To bend or not to bend

The deed commences 400 feet east of the sixteenth corner. Thence south 510, thence east 680, thence north 510, thence west 680 to POB. There is no record survey. Found #5 rebar at the four corners that are uncalled for but have been accepted. No one knows where they came from. Used deed distances to locate them and of course they vary from the record some. The two marks that are supposed to be on section line are not on line between the sixteenth corner and the quarter corner. There is no reason to believe the marks are not original other than there is no survey record. Do you bend through the found marks or set new ones? Do you stake the deed and GIS distances and bearings or hold found?

Hi Norm:


Who accepted the rebar? 
Was it the neighbor,client or another surveyor?  Do the rebar match occupation lines or is it raw land?
You say that there is reason to believe the marks are not original.  What is the reason to believe they are original?

If the deed calls for along the section line between the 16th and quarter corners
I would hold the line
I'm assuming you have done sufficient research  for junior/senior rights etc
Sounds like a fun one.

Who accepted the rebar?  Occupation suggests coterminous owners have accepted them

You say that there is reason to believe the marks are not original . I said the opposite - There is not a reason to beleive they are other than original.
What is the reason to believe they are original? Occupation to them appears to be 30+ years old. The deed was created 30+ years ago.

The deed says commencing 400 ft east of the sixteenth corner, thence south, east, north, west. I would say it implies that the north line of the deed is on section line. That's the way its mapped at the courthouse and that's the way most surveyors would interpret it. This type of problem is common in our state.  This figure was cut out of the senior aliquot part.

Thanks for the response. Anyone disagree or agree?


 

Norm,

You have brought up a concept where there is major disagreements between land surveyors and am not sure if it will ever be brought to a conclusion where all will agree.

You will remember my past posts on asking if my "junior corner 1/16 sec. cors. would be accepted if they were a link or so off the senior line.  I can guarantee that my 1/16 iron posts are not, were not set with the accuracy that is being debated now.  (finger nail distances)  Some will never accept a corner monument that is off that much and others will accept the junior corner bending the senior line.  I do remember a certain Texas surveyor that is probably one of the best measurers in the country, but would never accept a junior corner monument that is off his instrument line.

It really seems to me to be a fool hardy concept that makes land surveyors look foolish when there are multiple corner monuments set close to each other and even touching each other.  One can only imagine the thought process of the land owner!

In your above example, it would seem clear to me that the junior corners that were intended to be on the section line are in fact on the section line.  This is of course in the absense of fraud or gross error.

And of course some will think a link is gross error!

If the concept is, as some believe, that a senior line cannot be bent in any event; then the result will always have gaps and overlaps and that is clearly not the intent of boundary law.

And the beat goes on!

Keith

Keith
I knew you would chime in.  The reason I was disturbed by the agenda at the "survey summit" was that it sweeps these issues under the rug. This is a nuisance issue to the global GIS agenda. The only time you will hear boundary line mentioned is when they are explaining how easy it is to map. They want these sorts of issues to disappear and they want the surveyors that recognize legal evidence to disappear as well. You can guess what my survey shows-Section line bending through the junior irons that were set for the purpose of marking the section line and the north boundary of the subject parcel. It's not gis that troubles me as much as the profession sweeping issues that call for a little thought and common sense away in favor of a nice protracted line. 

The beat does go on. 

Really? well here's a little thought and common sense. To bend or not to bend depends on the circumstances. Here is where I part companyt with Keith and join Jeff Lucas and the famous Surveyor down in Texas. In this case, you have to hold the "junior corners" because they have been "accepted".

Now listen carefully. If no one had relied on these points and your research has confirmed no one else had relied upon them, then you place new points in the correct location, create a record, and destroy the evidence of what I would deem spurrious corners. It is unprofessional to perpetuate ambiguity when given the opportunity to correct the situation. It is worse than unprofessional to establish these ambiguous points and leave no record taking "credit" for your work.
MLB

Norm,

I am beginning to think that even some surveyors who know better, are falling in line to go along with this concept of subdividing sections by the numbers and then don't have to worry about and make judgements on fences, roads and occupation and can simply determine the intersections by mathematics and head for the bar.

Simply relying on machine manuals and not survey manuals!

And of course that concept is being taught nationwide and how can one say that they are wrong?

But I do!

Sorry that my posts are not with the thread subject...I just get carried away!

Keith

Keith

WHOA.............

Now listen carefully. If no one had relied on these points and your research has confirmed no one else had relied upon them, then you place new points in the correct location, create a record, and destroy the evidence of what I would deem spurrious corners. It is unprofessional to perpetuate ambiguity when given the opportunity to correct the situation. It is worse than unprofessional to establish these ambiguous points and leave no record taking "credit" for your work.

MLB......I listened and do not agree!!!

You are NOT going to tell us that you have searched the hills to see if certain monuments have been accepted and in this search, you find nobody even knows about the "spurrious corner"; therefor you are going to destroy them?  Tell me, you don't mean that?

Unprofessional.....pfffftt

Keith

Keith- I told you you right up front you wouldn't agree with me. Here in this recording state (CA) referring to unmarked, no-record "two bit" rebars as an "original survey" would have people questioning your license status. (They would probably think you were an engineer.)

Read Lucas' article. You have already heard your buddy Kent expound on this. Of course, in some situations you have to take these second rate monuments and all the liability that goes with them. The original post doesn't say how far off line the points actually are. So we get to how far is too far? But if you find something clearly in error, and no one will be affected, and you do not repair the damage before someone IS affected by it, you are simply not taking professional responsibilty.

That's why you have a license. That's why you get the big bucks. To protect the public, to protect the bona fide rights of claimants. If not the Surveyor, then who?
MLB

MLB,

Ok, lets talk about my 1/16 sec. corner monuments that I know are not set with micrometer accuracy and many of course, are up in the hills between private and Federal lands and have not been established in your terms.  They have been established in my terms and I would really doubt that you would move or destroy any of my monuments.

 Would you?

Keith

I have not read Lucas' book word for word, but I highly doubt that he would destroy those so-called spurious corner monuments.  If he does advocate such policy, please point it out.

You are NOT going to tell us that you have searched the hills to see if certain monuments have been accepted and in this search, you find nobody even knows about the "spurrious corner"; therefor you are going to destroy them?  Tell me, you don't mean that?

Yeah! I am telling you that you had better search the hills, the records and the Death Certificate Index if necessary. The caveat being you absolutely must be right when you do this.  I used to argue with the late, great Richard Schaut over Bryant v Blevins. He is gone, but the argument endures. Your survey should reflect the intent of the parties. If it doesn't you need to fix it when afforded the opportunity.

I know you are sincere , Keith. But I also know your beloved Bureau has set their boundary monuments right next to our NPS "boundary monuments" on more than one occasion. There is theory, there is policy, and then there is reality.
MLB

I am well aware of instances where BLM did not accept NPS monuments as they were set without authority.  I am sure you remember memos going between BLM and the NPS on survey authority?

Is the NPS still setting corner monuments without legal authority?

Keith

I have not read Lucas' book word for word, but I highly doubt that he would destroy those so-called spurious corner monuments.  If he does advocate such policy, please point it out.

I don't know if it's in the book, because I haven't read it yet. But it is in a recent POB article. You should be able to find it easily on the web site. I only do my homework.
http://www.pobonline.com/Articles/Column/BNP_GUID_9-5-2006_A_10000000000000889666
I made an exception for you.
MLB

I am well aware of instances where BLM did not accept NPS monuments as they were set without authority.  I am sure you remember memos going between BLM and the NPS on survey authority?

Is the NPS still setting corner monuments without legal authority?


Oh- now we have to have authority to be accepted. Who had "authority" to set those two bit rebars? What we are looking for here is consistency.
MLB

Don't go off the deep end here on discussing survey authority.

Do you accept the fact that the NPS does not have delegated authority to survey/resurvey Federal lands?

The opinion in Rivers v. Lozeau doesn’t resemble anything found in the 1973 or 2009 Manual. As with so many other opinions that surveyors grab and run with, the opinion is almost devoid of details about the surveys that were conducted. For all we know, the BLM proportioned corners in from the township lines and Moorhead’s subdivision was based on original section and quarter-section corners. The most incredible and absurd portion of the opinion (see reference 5) is when the court tells us that the lines were fixed on the ground by drawing them on a map. This is a ridiculous statement and completely detached from reality.

This was quoted from the Lucas link that you provided above and is absolutely right.  The Rivers v Lozeau case is an abominable case and aptly displays certain opinions of certain BLMers who do not accept any monuments if they were not set exactly as they would set them.

Read the field notes in that case and it is shown very clearly.

Keith

Keith- aren't you glad you got kicked out of the Witless Protection Program and came back here where the First Amendment prevails?

Lucas has another article I couldn't find on-line where he says something to the effect of Surveyors are ultimately responsible for the accuracy of the cadastre.

Do you accept the fact that the NPS does not have delegated authority to survey/resurvey Federal lands?
Yes, but it has the same authority as any property owner. My argument is one of consistency. I sat through six weeks of BLM ACS listening to an endless Kum Bay Ah about respecting all monuments set in good faith. To make a log story short, that was not the reality I experienced on the ground. Don't take it personal, but it's what it is. This discussion is NOT about authority. It is about procedure.
MLB

If no one had relied on these points and your research has confirmed no one else had relied upon them, then you place new points in the correct location,

My research occurred in the records office and the field. The sixteenth corner was recorded the same year the parcel was created. It is reasonably follows that the uncalled for re-bar were set when the corner record was filed. There was no recording law 35 years ago so the mere existence of similar marks at all four corners is evidence of a survey (original). In reality these cannot be junior corners. There was no corner before the parcel was created obviously. The marks were set for marking the parcel corners and fences now occupy the lines between them on three sides and a road the fourth. Reliance has been established. The correct location is the location that has been relied on.

It is unprofessional to perpetuate ambiguity when given the opportunity to correct the situation.

What is ambiguous about a found monument serving its intended purpose?

t is worse than unprofessional to establish these ambiguous points and leave no record taking "credit" for your work.

That's an interesting take. I did not establish anything. I found evidence of the boundary,. A survey record is filed in a GIS compatible format. .

Say WHAT??

Do you accept the fact that the NPS does not have delegated authority to survey/resurvey Federal lands?
Yes, but it has the same authority as any property owner.




You know better than that!

Keith

First- I said I would accept these rebars because there is a history. Worse than unprofessional refers to whomever set the unmarked rebars. This is lowballer crap.



Do you accept the fact that the NPS does not have delegated authority to survey/resurvey Federal lands?
Yes, but it has the same authority as any property owner.

NPS has all the authority it needs to survey its own property, most especially if they are acquired lands and performed under state law.

Now- if it does, and the point is reasonably where it needs to be, what is the real reason for not accepting it?
MLB

Have you ever read an Interior Board of Land Appeals case where they cite the Dept of Interior statutory authority that has been delegated exclusively down to the BLM?

Maybe you are talking about licensed private surveyors or NPS employees who are licensed, surveying NPS lands under State authority.

You know there is only the two authorities to survey/resurvey land boundaries.

Keith

Let me reiterate. We are talking about points already in the ground, not maybe quite where you would put them, but close. They are set by another federal agency. Why are they different than those rebars?
MLB

Obviously I do not have the facts on which you post on why BLM did not accept a NPS monument.  If you have these facts and want to post them, I will comment.

Up front of course, I wll assume that NPS had no authority to set their monuments and the other rebar monuments were set by a private licensed surveyor who had authority.

One set can be officially accepted and the other might not be.

Keith

There is more than one of these fiascos. All I can tell you is the two most notorious were in Colorado and New Mexico respectively.

OTOH, you cannot assume a "two bit" rebar with no tag and no record was set by a Licensed Surveyor. That is actually a part of the problem in Bryant v Blevins.

The case I was trying to make is that ther are legitimate reasons for not accepting existing "monuments". Thanks for helping me out with it.
MLB