The Junior Monument and the Senior Line

Keithwill · Post by **Keithwill** » Tue Feb 10, 2015 10:28 pm

8741. Examination requirements and waivers

........................

(b) The applicant for the second division examination shall have successfully passed the first division examination, or shall be exempt therefrom. The applicant shall be thoroughly familiar with (1) the procedure and rules governing the survey of public lands as set forth in Manual of Surveying Instructions (2009), published by the federal Bureau of Land Management and (2) the principles of real property relating to boundaries and conveyancing.

I guess this doesn't mean anything since the Manual does not control surveying private land?

I have never said that the Manual is controlling when determining boundaries between private land owners, but.....if you want to ignore the guidance in the Manual in the Public Land States, it would not be advisable.

My opinion anyway.

Thanks for the informative posts.

Dane, I would really be interested in knowing of the court case that you mentioned about breaking down the section, according to the Manual. Sounds like the "bogus theory" in operation! The "bogus theory" that is practiced by some in BLM, does ignore existing evidence of boundaries.

Keithwill · Post by **Keithwill** » Tue Feb 10, 2015 10:50 pm

Special thanks to Ric, for posting the Professional Land Surveyors' Act!

I would imagine that if your practice is only surveying lots and blocks, you will not find much use for the Manual, but if in fact you are subdividing a PLSS section and even if it is entirely Private Land, you need to be cognizant of the Manual guidelines.

That would be in accordance with the section 8741 as partially quoted above.

And then there is the little tid bit about lost corners! (on private land?)

LS_8750 · Post by **LS_8750** » Tue Feb 10, 2015 11:04 pm

My original post had nothing to do with the Manual. It was merely a litmus test to assess how we understand the priority of calls.

Some of the above posts are disturbing.

The call to an adjoiners is a fine example. In a faithful retracement of that senior line, the retracing surveyor sets monuments on, or near to, that line in order to perpetuate his/her work. Exactly why does one call those junior monuments off?

Keithwill · Post by **Keithwill** » Wed Feb 11, 2015 7:58 am

I find it disturbing that some surveyors believe their junior corners are subject to move, depending on subsequent accurate measurements!

I have to believe that the majority of corner monuments that are set are in fact junior corner monuments and are established for clients that want to know where their boundaries are. Do these surveyors warn their clients that the monuments are only good until some better measuring surveyor comes along and ignores them?

What kind of land tenure system is that?

This all borders on the rationale of the "bogus theory", that is, reset and reestablish the corners where they were supposed to be.

dmi · Post by **dmi** » Wed Feb 11, 2015 8:50 am

There are differences between monuments set under federal authority and monuments set under state authority.

I mentioned a case that is a disciplinary case brought by the California Board,our Board- not a court case in the usual sense. This case can be found on the Board's website.

As far as accepting a monuments, there is a laundry list of elements needed to accept a monument as controlling and I would refer to evidence collected and the generally accepted list of priority of calls as part of my consideration of whether or not to accept a monument as controlling.

Part of the mix would be

What is the monument's relation to Bona Fide rights?
Does the monument interefere with a senior right?
Has there been detrimental reliance on the monument?
Does accepting the monument produce an absurd result?
Does the monument embrace the land of others?
Does acceptance of the monument defeat the intention of the parties?

You see, none of these considerations have anything to do with how far the monument is from a particular line. Rules generally have exceptions

[font=&quot]HENRY MILLER, Appellant, v. C. E. GRUNSKY, Respondent[/font]

[font=&quot]
Sac. No. 795[/font]

[font=&quot]
Supreme Court of California[/font]

[font=&quot]
141 Cal. 441; 75 P. 48; 1903 Cal. LEXIS 537[/font]

[font=&quot]

December 28, 1903 [/font]

[font=&quot] [/font]
[font=&quot]The whole difference between them consists in the different rule of construction for which they contend. Appellant claiming that the Orestimba Rancho, as platted on the township map, was, at the date of the patent, a monument, insists that the absolute and inflexible rule of law requires all conflicting calls for distance, etc., to give way to the call for the rancho.

But this was never an absolute and inflexible rule. On the contrary, it has always been subject to exceptions and qualifications of various kinds, and the books are full of cases in which the call for visible monuments has been made to yield to other calls in order to carry out the true intention of the parties to conveyances of lands. And our statute ([/font][font=&quot][font=&quot]Code Civ. Proc., sec. 2077[/font][/font][font=&quot]) has adopted the rule with all its exceptions and qualifications. It is true that, among other rules prescribed by this section of the code, it is provided in subdivision 2 that when permanent and visible or ascertained boundaries or monuments are inconsistent with the measurement, either of lines, angles, or surfaces, the boundaries or monuments are paramount; but this, like every other rule embraced in the section, is subject to the qualification contained in the first clause, that they control only when there are no other sufficient circumstances to determine a doubtful construction, and it is further subject to the rule prescribed by the sixth subdivision, that a map referred to in the deed, and with reference to which the parties acted, controls other particulars. In view of this statutory rule, it is hardly necessary to quote the decisions, but this court has more than once resorted to an accompanying map for the purpose of construing a deed. In [/font][font=&quot][font=&quot]Serrano [/font][font=&quot]v. Rawson, 47 Cal. 55[/font][/font][font=&quot], the court said: "In determining the location, the plat of the survey, which is a part of the patent, is often entitled to as much, and perhaps to more, weight than the courses and distances. ( [/font][font=&quot][font=&quot]Vance [/font][font=&quot]v. Fore, 24 Cal. 435[/font][/font][font=&quot].) In all cases of conflicting descriptions, the object of the court is to ascertain the intention of the parties, and the entire description contained in the instrument should be resorted to for the purpose of ascertaining the intention."[/font]

RAM · Post by **RAM** » Wed Feb 11, 2015 9:04 am

Going back to the original post. When I see a note calling a monument off of a line, my first question is Really? Are you sure? What survey method was used to determine the position of the monument?

It really bugs me when someone claims a monument is 0.03' off a line. How did they locate the monument? With a rod, glass and edm? When was the last time the bubble was checked? how high was the shot? Over someone's fence to a hi staff? was is a single side shot? Where is the redundancy to verify the position? RTK GPS? Are you sure? So maybe the monument is actually on the line but someone believes the numbers that come out of the magic box or the budget dictates the time and methods. This also applies to the rural PLSS where someone claims a monument is 2' off a line between a section corner and a quarter corner. What is the topography? and again same questions as above. So I almost will always question, is the monument really off?

Keithwill · Post by **Keithwill** » Wed Feb 11, 2015 9:29 am

Dane,

I do not see or read of any BLM subdividing a section in your quotes?

dmi · Post by **dmi** » Wed Feb 11, 2015 9:58 am

Why not restrict you consideration to what I actually wrote?

Keithwill · Post by **Keithwill** » Wed Feb 11, 2015 11:39 am

Dane,

I was referring to this:

There is a precedent setting case posted on the Board's website. This case involves the discipline of a surveyor who insisted on using the method described in the Manual to break down a section and disregarded an unrecorded survey that had been relied upon by private property owners.

dmi · Post by **dmi** » Wed Feb 11, 2015 11:53 am

http://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/public/c--29462dec980.pdf

Ric7308 · Post by **Ric7308** » Wed Feb 11, 2015 12:00 pm

As I attempted to mention last night, a disciplinary action is not considered "a precedent setting case". It would be improper to rely on one as such. That is why I posted the link I did with the one case I know the Board published as a precedent.

LS_8750 · Post by **LS_8750** » Wed Feb 11, 2015 12:19 pm

A round of applause for your post #55 Me. Ince. Relevant and informative.

dmi · Post by **dmi** » Wed Feb 11, 2015 2:53 pm

I missed the link that you posted Ric. I am sorry for any confusion I have created by conflating the two cases; they are different. The link to the case I posted is listed under "final decisions". Am I wrong to review final decisions and to let these decisions inform my actions?

Ric7308 · Post by **Ric7308** » Wed Feb 11, 2015 3:48 pm

Dane, while I certainly understand the interest in reading final decisions (I have always read them too), it should be understood that there could be a great of information that is not known specific to that decision that would differ on a case by case basis. There could be something learned from those decisions but the learning experience may not apply to what appears to be similar circumstances.

I guess it would be better for me to say that if referring to final decisions, it should be done with the clear understanding that unique circumstances may differ which could result in a different resolution.

Where when the Board makes a decision to post a precedent setting decision, they do so with the understanding that this specific decision may have a broader impact on the manner in which licensees perform/provide services and they wish to communicate this to the licensed professionals. Hope this makes sense.

dmi · Post by **dmi** » Wed Feb 11, 2015 4:04 pm

use with caution as your mileage may vary and thanks for the input on this subject

Dave Karoly, PLS · Post by **Dave Karoly, PLS** » Thu Feb 12, 2015 7:25 am

I'm just spitballing here...

What if the two property owners in Dane's case above went to court, the southerly one had a Lawyer and the Civil Engineer expert, the northerly one represented themselves with no expert, the court refused to admit the unrecorded survey and in the final Judgment declared the Civil Engineer is correct? What then? Would the Board still violate the Engineer?

This has happened.

dmi · Post by **dmi** » Thu Feb 12, 2015 9:27 am

if a frog had wings then he would not bump his ass when he hops....
I prefer to play the what is game as opposed to the what if game...

Dave Karoly, PLS · Post by **Dave Karoly, PLS** » Thu Feb 12, 2015 10:54 am

I think the frog needs a jet pack.

Civil Engineer · Post by **Civil Engineer** » Thu Feb 12, 2015 5:40 pm

I give Kiethwill credit for making some good points. The Manual has more force than many are claiming. The Manual has evolved in-line with a lot of case law, state and federal. Also the Manual is the most influential â€œstandard of practiceâ€ book that exists.

Each boundary determination is different and often can have multiple solutions. The solution that most closely fits the deed and the evidence is the best solution.

More specifically, a junior monument is off when its lack of precision both:
1) varies in some way from the deed, and
2) it is significant enough to make a difference.

It's also the same criteria for calling a senior monument off. Of course, this is not the case for original monuments of the PLSS where the corner was defined as the location of the monument by the deed and prior to the sale.

Olin Edmundson · Post by **Olin Edmundson** » Thu Feb 12, 2015 10:55 pm

In a faithful retracement of that senior line, the retracing surveyor sets monuments on, or near to, that line in order to perpetuate his/her work. Exactly why does one call those junior monuments off?[/QUOTE]

Hey Clark, I agree that if by "faithful", we are talking about a properly constructed/substantiated/correct/logical... retracement, then in general we should be holding these points. Just a matter of discerning what is and what is not a faithful survey. (Sounds so simple! ha) A recent court case linked below brings up some relevant points. One being, that for very old surveys done by compass, the original line as it was run on the ground was never straight to begin with as they were only measuring to a quarter degree! So what you really have is a bunch of zig zagging line segments. It also addresses accepting points that do not have a known direct connection to the original survey, but are shown on maps and described in deeds as being on the line.

Dave Karoly, PLS · Post by **Dave Karoly, PLS** » Fri Feb 13, 2015 10:19 am

Thanks for that, Olin. That is a good case loaded with a lot of good citations.

Bloxham v. Saldinger, 228 Cal. App. 4th 729 (2014)

LexisNexis says possible negative treatment. I need to look it up at the Law Library.

dmi · Post by **dmi** » Fri Feb 13, 2015 1:13 pm

ANYONE HAVE THE MAPS FOR THE CASE POSTED BY OLIN
THANKS FOR THE CASE IT IS A GREAT READ

LA Stevens · Post by **LA Stevens** » Fri Feb 13, 2015 2:51 pm

Dane,

Check you email.

Dave Karoly, PLS · Post by **Dave Karoly, PLS** » Fri Feb 13, 2015 7:15 pm

Larry-

I would appreciate a copy too.

karolysurveyor at gmail dot com.

Thanks.

Keithwill · Post by **Keithwill** » Fri Feb 13, 2015 7:54 pm

Can the map/plat be posted here?

California Surveyors Forums

The Junior Monument and the Senior Line

The problem is

I was mistaken

yes Ric that makes sense