out
'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")"
I take it that this means "frontage" is your record measurement?
Has your surveyor explained to you why the monument is being ignored and the measurements are the ONLY evidence being used?
This is where your problem lies!
Keith
out
> '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")"
>
> I take it that this means "frontage" is your record measurement?
Yes
>
> Has your surveyor explained to you why the monument is being ignored and the measurements are the ONLY evidence being used?
No
>
> This is where your problem lies!
>
> Keith
Thanks Keith, we are going to have our surveyor look for the old SW corner marker at the pre 1950 100 foot wide frontage and our surveyor’s intention was to provide us the 95’ frontage to match the legal description.
> Our frontage description is 95’ and is marked by a south easterly corner monument which is cast in concrete. The south westerly corner wasn’t marked. (Joint driveway and no marker present)
I would be hard-pressed not to accept a monument cast in concrete; but it does depend on its origin, and what it was set to represent. My last property was along a State Highway, and there was an old highway right-of-way monument a foot away from where our property corner belonged. The neighbor built a fence to the old concrete marker.
> Two different surveyors found our west property boundary in two different places. The two property lines on our west are 6” apart and the origin PK nail of the section quarter is only 400 foot away.
I'm bothered about the "PK nail". a pk nail was never set as an original section corner. If I were reestablishing an obliterated section corner, I would never use a pk nail. I can't believe that one of the surveyors didn't either dig up the original, or reestablish its original location before going further. (I'm assuming that the section corner is a controlling point that determines your corners.)
> Neighbor to the west had a surveyor came in and took 10” of our west property boundary, and placed a new fence. Our surveyor came in and gave us 6” back on the west and took 6” to the east, from my neighbor to the east and disregarded an existing cast in concrete monument. Fence on the west is now on our property based on our new survey.
I'm with Perry on this a bit. I don't know the land values in your area, but around here 10" isn't worth the value of a survey, or the value of a fence, and definitely not the value of taking it to court. (unless that property line is going through a major improvement, like a garage or a house.)
> First survey, back in the Thirties which cast monuments in concrete around the neighborhood, isn’t being considered. Why?
That-there is the question of the day. To me, a "first survey" from the thirties, would be golden. Even if it wasn't the original survey, if it was from the thirties, and has been used ever since by everyone but these two latest surveyors, it would still be golden to me. what else would a surveyor want to find?
> The yard looks like a pin cushion now and nobody has any consideration for monuments that are approximately 80 years old.
> I have three corner markers each with two stakes 6" apart.
I have the philosophy that whenever there are more than one property corner marker representing the same corner, there is evidence somewhere that supports that marker. It is the surveyor's job to figure out the best available evidence to establish the correct corner.
> Judge wants to call in a third surveyor to settle the dispute.
> What would you do?
An independent survey and a judgement would certainly be more definitive of where the corner belongs. Of course, you and/or others might not like the results. And it wouldn't be absolutely definitive if the litigants are rich and want to go to appeals. That would mainly make the lawyers, and a few other, money.
Ideally, you would reach an agreement with your neighbor(s) and execute a "boundary-line agreement". Also record that agreement. That would probably be more definitive than a judgement. If you are in dispute, that window for harmony might have already closed.
Finally, is it worth it? Perry might be right. I know I wouldn't worry about a foot or so at my property. The land value is worth something, but not as much as a fence, a lawyer, or even a surveyor. (A survey is of value, but it will cost more than a 10" propery difference in many places.)
Adam,
Good points and advice taken.
> I would be hard-pressed not to accept a monument cast in concrete; but it does depend on its origin, and what it was set to represent. My last property was along a State Highway, and there was an old highway right-of-way monument a foot away from where our property corner belonged. The neighbor built a fence to the old concrete marker.
Good point but, there are 5 similar concrete monuments at ever corner of the lots that adjoin out lot on our east border.
> I'm with Perry on this a bit. I don't know the land values in your area, but around here 10" isn't worth the value of a survey, or the value of a fence, and definitely not the value of taking it to court. (unless that property line is going through a major improvement, like a garage or a house.)
>
We need this strip for access to our back yard.
> An independent survey and a judgement would certainly be more definitive of where the corner belongs. Of course, you and/or others might not like the results. And it wouldn't be absolutely definitive if the litigants are rich and want to go to appeals. That would mainly make the lawyers, and a few other, money.
> Ideally, you would reach an agreement with your neighbor(s) and execute a "boundary-line agreement". Also record that agreement. That would probably be more definitive than a judgement. If you are in dispute, that window for harmony might have already closed.
It wouldn’t be in the defendant’s interest to settle harmoniously because they have the upper hand and already erected a fence to claim our property and restrict our access.
An offer of compensation was given to us to have the fence left there and for us to drop the case but, we need the access.
Gary, back to what Linebender said. The 6 inches, or 10 inches, or whatever it is, might not exist, regardless of what the deed says.
I looked at the GIS version of your legal description, and some of the surrounding ones. This block, or block equivalent, resembles a type that is common in St. Paul MN. All these parcels have metes-and-bounds descriptions. It doesn’t look as though they were all surveyed at the same time. Judging by the points of commencement or their equivalents, there were probably 3 or more original surveys for your parcel and its adjoiners, and more still in other parts of the block.
From what you have said, the lines dividing your parcel and the two parcels to the west may never have been surveyed, due to the family ownership. It’s possible, though, that the outside lines of the group of three were included in one of the original surveys.
One original survey can’t be used to determine the lines of another, even if the second survey adjoins it, because the two were run independently. They might agree with one another or they might disagree. Disagreement is much more likely, and that in turn means gaps and/or overlaps where two original surveys adjoin.
In the case of an overlap the senior parcel (i.e. the one first conveyed out of the parent parcel) gets its full described dimension, and the junior parcel gets what remains. That might be the case with your 10 inches.
It sounds as though the 1930s survey with the monuments in concrete included the four parcels to the east of your property. It might well be an original survey, and those monuments are probably very good evidence for the boundaries of those parcels. But in answer to Dave Karoly’s question, you have said that you’re not aware if there was ever a 1930s monument in concrete at your SW corner, or any monument at all. So it’s not clear whether your property was included in the 1930s survey, and thus it’s not clear whether your deed dimension ought to be, or ever was, measured from the monument in concrete at your SE corner.
In running similar blocks in St. Paul, I’ve learned that it’s important to look at the chain of title to see how the existing parcels were originally conveyed from their parent parcels. When several smaller parcels were conveyed out of a parent parcel by the same grantor, it often turns out that they were included in the same original survey, which can then be retraced. If records of the original survey can be found, they’re a big help. It’s sometimes possible to find such records, and sometimes not. It’s an imperfect process, and many things can go wrong.
As Perry Williams, Dave Karoly, and others have pointed out, this all seems like a good deal of trouble and expense for 10 inches of land. A more important issue would be driveway access to your back yard. This small amount of land seems unlikely to affect that situation either way, but perhaps it does, depending on how much clearance there is between your house and the neighbors’ new fence.
You could ask your attorney whether you might have prescriptive rights over the neighbors’ driveway due to having used it for a long time. This is a very complicated area of law, and it might be necessary, as Jud suggested, to consult another attorney with special expertise. It’s likely to be quite expensive to take such a matter to court, and the outcome is hard to predict.
It’s always better to negotiate something, if possible, instead of doing battle in court. Although you probably aren’t on good terms with your neighbors at this point, your attorney could try to negotiate with theirs for settlement of the boundary and for a driveway easement. It would probably cost something to settle the matter and get what you want, but it would be more certain and a good deal cheaper than carrying on with the present court case.
After looking at the GIS its hard for me to envision how 6 to 10 inches prohibits access. If the land where the fence now is located was used previously to access the back and it can be proven there may have been some right of easement established and you may want to approach it with an attorney from that angle rather than make it a boundary location issue.
Good point to look into prescriptive rights, not only that, but adverse possession rights. Presumably the attorney will use all the possibilities on the issue. Even if an independent survey didn't agree with you, the historic use may prove to have passed title or prescriptive rights over to you.
It's sad to see this kind of dispute happening. It's less than a foot for crimeny's sake. The neighbor may have some kind of "upper hand", I don't know, but it might be in their best interest to come to some kind of agreement, even if your side wins the case, it's usually the attorney's that win in the long run and have the real upper hand. It makes for bad neighbor relations as well. I hate living in that kind of atmosphere.
RPlumber314,
Linebender,
adamsurveyor
I agree, I agree.
>About prescriptive rights, not only that, but adverse possession rights.
We did try this argument but our layer dropped this because we didn't have, or couldn't show hostile and exclusive possession.
Linebender,
No right of easement has been granted. What we have left is aprox. 7.5 feet of access and if we got all our property back, their access would be restricted as well and then the placement of a fence would not be advantageous for them either.
RPlumber314,
I need to read your reply a few times to let it sink in.
Thanks for the comeback.
Are you saying that - even if we are the parent lot that gave 5’ of our lot to the lot to our west that the 10 inches might not exist, regardless of what the deed says?
I have a copy of the deed from 1950 that 5' of our lot was deeded to the lot to the west.
I need to do some more studying on metes-and bounds:
>All these parcels have metes-and-bounds descriptions.
>We did try this argument but our layer dropped this because we didn't have, or couldn't show hostile and exclusive possession.
So no adverse possession, but maybe still a prescriptive easement? The requirements are less stringent than for AP.
One original survey can't be used ....
RPlumb314, Can this statement be explained please?
> One original survey can’t be used to determine the lines of another, even if the second survey adjoins it, because the two were run independently. They might agree with one another or they might disagree. Disagreement is much more likely, and that in turn means gaps and/or overlaps where two original surveys adjoin.
> In running similar blocks in St. Paul, I’ve learned that it’s important to look at the chain of title to see how the existing parcels were originally conveyed from their parent parcels. When several smaller parcels were conveyed out of a parent parcel by the same grantor, it often turns out that they were included in the same original survey, which can then be retraced. If records of the original survey can be found, they’re a big help. It’s sometimes possible to find such records, and sometimes not. It’s an imperfect process, and many things can go wrong.
>
Where would one start to look for these surveys?
One original survey can't be used ....
Gary
I am not a licensed surveyor in your state so the following is just for the sake of discussion.
*Your East property line*
The descriptions adjoining your east line commence at a point along Joseph St. which is the next street to the east. All the descriptions west of your east line commence at Sidney and Murphy. So your east line is controlled by descriptions from two directions. If you were to lay out your east line word for word from one point of commencement and from the other, the chances that those two lines as laid out would coincide exactly is slim to none. A prudent surveyor would try to find the first markers that were set long that line as controlling. If none existed, the surveyor would look for any other evidence of establishment to make a determination as to location. If there were no evidence to consider then the surveyor should search for the first deed that established that line and use the words in that deed to lay it out. The first deed may not have used the point at Murphy and Sidney. It may have come from Joseph St. Only record research can uncover that mystery.
*Your West line*
For the sake of discussion I have made an assumption on the sequence the family split their parent parcel using A B C as the family tract. Obviously I may have assumed the sequence wrong which would change what I'm about to write. So lets say the parent tract was A B and C... one deed back in the 30's or whenever. They next deeded B. B gets the full measure of everything called for in the deed. Next, they deeded your parcel. Although your deed calls for a specific measure you aren't entitled to that measure. You are entitled to whatever is left between B and your east line as determined in the process described above. As I wrote, the sequence of events could change what you are entitled to but I think you can understand the concept.
*Joint Drive*
So there is now a fence in or on the east edge of that drive west of your garage? The aerial makes it look like that drive is exclusive use for B. However you have written that it was for joint use. You need to convince the court and/or B it was if you wish to continue to use it by testimony of what you used it for and how often and if the current or previous owners of B agreed or at least realized you were using it and did not try to prevent you from using it. It may by a costly proposition to get that done if it can be done. Look for an attorney that has won easement cases for ingress/egress. Before you do that invite B over for a barbeque and explain how you depend on that access and you would like to work out an agreement rather than seek legal advise.
One original survey can't be used ....
Linebender,
Yes you can see what started this whole thing. The GIS maps are misleading. Our “C lot” western boundary doesn’t go through our neighbor’s garage.
And to boot if one plots out the legal description of the lot on the NW corner of Joseph and Murphy you can see that that error affect all four lots to the east of us, and leaves a 3’ discrepancy in the description on our east.
If all these discrepancies were to be corrected, we would be lucky to have the same street address.
I talked to the State and there is a Re-monumenting program going on here in bay county and was given contact information of which to start digging up old surveys.
Sound like I will be taking another trip to the county building and going through Liber books.
Ouch, I get the ABC concept. If we deeded 5’ from C to B and C didn’t have a full 100 to begin with then we are left with the remainder because the full 5 foot was deeded.
– More research needed –
How about a reality show about “Surveyors”? Mix in a little history – little property dispute – There has to be some good stories that makes mine look lame.
One original survey can't be used ....
> How about a reality show about “Surveyors”? Mix in a little history – little property dispute – There has to be some good stories that makes mine look lame.
Haha....
That would be good, but they would call it about anyone but surveyors. It would be about realtors, GIS people, landowners, engineers, lawyers or someone else. It seems like you are one of the few nonsurveyors who have an inkling about what we do. 😉
PS, I don't think yours looks that lame. But I think there are a lot of situations like yours that surveyors deal with many times. I think that only a small percentage of go to court. We go out and find the 'pincushions' and try to figure out how to resolve them. Some surveyors figure out how to kind of mediate and work things out between the neighbors. A lot of surveyors get involved with testifying in court. Others just never get that deep into it.
linebender
It sure looks to me like the GIS lines do not follow boundaries on the ground?
Or, maybe too much reliance on GIS boundaries are creating the problem?
And I think you should be the surveyor to go there and do it right!
Keith
linebender
It sure looks to me like the GIS lines do not follow boundaries on the ground?
Yep, not much new news there. Whoever took GIS as a threat to surveyors need not have.
Or, maybe too much reliance on GIS boundaries are creating the problem?
I'm sure Gary here would agree with that.
> Are you saying that - even if we are the parent lot that gave 5’ of our lot to the lot to our west that the 10 inches might not exist, regardless of what the deed says?
> I have a copy of the deed from 1950 that 5' of our lot was deeded to the lot to the west.
>
Since the orginal lot had 100' of frontage, if you measure 100' from the found concrete mon (instead of the 95') is there any chance you will find the mon that probably marked that location? Obviously, it will not fall at 95', since 1950 is later than the date the mons were set, if your 1930's date is correct.
It appears it might fall in a driveway, but I am hoping that someone at least took a metal detector to the area.
linebender
> It sure looks to me like the GIS lines do not follow boundaries on the ground?
> Yep, not much new news there. Whoever took GIS as a threat to surveyors need not have.
>
> Or, maybe too much reliance on GIS boundaries are creating the problem?
> I'm sure Gary here would agree with that.
And they want a national geospatial database with the entire cadastre in it? BAAHAAAAA!
(Good luck!)
linebender
Maybe Gary does not know that GIS does not establish boundaries? Sorta like in past, some would try to use USGS quad sheets to establish their boundaries.
Maps are not plats!
Keith
linebender
Actually the National GIS parcel map is possible. The problem is they have picked the low hanging fruit already with all the technology and such. If they really want it then the money will need to come forth for all the legal land surveying to get accurate coordinates for the boundary monuments marking the boundaries. I also believe there is a lot of legally established boundaries out there that will take more than just an original retracement to get right. If they'd do it right and pony up the required funding it would employ a lot of surveyors for a long time. But once it was mostly done there wouldn't be much need for the land surveyors after that (no need to pincushion our selves into oblivion anymore).
I think land surveyors should be pushing to get the work done and done correctly instead of just blowing GIS off as something bad. If surveyors don't get on board I think we run the risk that at some point they will just legislate that from that time forth the GIS does control the boundaries. Or they may give boundary surveying to some other group that does want to move forward with what society really wants (maps that you can depend on, online and mostly free).
It's sad to see someone drug into the boundary dispute mud due to improper use of an inaccurate GIS map.
linebender
> Maybe Gary does not know that GIS does not establish boundaries? Sorta like in past, some would try to use USGS quad sheets to establish their boundaries.
>
> Maps are not plats!
>
> Keith
Keith,
Yes I do know that the GIS maps are approximate only – “just a cartoon” – like what Bill Hudson called our engineering drawings.