What's wrong here?

LS 4722 · Post by **LS 4722** » Sun Sep 08, 2013 7:41 pm

Many licensed surveyors will never figure it out.

E_Page · Post by **E_Page** » Mon Sep 09, 2013 9:38 am

Looks like he held a "No Ref" 2x2 and a "No Ref" IP with an RCE tag and called all the record mons off.

Is this parcel senior to what's around it or are the adjacent PMs senior?

How do the "No Ref" mons fit in?

By "No Ref", does he mean that he truly has no reference at all as to the origin of those 2 mons, or does he really mean that they don't appear on any filed map but that he may be aware of, or even have an unfiled map or field notes that indicate how and why they were set? (in the latter case, they wouldn't really be "no ref", but I've seen someone tell a judge that mons shown on a copy of an unfiled map -the reference -provided to him by the surveyor who prepared it were "no ref")

If there are aother problems detectable by performing the math, I didn't cogo it out so you'll have to give me a hint.

Dave Karoly, PLS · Post by **Dave Karoly, PLS** » Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:09 am

Yipee! Everything I found is "off."

All your base are belong to us HA HA HA!

btaylor · Post by **btaylor** » Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:27 am

It appears his math is vastly superior to anyone's silly little monument. Looks perfect.

land butcher · Post by **land butcher** » Mon Sep 09, 2013 4:23 pm

My msmts are better than yours. LOL Why are surveyors so ready to call another surveyor's work wrong. Try and find another profession that does that.

dewardkb · Post by **dewardkb** » Mon Sep 09, 2013 5:57 pm

http://landsurveyorsunited.com/profiles/blogs/chain-2 Lawyers, Doctors, Engineers.....to name a few.

Dave Karoly, PLS · Post by **Dave Karoly, PLS** » Mon Sep 09, 2013 7:16 pm

Maybe we should just get away from it all...
http://youtu.be/IkYy14kSOnw

bruce hall · Post by **bruce hall** » Tue Sep 10, 2013 9:31 am

although the map should really have a North Arrow. And if the "record" isn't any good, why use it? (I guess now is the time for the "humor" font, "sarcasm" font. Better a font than the back.)

LS_8750 · Post by **LS_8750** » Tue Sep 10, 2013 9:50 am

Looks like a Marin County survey.

Legally, there is only one corner contemplated (in each case). So why multiple monuments to represent that one corner?

Dave Karoly, PLS · Post by **Dave Karoly, PLS** » Tue Sep 10, 2013 10:31 am

Bruce-there is no expectation of perfection in legal contemplation. The description leads us to the vicinity of the corner.

Generally, but not always, physical monumentation should carry more weight than measurements which will vary.

Obviously there are cases where no monuments exist so the legal description math would be best evidence in those cases.

A lot of surveyors should be arrested for disturbing the peace.

dmi · Post by **dmi** » Tue Sep 10, 2013 5:31 pm

Monuments cannot interfere with a senior right. I have no idea if there are seniors rights involved here. But it does appear that someone has problems with the evaluation of evidence,. perhaps that someone is 2 or 3 surveyors...

dewardkb · Post by **dewardkb** » Tue Sep 10, 2013 6:04 pm

http://landsurveyorsunited.com/profiles ... and-survey Sometimes the record does not fit the evidence.....sometimes the evidence does not fit he record, that is no trick. The real trick is figuring out why.

Double_Proportion · Post by **Double_Proportion** » Tue Sep 10, 2013 6:34 pm

As retracing surveyors we are charged with protecting the public interest, I will presume the public has relied on these positions.

Anthony Maffia · Post by **Anthony Maffia** » Wed Sep 11, 2013 7:43 pm

Maybe a rotation? Look for ips on adjacent lots. Or perhaps the LS that set the original pipes was different than shown on the map? I'm guessing geometry isn't the issue, so I won't cogo the lot.

Hints?

land butcher · Post by **land butcher** » Fri Sep 13, 2013 3:28 pm

Lawyers, Doctors,.. to name a few

ROTFLMAO

dewardkb · Post by **dewardkb** » Thu Sep 19, 2013 4:46 am

http://landsurveyorsunited.com/profiles ... r-s-report Here is something that may interest some of you regarding this subject.

JeffroH · Post by **JeffroH** » Thu Sep 19, 2013 7:12 am

Without seeing the entire map as well as the other maps referenced and the legal description for Inst. No. 83-1358353, I cannot give a definitive answer...

But it appears that the area surveyed covers Lots 4 and 5 of Tract No. 29911, and the writer of the instrument used a metes and bounds description for the two lots using record data from Tract No. 29911 and a Point of Commencement someplace easterly of the Point of Beginning rather than using a lot description, and that the surveyor is showing the land as it is described in the recorded document since that it how it was conveyed to the owner ("Est. at Rec. Angles & Dists per Tr. No. 29911").

That obviously creates a whole new set of problems with the S.M.A., the County/City Planning Department, the County Surveyor, and all adjacent land owners, etc. since this is now a potentially a non-legal parcel.

Or not... yet one more skewed way to look at it.

Jeff

Dave Karoly, PLS · Post by **Dave Karoly, PLS** » Thu Sep 19, 2013 9:33 am

The descriptive part of the Title record is just that, an imperfect description.

The described boundaries are not necessarily controlling. If the boundaries are legally established on the ground then those control.

This is a big point of confusion which has been further confused by what we have erroneously been taught.

For example, when the Federal Government patented out a 40 acre aliquot with protracted boundaries, the boundaries were described (or protracted if you prefer) but not established physically. When the County Surveyor or Local Surveyor ran the protracted lines and the property owners accepted and used those lines then they become physically established and legally accurate although they aren't precisely the same as those on the Plat.

Title Records lead us to WHO holds the record title, physical evidence in conjunction with the descriptions in the Title Record leads us where the boundaries of the Title are located.

Where boundaries are is a matter of fact (us-PLSs), what boundaries are is a matter of Law.

Note: we are not talking about Adverse Possession which is a Title Doctrine which requires clear and convincing proof of each required element.

Questions of fact of the boundary location only requires a preponderance of evidence at most but as a practical matter we often have to use the best available evidence.

"Beginning at the southeast 1/16th corner of Section 20; thence from said point of beginning..."

What is the boundary (corner)? (question of Law), ---the southeast 1/16th corner.

Where is the boundary (corner)? (question of fact), ---the protracted location if the southeast 1/16th corner has not been set yet or if it has been set, accepted and established as the southeast 1/16th corner by the property owners then it is the location already monumented. Note: there is no title conflict because we are talking about boundary, not title.

California Surveyors Forums

What's wrong here?

What's wrong here?

Well, I like Karoly's answer