> Maybe you could use statistics to put a best-fit line through the three points, and remonument all three on the statistically best-fit.
I assume that is the classic tongue in cheek... 😛 Unfortunately, there are way too many surveyors that do exactly that.
Another key distinction for jud is the difference between 'precision' and 'accuracy'. That kink in the line may not be precise, but it is accurate.
$0.02
> There is NO QUESTION WHATSOEVER here. If it is indeed an original monument in the interior of the plat, you have an angle point. Positions of original monuments are ALWAYS held. This is the most fundamental principle of boundary retracement. You do not "correct" an original survey, ever. Shame on all who suggested otherwise.
Wrong! Junior monuments don't bend senior lines. It depends on whether the east line of the 5 acre lot is on the east edge of the entire subdivision.
The actions of adjacent land owners may bend the lines by reliance, acquiescense, etc., but that does not appear to have happened here.
Stephen
You haven't made clear whether the three monuments were set at the same time or not. You say the 5 acre lot is interior to the subdivision, but is the east line of it on the outer edge of the subdivision? It makes a difference.
Do the two outer monuments predate the subdivision? If so, and if they are are original and undisturbed, then a surveyor came along and accepted them and tried but failed to hit the line somewhere in the middle. If he erred by placing the capped rebar into the neighbor's property, then they automatically lose some land, right? I don't think so!!! Now fast forward a couple of decades and fences have been built and .... well, you know the drill. Then things might be different.
But if he subdivided out of a larger lot and all three monuments were part of it, then yes, the line is as marked. The line is kinked.
Stephen
Accurate only if relied upon over time and it can be shown that the monument was not set in error or that it had never moved. If no reliance and outside the precision called for in statute, intent would have a higher place in the weighing of evidence. In the data given, there is no reliance on a monument that appears undisturbed but is a half foot out of position, this monument was set during recent times when such an error would be considered a blunder or excessive.
jud
:good:
And there you have the problem with this profession, everyone has an opinion and everyone is right. then it all comes down to what a judge thinks, and what kind of day he is having when he makes a ruling??
Stephen, the original post stated that it was an original monument on an interior lot.
You are correct in the case of a monument set on an exterior boundary of the subdividing survey. Such a monument wold not represent an original survey of the adjoining line. Nevertheless, all interior monuments of the original subdividing survey hold sway in the absence of evidence that they have been moved in the intervening years.
In the case of incorrectly placed monuments purported to be on an exterior line, I would hold the monuments for line, and trim or extend the intersecting interior line to terminate at the correct exterior boundary.
> And there you have the problem with this profession, everyone has an opinion and everyone is right.
I think you just described why it is a profession. I heard a well-respected lawyer in these parts say that the surveyor makes decisions on problems that have no absolute answer. That's what distinguishes the professional from the tradesman. (or something to that effect).
> And there you have the problem with this profession, everyone has an opinion and everyone is right. then it all comes down to what a judge thinks, and what kind of day he is having when he makes a ruling??
I agree this profession is replete with, rife with, riddled with and redolent of incompetence, however, it is not a matter of one opinion vs. another. It is a matter of an opinion backed up by statute law and strong trends of case law vs. one backed up by "this is the way my Daddy taught me!"
And while it may be true that one never knows what will happen in court, that should not stop one from taking the course of action most in line with statutory law and previous court rulings. That is what will ALMOST always prevail.
Stephen
> Just show it on your plat as R & M along the true (monumented) line, and note the falling from the original platted (straight) line.
I agree, Wayne, with one exception... There is no "falling" from an imaginary platted line. The line is marked and recovered. Just make notation of the record and measured bearing and distance between the found monuments. Your measured bearings will serve as evidence for future replacement if the line monument is ever destroyed. The record bearings will reflect the straight line as "intended."
Of course, we all know that it is impossible for any of us to set the monument perfectly on the imaginary line. Only a few will admit it, though.
JBS
> Half a foot is outside the required precision here ...
So, why not just slide your imaginary calculated line over 0.25 feet on each end so all three found points fall within the "required precision" and you can "accept" all three?
Are retracement surveyors supposed to be running "imaginary" lines, or are we supposed to follow the footsteps? I think we forget.
JBS
> You haven't made clear whether the three monuments were set at the same time or not. You say the 5 acre lot is interior to the subdivision, but is the east line of it on the outer edge of the subdivision? It makes a difference.
>
> Do the two outer monuments predate the subdivision? If so, and if they are are original and undisturbed, then a surveyor came along and accepted them and tried but failed to hit the line somewhere in the middle. If he erred by placing the capped rebar into the neighbor's property, then they automatically lose some land, right? I don't think so!!! Now fast forward a couple of decades and fences have been built and .... well, you know the drill. Then things might be different.
>
> But if he subdivided out of a larger lot and all three monuments were part of it, then yes, the line is as marked. The line is kinked.
>
Stephen, I understand what you're asking here, but that line of thinking brings ALL of the found monuments into question, not just the one presumably place "on line." What you are purporting is that, until relied upon after "fast forward[ing] for a couple of decades and fences have been built and...", ALL of the monuments set "incorrectly" (whoever and whatever defines that) are subject to correction by the retracing surveyor. You might as well pull all three monuments as none of them will be located in the precisely correct position. You also might as well question the monuments on the exterior boundary as well. They won't be in the "correct" place either. How far do we go? There simply is no law which will sanction that course of action, so why should we insist on going there?
The law simply recognizes that the owners relied upon the surveyor to place the monuments in their intended positions for the purpose of representing where the boundaries were located. If there's a problem with the location, there may be a contractual breach between the owner and the surveyor, but that doesn't change the fact that the representations have been made and (presumably) conveyances have been made in reliance upon them.
If we're really going to call the monument (could be any one of the three or all three, or even more, for all we know) off, then that's a role that the retracing surveyor has no authority to undertake. If the owner is that concerned, he needs to take it up with the original surveyor.
JBS
> I have a hypothetical situation I'd like to throw out there.
>
> You are doing a survey on a 5 acre parcel in the interior of a 12 year old plat. The plat shows a point set on the east property line and you find what you believe to be an original undisturbed 5/8" rebar and cap. You also find undisturbed markers at both ends of the line. You also find that the point on line is 0.5' west of the line produced between the 2 end markers. The line is in a wooded area with thick brush and the point on line is at the top of a steep slope, the back line is about 200' lower than the front.
>
> So, does the line bend at the point on line or is it straight?
>
> Thanks for your input.
>
> Radar
That's a good one, Radar... Perhaps you should have simplified it a bit, though. How about, "You find three original monuments. Which one is wrong?"
;o)
JBS
If monuments are interior of 12 Acres and are original then you hold the monuments no matter how far it is out. Even if 199.04' You hold the original undisturbed monuments.
Original monuments have no error.
If on an adjoining outside line then you would need to hold a straight line, unless it has been relied on and or if the standards were met at the time the survey was performed.
If 0.50 feet was within the acceptable error at the time of survey then the monument was set just fine where it is.
We preserve the past for the future, we don't change the past because we can measure better.
John, I like the association you've made of the "imaginary" line that is trying to be retraced. With the key being 'retraced'
It is much like plats we see where it's noted "fd mon 0.12'N & 0.09W of corner", but they never say if they accepted the monument or set another one. Plus the dimensions are typically record, with no note of being measured. That one has always baffled me as to what they were doing.
> That's a good one, Radar... Perhaps you should have simplified it a bit, though. How about, "You find three original monuments. Which one is wrong?"
>
> ;o)
> JBS
I don't know which one is wrong...but the red one seems to be the right one...
DDSM:beer:
> In the case of incorrectly placed monuments purported to be on an exterior line, I would hold the monuments for line, and trim or extend the intersecting interior line to terminate at the correct exterior boundary.
Then we are completely in agreement.
Stephen
See my point, there are many differing points of view on just this one post, all by, I am sure, very competent surveyors...you can still have all your t's crossed and all your I's dotted with a barrel full of evidence and still comes down to someone else making the decision. I like the John Giles method, not sure about 200' but the logic is sound.
Been there done that....
I just hit some numbers and added .04 for good measure. 😉
Measure twice, cut once..