not have to now worry about their boundaries because of your dispute. You asked a good question early on that both surveyor's should have to answer about why those 80 year old marks were not used.
Line bender,
I agree with you but after reading about four different case studies like Adams v. Hoover I can't understand why the first surveyor didn't consider prior surveys of land on either side of defendants' property.
Our surveyor knew he needed to do his homework, which is leaps and bounds more in-depth then first.
Adams v. Hoover
Although defendants' surveyor, Cole, set the central quarter corner post by the statutorily approved method, we find that the trial court properly determined that plaintiff's survey — the Ross survey following the Lunde-Stephens survey — should be upheld. Following the Cole survey would lead to an especially egregious result because of the failure of defendants' surveyor, Cole, to consider prior recorded surveys of land on either side of defendants' property; his failure to record his survey designating the center post, as required by the Corner Recordation Act, MCL 54.203; MSA 13.115(53); and his failure to inform defendants that an alternative center post relied upon by other surveyors existed. As the trial court's opinion stated:
I Hereby Certify
Retired69,
Thanks for the reply - Now I want to read your other post about "Original" Monuments
Gary
MOVED?
"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"
Seems to be the crux of the problem........ignoring a monument!
Did your surveyor explain why he ignored the concrete monument.
Maybe I am reading something wrong, but goes back to my original comment......measuring technicians!
Keith
So in all this time (more than 50 years) there has never been anything visible marking any kind of occupied and accepted line along the boundary of your property. No fence, curb, sidewalk or any boundary markers. Just flat out open country. Your boundary under the law has never been established. So now you and all these surveyors and city GIS folks are going to come in, do the math and make a line where there never was. And guess what, the real world ain't exactly as the deeds(s) say they are (shouldn't be any revelation in that but for some strange reason there always seems to be). So you all need to decide which is going to bend, the description in the deed or the physical earth. I'm putting my money in the fact that the physical earth remains in tact and that some where in there the math of the deeds is going to need to yield. Too bad you need to spend the money to get a judge to tell you that, common sense should have solved this issue long ago and probably the common law already has.
Don't take this personally you got LOTS of company! You're not going to get the final answer out of the display of a calculator working over the deed. It's like a dog chasing his own tail, round and round in circles, a decade from now the same thing, trying to make an exact hundred feet out of some other physical reality. Shift the difference up and down the block, look for some original markers a half mile away and remeasure with modern equipment what was already done the best they could way back when. Forget about the law and refuse many times (not always) to see the answer right there in plain sight where it has been for decades.
out
so your surveyor is holding your frontage over the monuments?
you said the monuments are 80 years old, how old is the subdivision?
LRDay,
Thanks for the reply,
Gary
out
> so your surveyor is holding your frontage over the monuments?
>
> you said the monuments are 80 years old, how old is the subdivision?
spledeus,
Yes, our surveyor is holding our frontage over both monuments. The 80+ cast monument at our SE and the 6 month old SW monument are inside of the monument placed by our surveyor (both by 6")
Our house was built in the 30’s and we are not sure if city streets and lots are called a subdivision. I thought a subdivision is of some type of development outside of the city.
Could lots, laid out, in the city be called a subdivision?
Gary