Mark Mayer, post: 345931, member: 424 wrote: An example. The deed says a property is the NE1/4SW1/4. You run out the theoretical deed and find a straight, tight, and very long standing fence, with obvious evidence of occupation on both sides, and very old iron pipes 5-10 feet from the theoretical lines. Your client, an sharp minded 80 year old, relates how he was born on the property and the fence has always been where is is and has always been regarded by all adjoiners as the boundary. His Daddy, who was in his 70's himself when your client was born, told him that the fence had been there when he was a boy. All adjoiners have similar stories and are satisfied with the current conditions. You are doing the survey to split the property into parts for the client 50 year old children.
Are you really going to just run out the deed and place your shiny new monuments 5-10 feet from the existing ones?
The deed is only a portion of the available evidence.
No, we are getting off on some crazy tangents
Surveyor In Training, post: 345920, member: 10308 wrote: A land surveyor cannot tell a land owner where he or she owns to. Surveyors can only put the deed on the ground and that is only a professional opinion. Surveying is subjective and open to interpretation. That's why we have a court system to make them determinations.
I am not referring to the mathematical polygon depicted in the deed.
That's the impression I got. In disagreeing with Leon and others, I still get the impression that it's at least a good portion of what you meant, but that your opinion may be undergoing a little adjustment as this discussion progresses. If so, that's good. The rest of us aren't just here to spout off what we know (well, maybe there are a few of us who are). Most of us are here because we often learn something from each other.
Understand that I wasn't trying to be harsh. Most of the responders to this thread have 30+ years experience and I would bet that most, if not all of us prior to being licensed had an understanding that the math & measurements derived from the deed terms were supposed to be more important than most any other evidence. All of us, either by listening to others with more wisdom gained through experience, and/or by studying the source of boundary principles (case law and secondary sources that stick closely to case law).
By your avatar and your username, it would appear that you have most of your career yet ahead of you. If you start studying boundary law at this point in your career, you will be way ahead of your colleagues with the same years of experience down the road.
Nope. Mark is right on topic.
Surveyor In Training, post: 345928, member: 10308 wrote: I totally agree but it is hard to get everything you know into a post for people to know exactly what you mean.
Daniel,
Tell me about it... Sometimes you know, but don't know how to communicate it...
That is why I asked the questions...
Our Brothers here at BeerLeg at always willIng to provide the 'citations'.
DDSM:beer:
OK. Think it out some and tell us just what you are referring to, and explain how it differs from laying out the described polygon.
eapls2708, post: 345939, member: 589 wrote: Nope. Mark is right on topic.
First of all, an aliquot part description is not a record mathematical polygon, it's a subdivision.
You apparently have no idea how many surveyors place markers at locations conflicting with the aliquot line as originally established on the ground simply because their math & measurements for a textbook section breakdown doesn't match an established fence or windrow.
It is exactly the same as someone following specific bearings and distances. An aliquot description has implied dimensions based upon record dimensions of either the original GLO township survey or upon more recent surveys of the section.
eapls2708, post: 345945, member: 589 wrote: You apparently have no idea how many surveyors place markers at locations conflicting with the aliquot line as originally established on the ground simply because their math & measurements for a textbook section breakdown doesn't match an established fence or windrow.
It is exactly the same as someone following specific bearings and distances. An aliquot description has implied dimensions based upon record dimensions of either the original GLO township survey or upon more recent surveys of the section.
Read Dan Robisons last post on this thread and you'll see where I'm coming from. Good night I gotta go
My 40 years of experience has led me to the observation that many more problems occur from laying out math on the ground with disregard to physical evidence than does the contrary.
I have seen the most havoc caused by multiple monuments for the same corner. Sometimes a new monument set 80+ years after the original to which all the Deeds in the neighborhood tied as the 1/16th corner.
Evan, great post!
Whereas I (and many others, I assume) entered the profession under false understandings of our duty and how to perform them, I can easily understand from where many are coming from. I used to believe that my job was to take the description and place it on the ground ÛÒ the courses and distances recited being the ÛÏrecord lineÛ, the ÛÏtitle lineÛ, the ÛÏdeed lineÛ. These were the ÛÏlegalÛ boundary lines, and anything that conflicted with these plotted lines on the computer screen were ÛÏencroachmentsÛ, ÛÏareas of confusionÛ, ÛÏapparent gaps or goresÛ, etc., which could only be resolved by written agreements, quit claim deeds, or going to the judge. Over the years, I have I read many surveying texts and listened to my ÛÏmentorsÛ and these ÛÏtruthsÛ were pounded into my head. We were supposed to ÛÏstake the deedÛ!!
But what do we do when we start reading citations such as your quote from American Jurisprudence? Can you imagine the confusion when the case law in oneÛªs home state repeatedly says similar things? Then we read Cooley; we are supposed to perform surveys ÛÒ gather evidence and apply the law just like a judge would do!!! Wow, now what? The judges must be confused, Cooley was a kook ÛÒ havenÛªt they read Evidence and Procedures?
When the brain cells really entered the blender is when we finally discovered the boundary location doctrines. For example, boundary by agreement/acquiescence:
ÛÏWhere the location of a true boundary line between coterminous owners is known to either of the parties, or is not uncertain, and is not in dispute, an oral agreement between them purporting to establish another line as the boundary between their properties constitutes an attempt to convey real property in violation of the statute of frauds ... and is invalid. But, where the location of the true boundary line is unknown to either of the parties, and is uncertain or in dispute, such coterminous owners may orally agree upon a boundary line. When such an agreement is executed and actual possession is taken under it, the parties and those claiming under them are bound thereby. In such circumstances, an agreement fixing the boundary line is not regarded as a conveyance of any land from one to the other, but merely the location of the respective existing estates and the common boundary of each of the parties.Û
Are they really saying that an oral agreement perfected many decades ago, by people who have been dead for years, is binding on current owners, and is the current ÛÏdeed lineÛ, the ÛÏrecord lineÛ, the title lineÛ?? Yepper. Wow!
How can a surveyor "stake the deed" if he hasnÛªt properly gathered the relevant evidence of the fence that is 20 ft. from the computer generated line and understands that under the law, the fence line may just be the boundary line?
"It is a familiar rule that it is not the office of a description to identify lands, but simply to furnish the means of identification."
What that means is the lines generated on the computer screen from the courses and distances in the deed are only meant to get us close where we can start looking for the actual boundary lines.
How about this:
ÛÏWhere the seller and the buyer go upon the land and there agree upon and mark the boundary between the part to be conveyed and the part to be retained by the seller, the line thus fixed controls the courses and distances set out in the deed executed to effectuate the division agreed upon.Û
What are the odds written "record" (deed or a recorded survey) is going to accurately reflect two landowners planting fence posts at the corners of the land they agreed to convey? Around here ÛÒ a snowballs chance in Tucson.
As we see far too often ÛÒ far too many surveyors are still where many of us were when we entered this profession. However, as has been noted here before, this great forum has helped many see the light and provides me with even greater insight, knowledge, sources of wisdom, and the ability to be a better surveyor.
That does make some difference, IMO. But if the description in the example was a simple metes one, I would still think that the client was poorly served by a surveyor who simply "ran out the deed".
Well said Brian...
"Surveyors can only put the deed on the ground and that is only a professional opinion."
I did not realize this sentence would be so misconstrued. In the most simplest terms could it not be argued that a surveyor does take a deed and read the legal and attempt to put it on the ground?
It's my fault thinking people would not read In between the lines. I shoulda said record title lines or even deed lines maybe.
Some took it literally that I meant record calls on the ground. But you do have the "deed surveyors" "fence surveyors" and don't forget the "1320 club"
A record course and distance (AKA "Deed Line" or "Record Title Line") is only a finger pointer, saying "Hey, look around here, this might get ya close." Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. That is why it's only one piece to the puzzle. Until all evidence has been analyzed, it's tough to come to a boundary decision.
The vast majority of existing monuments were not in place when the deeds were written.
THAT is the number one problem with mathematical solutions.
The one thing I've learned over the years is to communicate with abutters involved in the survey I'm performing. Even if there is some dispute with regards to where the boundary line is. I try and gather every relevant piece of evidence I can find to assist me to determine where the boundary line is. I live in a non-recording state, so I send out letters to ask abutters if the have any deeds, maps, agreements., etc, that I can look at. I was surprised how many people have some old survey tucked away in some desk drawer....most times they are willing to share...other times, not so much :pinch:.
I am not the smartest guy around, but I try to take what I've learned, and continue to learn, and apply it. I have no problem referring a client to a good real estate attorney to help clear up some grey areas. I feel as they are part of my 'team' to assist people where they need help outside of my purview. Does that happen often? No. Most of the time, surveys are semi-straightforward. Your mileage may vary though.
Surveyor In Training, post: 345920, member: 10308 wrote: A land surveyor cannot tell a land owner where he or she owns to. Surveyors can only put the deed on the ground and that is only a professional opinion. Surveying is subjective and open to interpretation. That's why we have a court system to make them determinations.
Wow, getting a hard time over this statement. I don't see anything wrong with it myself. The deed line is the original line created by the transaction and it is the surveyors responsibility to provide a professional opinion on where that is. Part of this process is subjective because it relates to finding and interpreting evidence. Interpreting intent of a contract (deed) is done objectively, but how much evidence is enough, what does each piece mean within the whole body of evidence found, etc. are subjective decisions related to the education and training of each individual licensee. And we "only" give opinions because deprivation of property rights can not happen without due process of law in the U.S.. People are constitutionally guaranteed access to the court system if two surveyors differ in their opinions such that one landowner appears to be losing property or a right in it. And of course there is much more to "ownership" than the original boundary of a transaction.
I surmise the problem others have with your post is that they are hearing "deed line" and thinking "metes line" or something like that. This brings us back to part of the problem Leon is venting about. Surveyors as a group don't seem to have the same general body of knowledge and common understanding of terms of the trade as other trade or professional groups. This is a problem and leads to much unnecessary confusion and disagreement on boundary location. It can only be addressed by some kind of common required training program like all other trades and profession have. That could be formal education, but it should at least be some kind of regulated apprenticeship where all are learning some of the same basic knowledge and terms. When I was teaching I hammered on the definition of a deed line, because the first impression of anyone would be to think of it as the deed plot from the metes of the description. It's really kind of a hard definition to get students to accept when most of the training is mathematics and now we have to get them to throw out the numbers in favor of legal concepts. Clients have a hard time with that too:)
Without the common training, people will continue to mistrust surveyors because of the wildly varying statements and opinions they get from any two or three practitioners. I know I wouldn't trust to agree to a line if two professionals are telling me such completely differing things. I would want a third opinion from a court. I don't get this kind of thing from say, two differing car mechanics. They will usually agree and use the same terms to describe the problem. They may differ in that one thinks I should replace the bearing immediately and another thinks I can go another few thousand miles with it. But I am confident they are both dealing from the same deck, unlike consumers dealing with differing surveyors feel.
Lack of unity of terminology is quite far down the list of reasons why people don't trust us. People mistrust surveyors because we represent change. Everyone goes about their day and deals with the typical BS then they go home to their castle and find stakes and flagging and someone threatening long their held beliefs. I try my best to avoid technical jargon when speaking with anyone other than another LS. I view it as my duty to clearly and concisely explain my actions to my clients and this rarely involves technical terms. As every human is a product of their particular experiences, finding the best way to communicate is an enormous challenge that many don't seem to fully appreciate.
We are given the task of applying logic and reason to situations involving people who don't act rationally or logically. A better education in philosophy would benefit our profession as it would help PLSs to understand that perfect is the enemy of good.
