Monuments
-
David Kendall
- Posts: 687
- Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2014 1:45 pm
- Location: Ferndale
Monuments
I'd like to hear about case law (California or otherwise) of courts affirming a surveyor who calls off a found monument due to questionable or unclear methodology. In my mind, the monument will generally hold (especially if it is known by the community). I'm unclear about conditions under which it is just for a retracing surveyor to say "I disagree with how this other guy set that pipe on that map 10 years ago" or "I don't know what that guy did" so "I'm setting another pipe and writing a bold note on my map to explain"
-
mpallamary
- Posts: 3466
- Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm
-
Jim Frame
- Posts: 1599
- Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:52 pm
- Location: Davis, CA
- Contact:
Re: Monuments
Bear in mind that an absence of published cases on the point doesn't mean a whole lot. For every "pincushion" survey that got challenged all the way up to an appellate court, there must be hundreds or thousands that never got disputed because the owners weren't bothered by the fact that one surveyor disagreed with another.I'd like to hear about case law (California or otherwise) of courts affirming a surveyor who calls off a found monument due to questionable or unclear methodology.
-
Mr. Smith
- Posts: 225
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:44 am
- Location: Montague CA
- Contact:
Re: Monuments
For me it's always a different survey problem with many different types and weights of evidence.
You may not find hard and fast case law to hang your hat on, also case law can be a slippery slope as a Judge has told me
"You may find that I (the Judge) have a different interpretation of the Law and a Different interpretation on how the facts in your case
apply to the law".
In your situation I would be ready with a defensible position if challenged.
Brian
You may not find hard and fast case law to hang your hat on, also case law can be a slippery slope as a Judge has told me
"You may find that I (the Judge) have a different interpretation of the Law and a Different interpretation on how the facts in your case
apply to the law".
In your situation I would be ready with a defensible position if challenged.
Brian
-
Warren Smith
- Posts: 1006
- Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:41 am
- Location: Sonora
Re: Monuments
"In your situation I would be ready with a defensible position if challenged."
That's a good response. Case law tends to approve of surveyors doing just that. Essentially what a reasonable and prudent surveyor in the same circumstances would do. And, of course, it always helps to document your analysis and conclusions on your map - such as why I chose to hold the monument, or why I didn't.
That's a good response. Case law tends to approve of surveyors doing just that. Essentially what a reasonable and prudent surveyor in the same circumstances would do. And, of course, it always helps to document your analysis and conclusions on your map - such as why I chose to hold the monument, or why I didn't.
Warren D. Smith, LS 4842
County Surveyor Emeritus
County Surveyor Emeritus
-
Olin Edmundson
- Posts: 229
- Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 8:37 am
-
Warren Smith
- Posts: 1006
- Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:41 am
- Location: Sonora
Re: Monuments
Olin,
You can chew on Carter v. Bank of America, 69 Cal.App.2d 112 (1945):
"The record before us shows that plaintiff Carter located a mound of stones with an old wooden stake inscribed 17, 18, 19 and 20, which he claims constitutes the original monument. Elmer J. Kent, County Surveyor of El Dorado County, a witness for intervener, located a different mound of stones with a rotted stake, also marked 17, 18, 19 and 20, which he took to be the original monument; and he was of the opinion that what Carter claimed to be the corner monument was merely a witness corner which had been established subsequent to the original survey. Both he and Walter H. Ralph, a civil engineer and surveyor called by respondent, testified that Carter's corner did not correspond to the requirements or the usual markings of a government corner, while the corner monument found by Kent more nearly corresponded with the field notes. Ralph testified that the corner claimed by Carter fell 300 feet or 400 feet short according to the field notes, when measured from the established corner directly south; also that if Carter's corner were adopted, a line run easterly therefrom, instead of ending at a point 700 feet north of the river, as called for in the field notes, would end in the center of the river -- that is, it would deviate 700 feet from the line called for by the field notes, while a line run by Ralph east from the corner found by Kent came to the exact location called for in the field notes.
The location of the true corner thus became a matter for determination by the trial court upon conflicting evidence. It was stated by it in an opinion delivered orally:
"Where is that corner? As I said that area is more or less in a rugged country. There is a precipitous mountain stream going down through there. As to the location, we have to measure that by the positive evidence. The positive evidence is by Kent, that he found the corner, and that his corner coincides with the field notes of the United States. The field notes are a part of the survey. Every engineer and every surveyor knows that. The testimony was that this corresponds with the field notes. Different statements are made in United States reports about quarter corners and it is said that the old surveys are frequently not accurate. Nevertheless, in a case of this kind, the entire picture has to be brought in, and here we have some testimony that a certain quarter corner confirms Kent's views. Ralph takes the same position. This case has to be decided by a preponderance of the evidence, -- determining the rights of these parties on the turning point of the common corner of these four sections. On that positive testimony that the corner must be where Kent found it, then comes the question whether any value is to be attached to the corner that Mr. Carter assumed."
It was then concluded that Carter's corner was a witness corner, same being in a position where it would be natural to place such a corner; and the court's conclusion was that the preponderance of the evidence supported the contentions of respondent. That conclusion must be the conclusion of this court. The judgment is affirmed."
There are a few nuggets in there but, as always, facts dictate the outcome. Here, there was the record position (GLO notes), and an unknown monument. The trial court sorted out the testimony. Those were findings of fact. The appellate court applied questions of law, and affirmed.
Land Surveyors need to know how this process works, and apply it to boundary determination on the ground. Roy Minnick used to say, "Treat each survey as if it were going to end up in court". Sage advice.
You can chew on Carter v. Bank of America, 69 Cal.App.2d 112 (1945):
"The record before us shows that plaintiff Carter located a mound of stones with an old wooden stake inscribed 17, 18, 19 and 20, which he claims constitutes the original monument. Elmer J. Kent, County Surveyor of El Dorado County, a witness for intervener, located a different mound of stones with a rotted stake, also marked 17, 18, 19 and 20, which he took to be the original monument; and he was of the opinion that what Carter claimed to be the corner monument was merely a witness corner which had been established subsequent to the original survey. Both he and Walter H. Ralph, a civil engineer and surveyor called by respondent, testified that Carter's corner did not correspond to the requirements or the usual markings of a government corner, while the corner monument found by Kent more nearly corresponded with the field notes. Ralph testified that the corner claimed by Carter fell 300 feet or 400 feet short according to the field notes, when measured from the established corner directly south; also that if Carter's corner were adopted, a line run easterly therefrom, instead of ending at a point 700 feet north of the river, as called for in the field notes, would end in the center of the river -- that is, it would deviate 700 feet from the line called for by the field notes, while a line run by Ralph east from the corner found by Kent came to the exact location called for in the field notes.
The location of the true corner thus became a matter for determination by the trial court upon conflicting evidence. It was stated by it in an opinion delivered orally:
"Where is that corner? As I said that area is more or less in a rugged country. There is a precipitous mountain stream going down through there. As to the location, we have to measure that by the positive evidence. The positive evidence is by Kent, that he found the corner, and that his corner coincides with the field notes of the United States. The field notes are a part of the survey. Every engineer and every surveyor knows that. The testimony was that this corresponds with the field notes. Different statements are made in United States reports about quarter corners and it is said that the old surveys are frequently not accurate. Nevertheless, in a case of this kind, the entire picture has to be brought in, and here we have some testimony that a certain quarter corner confirms Kent's views. Ralph takes the same position. This case has to be decided by a preponderance of the evidence, -- determining the rights of these parties on the turning point of the common corner of these four sections. On that positive testimony that the corner must be where Kent found it, then comes the question whether any value is to be attached to the corner that Mr. Carter assumed."
It was then concluded that Carter's corner was a witness corner, same being in a position where it would be natural to place such a corner; and the court's conclusion was that the preponderance of the evidence supported the contentions of respondent. That conclusion must be the conclusion of this court. The judgment is affirmed."
There are a few nuggets in there but, as always, facts dictate the outcome. Here, there was the record position (GLO notes), and an unknown monument. The trial court sorted out the testimony. Those were findings of fact. The appellate court applied questions of law, and affirmed.
Land Surveyors need to know how this process works, and apply it to boundary determination on the ground. Roy Minnick used to say, "Treat each survey as if it were going to end up in court". Sage advice.
Warren D. Smith, LS 4842
County Surveyor Emeritus
County Surveyor Emeritus
-
Dave Karoly, PLS
- Posts: 670
- Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 6:26 pm
- Location: Sacramento
Re: Monuments
From Warren's link:
"The location of the true corner thus became a matter for determination by the trial court upon conflicting evidence."
The Surveyor has to distinguish between a question of fact or a question of law. Corner location is a question of fact to be determined by the land surveyor by resolving the conflicts in the evidence. Monument beat measurements, but not always. Surveyor's should compare the title history to the history of the surveys. If the old monuments were set around the time of The old Deeds DON'T PINCUSHION IT unless you have a very good reason.
Warren's quote alludes to the Substantial Evidence Rule wherein Appellate Courts defer to the trial court on questions of fact, they won't overturn unless they absolutely find no support for the finding of fact. If substantial evidence supports both the trial court decision and the other side's desire, they will not overrule the trial court. I think we should operate the same way, if you have a monument before you, at the very least, give it the benefit of the doubt especially if all the history shows it has been used in good faith.
From Sdun v. Patterson unpublished (just for attribution, it's all quoted from citable authorities):
“ ‘The question presented to the court in a boundary dispute is not that of making a resurvey but one of determining as a question of fact from the preponderance of expert and nonexpert evidence (as in all other civil cases) the actual location of the monuments, corners or lines as actually laid out on the ground by the official surveyor.’ [Citation.] ‘The questions where the line run by a survey lies on the ground, and whether any particular tract is on one side or the other of that line, are questions of fact. [Citation.]’ ” (Bloxham v. Saldinger (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 729, 737 (Bloxham ).) “ ‘Surveyors and civil engineers, like other experts, may give testimony on questions involving matters of technical skill and experience with which they are peculiarly acquainted. [Citations.]’ ... The weight and credence to be given an expert's testimony is a question for the trier of fact. [Citation.]” (Id. at pp. 737–738.)
In reviewing the evidence for its sufficiency, we resolve all evidentiary conflicts and indulge all reasonable inferences in favor of the judgment. (Bloxham, supra, 228 Cal.App.4th at p. 739.) Where a statement of decision sets forth the factual and legal basis for the decision, any conflict in the evidence or reasonable inferences to be drawn from the facts will be resolved in support of the determination of the trial court decision. (In re Marriage of Ruelas (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 339, 342.)
"The location of the true corner thus became a matter for determination by the trial court upon conflicting evidence."
The Surveyor has to distinguish between a question of fact or a question of law. Corner location is a question of fact to be determined by the land surveyor by resolving the conflicts in the evidence. Monument beat measurements, but not always. Surveyor's should compare the title history to the history of the surveys. If the old monuments were set around the time of The old Deeds DON'T PINCUSHION IT unless you have a very good reason.
Warren's quote alludes to the Substantial Evidence Rule wherein Appellate Courts defer to the trial court on questions of fact, they won't overturn unless they absolutely find no support for the finding of fact. If substantial evidence supports both the trial court decision and the other side's desire, they will not overrule the trial court. I think we should operate the same way, if you have a monument before you, at the very least, give it the benefit of the doubt especially if all the history shows it has been used in good faith.
From Sdun v. Patterson unpublished (just for attribution, it's all quoted from citable authorities):
“ ‘The question presented to the court in a boundary dispute is not that of making a resurvey but one of determining as a question of fact from the preponderance of expert and nonexpert evidence (as in all other civil cases) the actual location of the monuments, corners or lines as actually laid out on the ground by the official surveyor.’ [Citation.] ‘The questions where the line run by a survey lies on the ground, and whether any particular tract is on one side or the other of that line, are questions of fact. [Citation.]’ ” (Bloxham v. Saldinger (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 729, 737 (Bloxham ).) “ ‘Surveyors and civil engineers, like other experts, may give testimony on questions involving matters of technical skill and experience with which they are peculiarly acquainted. [Citations.]’ ... The weight and credence to be given an expert's testimony is a question for the trier of fact. [Citation.]” (Id. at pp. 737–738.)
In reviewing the evidence for its sufficiency, we resolve all evidentiary conflicts and indulge all reasonable inferences in favor of the judgment. (Bloxham, supra, 228 Cal.App.4th at p. 739.) Where a statement of decision sets forth the factual and legal basis for the decision, any conflict in the evidence or reasonable inferences to be drawn from the facts will be resolved in support of the determination of the trial court decision. (In re Marriage of Ruelas (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 339, 342.)
"Gee, I wish we had one of them doomsday machines." -General "Buck" Turgidson
-
Dave Karoly, PLS
- Posts: 670
- Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 6:26 pm
- Location: Sacramento
Re: Monuments
Every Boundary a Surveyor should read a few paragraphs from Young v. Blakeman, 153 Cal. 477 (1908), written by Justice Shaw, over and over:
"When the division line of adjoining owners is designated in their respective deeds as a line beginning at a specified distance from a fixed object, the only method of ascertaining the location of the line on the ground is by measuring the required distance from the object. Experience shows that such measurements, made at different times by different persons with different instruments, will usually vary somewhat. The position of the object or monument at which the course begins may also be changed and the change may not be known to the parties, or there may be no means of ascertaining its original position. If the position of the line always remained to be ascertained by measurement alone, the result would be that it would not be a fixed boundary, but would be subject to change with every new measurement. Such uncertainty and instability in the title to land would be intolerable. For these and other reasons the rule has been established that when such owners, being uncertain of the true position of the boundary so described, agree upon its true location, mark it upon the ground, or build up to it, occupy on each side up to the place thus fixed and acquiesce in such location for a period equal to the statute of limitations, or under such circumstances that substantial loss would be caused by a change of its position, such line becomes, in law, the true line called for by the respective descriptions, regardless of the accuracy of the agreed location, as it may appear by subsequent measurements. The court found that the line in question had been thus located by the predecessors in interest of the parties, more than thirty years before the suit was begun. The evidence of the fact, though entirely circumstantial, is reasonably satisfactory."
and:
"The object of the rule is to secure repose, to prevent strife and disputes concerning boundaries, and make titles permanent and stable. If it had no greater force than is thus contended for, it would be of little benefit and would fail to accomplish the purposes which led to its establishment. If the descriptions were not by metes and bounds, but designated the lots solely by their respective numbers or, as in the case of government lands, by sectional subdivisions, and there had been an agreement of this character between previous owners fixing the common boundary, it would scarcely be contended that the division line thus fixed is not binding on their respective grantees, or between a subsequent grantor and his grantee. The effect, however, is precisely the same in this case. The designation of the land by its number or sectional subdivision is nothing more than a reference to a previous survey which states the distance of the line from some fixed object and an adoption of that statement into the deed by the reference. It will still call for a measurement to ascertain the true position on the ground, unless it has been marked by a monument and in that case, if the monument is removed and other means of locating its position are not available, as often happens, a measurement must still be resorted to. If a measurement is made and the line agreed on and acquiesced in as required by this rule, it is binding on and applicable to all parties to the agreement and their successors by subsequent deeds. It is stated by the authorities that the line so agreed on becomes in legal effect the true line, that the agreement as to the line may be in parol and that it does not operate to convey title to the land which may lie between the agreed line and the true line, but that it fixes the line itself and the description carries title up to the agreed line, regardless of its accuracy; that the agreement as to the line is not in violation of the statute of frauds, because it does not transfer title; that the parties hold up to the agreed line by virtue of their original deeds and not by virtue of the parol agreement; that "the division line when thus established, attaches itself to the deeds of the respective parties, and simply defines, not adds to, the lands described in each deed," and that if more is thus given to one than the calls of his deed actually requires, he "holds the excess by the same tenure that he holds the main body of his lands." ( Sneed v. Osborn, 25 Cal. 630; White v. Spreckels, 75 Cal. 616, [17 Pac. 715]; 4 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, p. 861; 3 Wash. on Real Prop., sec. 2232; Lewis v. Ogram, 149 Cal. 509, [117 Am. St. Rep. 151, 87 Pac. 60], and cases there cited; Kellogg v. Smith, 7 Cush. 382; Miles v. Barrows, 122 Mass. 579.)"
"When the division line of adjoining owners is designated in their respective deeds as a line beginning at a specified distance from a fixed object, the only method of ascertaining the location of the line on the ground is by measuring the required distance from the object. Experience shows that such measurements, made at different times by different persons with different instruments, will usually vary somewhat. The position of the object or monument at which the course begins may also be changed and the change may not be known to the parties, or there may be no means of ascertaining its original position. If the position of the line always remained to be ascertained by measurement alone, the result would be that it would not be a fixed boundary, but would be subject to change with every new measurement. Such uncertainty and instability in the title to land would be intolerable. For these and other reasons the rule has been established that when such owners, being uncertain of the true position of the boundary so described, agree upon its true location, mark it upon the ground, or build up to it, occupy on each side up to the place thus fixed and acquiesce in such location for a period equal to the statute of limitations, or under such circumstances that substantial loss would be caused by a change of its position, such line becomes, in law, the true line called for by the respective descriptions, regardless of the accuracy of the agreed location, as it may appear by subsequent measurements. The court found that the line in question had been thus located by the predecessors in interest of the parties, more than thirty years before the suit was begun. The evidence of the fact, though entirely circumstantial, is reasonably satisfactory."
and:
"The object of the rule is to secure repose, to prevent strife and disputes concerning boundaries, and make titles permanent and stable. If it had no greater force than is thus contended for, it would be of little benefit and would fail to accomplish the purposes which led to its establishment. If the descriptions were not by metes and bounds, but designated the lots solely by their respective numbers or, as in the case of government lands, by sectional subdivisions, and there had been an agreement of this character between previous owners fixing the common boundary, it would scarcely be contended that the division line thus fixed is not binding on their respective grantees, or between a subsequent grantor and his grantee. The effect, however, is precisely the same in this case. The designation of the land by its number or sectional subdivision is nothing more than a reference to a previous survey which states the distance of the line from some fixed object and an adoption of that statement into the deed by the reference. It will still call for a measurement to ascertain the true position on the ground, unless it has been marked by a monument and in that case, if the monument is removed and other means of locating its position are not available, as often happens, a measurement must still be resorted to. If a measurement is made and the line agreed on and acquiesced in as required by this rule, it is binding on and applicable to all parties to the agreement and their successors by subsequent deeds. It is stated by the authorities that the line so agreed on becomes in legal effect the true line, that the agreement as to the line may be in parol and that it does not operate to convey title to the land which may lie between the agreed line and the true line, but that it fixes the line itself and the description carries title up to the agreed line, regardless of its accuracy; that the agreement as to the line is not in violation of the statute of frauds, because it does not transfer title; that the parties hold up to the agreed line by virtue of their original deeds and not by virtue of the parol agreement; that "the division line when thus established, attaches itself to the deeds of the respective parties, and simply defines, not adds to, the lands described in each deed," and that if more is thus given to one than the calls of his deed actually requires, he "holds the excess by the same tenure that he holds the main body of his lands." ( Sneed v. Osborn, 25 Cal. 630; White v. Spreckels, 75 Cal. 616, [17 Pac. 715]; 4 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, p. 861; 3 Wash. on Real Prop., sec. 2232; Lewis v. Ogram, 149 Cal. 509, [117 Am. St. Rep. 151, 87 Pac. 60], and cases there cited; Kellogg v. Smith, 7 Cush. 382; Miles v. Barrows, 122 Mass. 579.)"
"Gee, I wish we had one of them doomsday machines." -General "Buck" Turgidson
-
Dave Karoly, PLS
- Posts: 670
- Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 6:26 pm
- Location: Sacramento
Re: Monuments
I like Pallamay's forum a lot better, it's actually readable. Hate the dark blue.
Also Bloxham v. Saldinger is a good recent case where the court approved of the Surveyor who used the monuments along the line and disapproved of the other surveyor who just established the ends of the line and ignored everything in between.
Also Bloxham v. Saldinger is a good recent case where the court approved of the Surveyor who used the monuments along the line and disapproved of the other surveyor who just established the ends of the line and ignored everything in between.
"Gee, I wish we had one of them doomsday machines." -General "Buck" Turgidson
-
mpallamary
- Posts: 3466
- Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm
Re: Monuments
Thanks Dave! I created it after so many similar complaints as well as editorial policies, etc.
-
David Kendall
- Posts: 687
- Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2014 1:45 pm
- Location: Ferndale
Re: Monuments
I appreciate all of the replies sent to this thread. I can see that I was not clear in my original post. I have been considering some situations where found monuments are not held and which I find confusing. As an illustration of the first case which is a practical dilemma, I have added a diagram for your consideration:
This is a fairly common practice in the area where I work. It is easy enough to retrace but I find it confusing.
First, is "holding" a found monument for line then calling it off a few tenths from the "real" line and setting an adjacent calculated point for the real corner the same as holding a found monument? I find it ambiguous. I recently calculated a basis of bearing from a line which was mapped in this way and received comments from the map review person that the basis of bearing had to be a direct tie between two found record monuments so I would have to show the bearing and recalculate the actual basis from the map which I was retracing. This wasn't too complicated but I couldn't see what it added to the map as either way required calculation. I ended up showing the direct tie under the calculated basis of bearing or listing it in the corner note. Why do surveyors do this?
Second, is Joe Property owner supposed to be able to find his corner this way by looking at the map?
I don't know if this methodology is right, wrong or indifferent but I do see that it is common practice among some surveyors. I can understand doing it (and I have) on a right-of-way line but I have seen some controversy on this forum regarding that topic as well. I am wondering how to defend an action like this (in the middle of a forest on a 1000+ foot subdivisional line that is theoretically supposed to be straight but it has a found monument on it which says otherwise. It seems to be similar to a pincushion corner to me... This is sounding an awful lot like the "junior monument on the senior line" thread so I would like to keep this conversation directed towards private surveys if you please. Thank you for your consideration! - DK
This is a fairly common practice in the area where I work. It is easy enough to retrace but I find it confusing.
First, is "holding" a found monument for line then calling it off a few tenths from the "real" line and setting an adjacent calculated point for the real corner the same as holding a found monument? I find it ambiguous. I recently calculated a basis of bearing from a line which was mapped in this way and received comments from the map review person that the basis of bearing had to be a direct tie between two found record monuments so I would have to show the bearing and recalculate the actual basis from the map which I was retracing. This wasn't too complicated but I couldn't see what it added to the map as either way required calculation. I ended up showing the direct tie under the calculated basis of bearing or listing it in the corner note. Why do surveyors do this?
Second, is Joe Property owner supposed to be able to find his corner this way by looking at the map?
I don't know if this methodology is right, wrong or indifferent but I do see that it is common practice among some surveyors. I can understand doing it (and I have) on a right-of-way line but I have seen some controversy on this forum regarding that topic as well. I am wondering how to defend an action like this (in the middle of a forest on a 1000+ foot subdivisional line that is theoretically supposed to be straight but it has a found monument on it which says otherwise. It seems to be similar to a pincushion corner to me... This is sounding an awful lot like the "junior monument on the senior line" thread so I would like to keep this conversation directed towards private surveys if you please. Thank you for your consideration! - DK
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
LS_8750
- Posts: 1166
- Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:36 pm
- Location: Sonoma
- Contact:
Re: Monuments
"Why do surveyors do this?" -- Good one. The greats of the greats do it all the time, those held in high esteem by the LS community, those here in Sonoma and Marin and Santa Cruz Counties. Everywhere actually. It is embarrassing if you ask me.
Here's the deal. My eighth grade algebra teacher presented an example to the class one day. He started walking to the door, and then asked the class how long it would take to get to the door if he decreased the length of his step by 1/2 each step he took. He asked us when we would reach the door. The point was that he would never reach the door. Right? He was teaching eighth graders. It seems to me that surveyors could learn from this junior high school lesson I learned decades ago.
Every contributor to this forum is guilty, including me. I try to learn from my previous stupidity/ignorance. Nothing changes. I've worked off the maps of several contributors here and nothing changes. Everybody does it to an alarming degree.
Jeff Lucas was right in all respects. Surveyors are killing the surveying profession due to their lack of "seeing the big picture", or "seeing the forest through the trees." ---- Monument by "common report". What does that mean? It means those neighbors and the surveyors all believe it is the corner, whether its origin is known or not. Like that iron pipe that just happens to be located where all the fence corners exist. Maybe it is a monument, but it is off by a tenth. A TENTH. The layperson, laypersons including lawyers and judges, see that as nothing - they marvel at our ability to measure to "precisely" anyway - note that I did not say accurately.
There is not difference between right of way lines or any other lines. The State does not automatically get its 50 feet, or its 50.0 feet, or its 50.00 feet, or its 50.0000 feet, or its 50.000000 feet. Get it? The government gets what it gets, what has been occupied to for decades.
This is a tiresome discussion. Really. I don't understand why it keeps coming up.
Two points are established a thousand feet apart, or a hundred feet, or a hundred miles, or a hundredth of a foot. Place a point on line between those to points. Faithfully. Give it your best shot. The fact is you will never place that point exactly on line. Never. What is exactly on line? Is that 0.1'? Or 0.01'? Or 0.0001'? Get it?
Can we move on? Can we just accept monuments as we are supposed to? I am willing. Why can't the rest of the LS community do the same?
When do we each discover that "moment of clarity"? Maybe it should be a condition of licensure. Oh, wait a minute - if that were the case nobody would qualify.
Here's the deal. My eighth grade algebra teacher presented an example to the class one day. He started walking to the door, and then asked the class how long it would take to get to the door if he decreased the length of his step by 1/2 each step he took. He asked us when we would reach the door. The point was that he would never reach the door. Right? He was teaching eighth graders. It seems to me that surveyors could learn from this junior high school lesson I learned decades ago.
Every contributor to this forum is guilty, including me. I try to learn from my previous stupidity/ignorance. Nothing changes. I've worked off the maps of several contributors here and nothing changes. Everybody does it to an alarming degree.
Jeff Lucas was right in all respects. Surveyors are killing the surveying profession due to their lack of "seeing the big picture", or "seeing the forest through the trees." ---- Monument by "common report". What does that mean? It means those neighbors and the surveyors all believe it is the corner, whether its origin is known or not. Like that iron pipe that just happens to be located where all the fence corners exist. Maybe it is a monument, but it is off by a tenth. A TENTH. The layperson, laypersons including lawyers and judges, see that as nothing - they marvel at our ability to measure to "precisely" anyway - note that I did not say accurately.
There is not difference between right of way lines or any other lines. The State does not automatically get its 50 feet, or its 50.0 feet, or its 50.00 feet, or its 50.0000 feet, or its 50.000000 feet. Get it? The government gets what it gets, what has been occupied to for decades.
This is a tiresome discussion. Really. I don't understand why it keeps coming up.
Two points are established a thousand feet apart, or a hundred feet, or a hundred miles, or a hundredth of a foot. Place a point on line between those to points. Faithfully. Give it your best shot. The fact is you will never place that point exactly on line. Never. What is exactly on line? Is that 0.1'? Or 0.01'? Or 0.0001'? Get it?
Can we move on? Can we just accept monuments as we are supposed to? I am willing. Why can't the rest of the LS community do the same?
When do we each discover that "moment of clarity"? Maybe it should be a condition of licensure. Oh, wait a minute - if that were the case nobody would qualify.
-
E_Page
- Posts: 2144
- Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 6:49 am
- Location: El Dorado County
Re: Monuments
Clark,
Sure, we can move on to other discussions, but that will have no effect on future versions of this same discussion returning from time to time, nor should it.
New people are coming up through the profession on a continuing basis. They don't enter the profession, or attain their licenses getting somehow imbued with all of the knowledge the rest of us learned through various lessons throughout our careers. They need to learn these things for themselves.
Nor do surveyors who have been practicing for some years learn at the same rate. Some are fortunate enough to have learned from a more experienced surveyor that study and learning is something that should never end for the practicing professional and they learn many of these lessons earlier in their careers than many of us did. Others got out of the habit of studying shortly after graduating from college or after attaining a license and didn't pick it back up again until some experience years later showed them that they didn't know what they thought they knew and prompted them to get back in the habit of learning. Still others have no interest in learning, saw the day they passed the exam as the pinnacle of the knowledge they needed to "get their ticket" and intend to coast the rest of the way until retirement, or perhaps their egos just won't allow them to accept that what they knew to pass the exam isn't adequate for many real life situations in certain areas of practice.
Anyway, I'm glad that these discussions do happen. It allows some of us to share what we've learned over 20, 30, 40 or more years of surveying with those not as far along in their career, or perhaps more accurately, not as far along in their learning on this point. If I had access to more discussions like this when I was 20, I might have had the level of boundary knowledge I have at 52 back when I was 30. That's my hope for younger surveyors. and it's my hope that what the courts have been telling surveyors about their duty and about the consideration of different types of evidence to determine boundary locations increasingly becomes the common knowledge among surveyors.
Nevermind that the courts have been pretty consistent on most boundary principles throughout history and that these principles should be common knowledge among surveyors. It isn't even arguable whether or not we are supposed to locate boundaries by the same rules the courts must follow among those who have done the study necessary to have a professional level understanding of boundary surveying. But it is arguable based upon what many surveyors who have been granted a license have been taught and think they know. The true requirements of properly locating boundaries is, unfortunately but most certainly, not yet common knowledge within our profession. Its an observation that reflects poorly on the profession that is supposed to be comprised of boundary location experts.
Discussions like this one, repeated every few months with a few differences in specific circumstances are necessary for the healthy progression of knowledge within the profession. Some who have followed this discussion may not have followed, or may not have even been aware of previous similar discussions and so they are beginning to learn something that is new to them. For those of us who have learned the principles applicable to the circumstances of the subject survey, these discussions are good mental exercise to keep that knowledge from getting stale, or to practice articulating that knowledge in a way others can learn from. Every so often, and not necessarily in the rare instance, those of us with enough experience to provide knowledgeable answers may still learn something more on the topic because of some unique circumstance or from the differing perspectives of other participants.
Don't begrudge those who have not yet learned what you know. You didn't learn it all at once when you started surveying. Neither will anyone else. As you stated, even many of the learned participants in this thread have recorded surveys where they made decisions that run counter to what they now describe as proper methods or decisions. Quite simply, that's because we were all minimally competent, or close to it when we were first granted our licenses and have each learned much since then. If you look back at some of your own postings on this forum even just a few years back, you may be surprised at how much you've learned.
The knowledge of boundary principles that you, or I have gained over the past 5, 10, or 15 years is not new within that time period. Not even close. Most of it has been true for 100, 200 or more years. But it was new to us when we were first exposed to it. You learned in discussions like this from others who had participated in similar discussions dozens or hundreds of times previous to that. You're now at the point in your career that you have a lot of knowledge based upon both continued professional experience and continued study that many others do not have due to a lack of time in the profession or some other circumstances. Perhaps it's time for you to consider graciously sharing that knowledge so that others can learn from it. (And maybe talking to your doctor to give you something to help with those ongoing anger issues that flare up in some of your posts).
Sure, we can move on to other discussions, but that will have no effect on future versions of this same discussion returning from time to time, nor should it.
New people are coming up through the profession on a continuing basis. They don't enter the profession, or attain their licenses getting somehow imbued with all of the knowledge the rest of us learned through various lessons throughout our careers. They need to learn these things for themselves.
Nor do surveyors who have been practicing for some years learn at the same rate. Some are fortunate enough to have learned from a more experienced surveyor that study and learning is something that should never end for the practicing professional and they learn many of these lessons earlier in their careers than many of us did. Others got out of the habit of studying shortly after graduating from college or after attaining a license and didn't pick it back up again until some experience years later showed them that they didn't know what they thought they knew and prompted them to get back in the habit of learning. Still others have no interest in learning, saw the day they passed the exam as the pinnacle of the knowledge they needed to "get their ticket" and intend to coast the rest of the way until retirement, or perhaps their egos just won't allow them to accept that what they knew to pass the exam isn't adequate for many real life situations in certain areas of practice.
Anyway, I'm glad that these discussions do happen. It allows some of us to share what we've learned over 20, 30, 40 or more years of surveying with those not as far along in their career, or perhaps more accurately, not as far along in their learning on this point. If I had access to more discussions like this when I was 20, I might have had the level of boundary knowledge I have at 52 back when I was 30. That's my hope for younger surveyors. and it's my hope that what the courts have been telling surveyors about their duty and about the consideration of different types of evidence to determine boundary locations increasingly becomes the common knowledge among surveyors.
Nevermind that the courts have been pretty consistent on most boundary principles throughout history and that these principles should be common knowledge among surveyors. It isn't even arguable whether or not we are supposed to locate boundaries by the same rules the courts must follow among those who have done the study necessary to have a professional level understanding of boundary surveying. But it is arguable based upon what many surveyors who have been granted a license have been taught and think they know. The true requirements of properly locating boundaries is, unfortunately but most certainly, not yet common knowledge within our profession. Its an observation that reflects poorly on the profession that is supposed to be comprised of boundary location experts.
Discussions like this one, repeated every few months with a few differences in specific circumstances are necessary for the healthy progression of knowledge within the profession. Some who have followed this discussion may not have followed, or may not have even been aware of previous similar discussions and so they are beginning to learn something that is new to them. For those of us who have learned the principles applicable to the circumstances of the subject survey, these discussions are good mental exercise to keep that knowledge from getting stale, or to practice articulating that knowledge in a way others can learn from. Every so often, and not necessarily in the rare instance, those of us with enough experience to provide knowledgeable answers may still learn something more on the topic because of some unique circumstance or from the differing perspectives of other participants.
Don't begrudge those who have not yet learned what you know. You didn't learn it all at once when you started surveying. Neither will anyone else. As you stated, even many of the learned participants in this thread have recorded surveys where they made decisions that run counter to what they now describe as proper methods or decisions. Quite simply, that's because we were all minimally competent, or close to it when we were first granted our licenses and have each learned much since then. If you look back at some of your own postings on this forum even just a few years back, you may be surprised at how much you've learned.
The knowledge of boundary principles that you, or I have gained over the past 5, 10, or 15 years is not new within that time period. Not even close. Most of it has been true for 100, 200 or more years. But it was new to us when we were first exposed to it. You learned in discussions like this from others who had participated in similar discussions dozens or hundreds of times previous to that. You're now at the point in your career that you have a lot of knowledge based upon both continued professional experience and continued study that many others do not have due to a lack of time in the profession or some other circumstances. Perhaps it's time for you to consider graciously sharing that knowledge so that others can learn from it. (And maybe talking to your doctor to give you something to help with those ongoing anger issues that flare up in some of your posts).
-
E_Page
- Posts: 2144
- Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 6:49 am
- Location: El Dorado County
Re: Monuments
As to the main subject of the thread, IMO, it's better to assume that a monumented position is the correct position until there is evidence to show that it is not. Often, even if it was not the correct position when it was set, it may have become the correct position due to local recognition and acceptance over time.
The BLM Manual advises that local points of control (land corners monumented by local surveyors) not be rejected due to minor technical reasons such as differences in measurements or deviation from the technically "correct" method to have established the position. If you find that the points were set based upon improper controlling elements where the proper elements existed, if the monuments are not in their original positions, or if the points found create an absurdity (by the court's measure, not by the typical surveyor's precision sensibilities), then you have reason to reject. That's advice that is equally applicable to any private survey as it is to a federal authority survey.
The map posted by David Kendall certainly has several places where the surveyor's decisions to reject existing monuments can be questioned. Especially the Caltrans monument on the easterly parcel boundary. Unless the Caltrans Monument Map for the RW at this location shows the monument to have been set at 0.27' inside the RW, then that monument's location is the RW corner and the measurements are in error. Likewise for the other found monument, if they appear to be undisturbed, and unless the records of the surveys by which they were set indicate wholly unacceptable methodology, then they each mark the parcel corners at the RW at those locations.
Depending upon what that surveyor used as controlling points of the RW locations, and this being a partial copy of the map, we don't know what he used, he may have done just what the licensing exam would typically count as a correct answer, and just what is taught in many college boundary courses (when taught by instructors with limited boundary knowledge & experience). So while not fully correct, as long as there is no potential for harm to the directly affected landowners or the public, this isn't one where I would call the surveyor negligent or incompetent if asked to review it for a civil matter or for an administrative licensing matter.
The main reason I wouldn't do that is that the profession, the educational institutions, and the licensing boards have not done a good job of properly educating surveyors in this area of practice and in fact have largely mis-educated a significant enough portion of our licensees that this example could be argued to be reflective of the standard of practice adhered to by a significant percentage of licensees in good standing.
Perhaps with enough discussions like this one and better educated educators, exam developers, and staff & retained "experts" of the licensing boards, that won't always be the case.
The BLM Manual advises that local points of control (land corners monumented by local surveyors) not be rejected due to minor technical reasons such as differences in measurements or deviation from the technically "correct" method to have established the position. If you find that the points were set based upon improper controlling elements where the proper elements existed, if the monuments are not in their original positions, or if the points found create an absurdity (by the court's measure, not by the typical surveyor's precision sensibilities), then you have reason to reject. That's advice that is equally applicable to any private survey as it is to a federal authority survey.
The map posted by David Kendall certainly has several places where the surveyor's decisions to reject existing monuments can be questioned. Especially the Caltrans monument on the easterly parcel boundary. Unless the Caltrans Monument Map for the RW at this location shows the monument to have been set at 0.27' inside the RW, then that monument's location is the RW corner and the measurements are in error. Likewise for the other found monument, if they appear to be undisturbed, and unless the records of the surveys by which they were set indicate wholly unacceptable methodology, then they each mark the parcel corners at the RW at those locations.
Depending upon what that surveyor used as controlling points of the RW locations, and this being a partial copy of the map, we don't know what he used, he may have done just what the licensing exam would typically count as a correct answer, and just what is taught in many college boundary courses (when taught by instructors with limited boundary knowledge & experience). So while not fully correct, as long as there is no potential for harm to the directly affected landowners or the public, this isn't one where I would call the surveyor negligent or incompetent if asked to review it for a civil matter or for an administrative licensing matter.
The main reason I wouldn't do that is that the profession, the educational institutions, and the licensing boards have not done a good job of properly educating surveyors in this area of practice and in fact have largely mis-educated a significant enough portion of our licensees that this example could be argued to be reflective of the standard of practice adhered to by a significant percentage of licensees in good standing.
Perhaps with enough discussions like this one and better educated educators, exam developers, and staff & retained "experts" of the licensing boards, that won't always be the case.
-
Warren Smith
- Posts: 1006
- Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:41 am
- Location: Sonora
Re: Monuments
Good points all, Evan.
When you consider what the first submittal of a complicated boundary survey looks like, compared with the filed version, it is sometimes breathtaking.
In the preparation of my own submittals many years ago, I recall the evolution from search coordinates, to a working draft based on found monuments, to alternate position considerations, and the first plot for proofreading. David Kendall's example is at the end of that procedural chain.
At some point, it is useful to have a congenial working relationship with your peers, such that if you have serious head-scratching moments on a project, you can bounce ideas around - particularly on how to effectively delineate your methodology. David's portrayal of a standard of practice that introduces confusion, not only to landowners, but to practitioners, does not bode well.
This forum (and others) are excellent tools for sharing these concerns and, yes, for learning and re-learning concepts.
When you consider what the first submittal of a complicated boundary survey looks like, compared with the filed version, it is sometimes breathtaking.
In the preparation of my own submittals many years ago, I recall the evolution from search coordinates, to a working draft based on found monuments, to alternate position considerations, and the first plot for proofreading. David Kendall's example is at the end of that procedural chain.
At some point, it is useful to have a congenial working relationship with your peers, such that if you have serious head-scratching moments on a project, you can bounce ideas around - particularly on how to effectively delineate your methodology. David's portrayal of a standard of practice that introduces confusion, not only to landowners, but to practitioners, does not bode well.
This forum (and others) are excellent tools for sharing these concerns and, yes, for learning and re-learning concepts.
Warren D. Smith, LS 4842
County Surveyor Emeritus
County Surveyor Emeritus
-
Dave Karoly, PLS
- Posts: 670
- Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 6:26 pm
- Location: Sacramento
Re: Monuments
I'm surveying the boundaries of Boggs Mountain State Forest. There is a carload of T.L. O'Connor monuments on subdivision lot corners along our boundary. I'm showin bearing and distance from monumement to monument to monument etc. it seems silly to call a t-bar & bathey cap set in 1958 off 0.15'.
"Gee, I wish we had one of them doomsday machines." -General "Buck" Turgidson
-
LS_8750
- Posts: 1166
- Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:36 pm
- Location: Sonoma
- Contact:
Re: Monuments
Good stuff Mr. Page. Good stuff.
So today I'm looking at two one hundred year old houses nearly exactly 10 feet apart side yard to side yard, and I have a pipe, no record, at the back of walk off that mid-line between houses by a couple of tenths. I'm thinking I should shut up. I'm thinking I should not have posted earlier.
If anything we learn as land surveyors, there is always the exception.
Engineering is boring. This stuff is more interesting and challenging intellectually.
Always re-learning the most basic concepts.
So today I'm looking at two one hundred year old houses nearly exactly 10 feet apart side yard to side yard, and I have a pipe, no record, at the back of walk off that mid-line between houses by a couple of tenths. I'm thinking I should shut up. I'm thinking I should not have posted earlier.
If anything we learn as land surveyors, there is always the exception.
Engineering is boring. This stuff is more interesting and challenging intellectually.
Always re-learning the most basic concepts.
-
Jim Frame
- Posts: 1599
- Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:52 pm
- Location: Davis, CA
- Contact:
Re: Monuments
What kind of lot distances are you talking about? For long straight lines that have a bunch of lot monuments on them and only casual (or no) improvements, I don't have a problem calling a monument off a bit.I'm showin bearing and distance from monumement to monument to monument etc.
-
Olin Edmundson
- Posts: 229
- Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 8:37 am
Re: Monuments
Clark-
I don't think I would let this building split info alone discredit the pipe location. To me, this is very different than a case when you might have buildings or other improvements built right to a line. Who knows what may have happened here, maybe the first house was built "about" five feet from the line, then they measured over exactly ten feet to build the next one. And I'm guessing that 100 years ago, building setback requirements were either non-existent or non strictly enforced.
I don't think I would let this building split info alone discredit the pipe location. To me, this is very different than a case when you might have buildings or other improvements built right to a line. Who knows what may have happened here, maybe the first house was built "about" five feet from the line, then they measured over exactly ten feet to build the next one. And I'm guessing that 100 years ago, building setback requirements were either non-existent or non strictly enforced.
-
Dave Karoly, PLS
- Posts: 670
- Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 6:26 pm
- Location: Sacramento
Re: Monuments
The way I look at it is T.L. O'Connor faithfully retraced the original lines and set monuments to mark the line. The soil is clay so they probably move over time a little bit. They range from 50' to 150' apart. The nearest commercially viable tree is maybe 10 to 15' from line. If a surveyor surveying one of the lots found the four corner t-bars and held them as the corners I don't think that would be unreasonable. Therefore I think the t-bars mark the line (as opposed to the tradition of calling them closing corners). As a practical matter that is what the owners and Foresters would use.Jim Frame wrote:What kind of lot distances are you talking about? For long straight lines that have a bunch of lot monuments on them and only casual (or no) improvements, I don't have a problem calling a monument off a bit.I'm showin bearing and distance from monumement to monument to monument etc.
So it is a matter of how to report the location of the monuments. It may be better to station the line and report offsets with a note stating that is for location reporting purposes only. Having a series of bearings and distances over a half mile of line accumulates rounding errors.
"Gee, I wish we had one of them doomsday machines." -General "Buck" Turgidson
-
Dave Karoly, PLS
- Posts: 670
- Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 6:26 pm
- Location: Sacramento
Re: Monuments
We are obsessed with precision, I admit I am obsessed with precision.
It's easy, when I am in the field to see a monument and accept it, I mean the fence is wider than the monument is off. But when drafting the survey I want the lines to be straight, I want the geometry to be pretty.
In most places I survey only the surveyors care about two tenths. Maybe it matters in San Francisco's Financial District but in timberland that's exactly on line for all practical purposes.
I get five feet may matter on a city lot but does it matter enough to spend $200,000 on litigation costs? Is it worth it for the litigant to destroy their financial and mental health? Not to mention their relationship with the neighbors?
It's easy, when I am in the field to see a monument and accept it, I mean the fence is wider than the monument is off. But when drafting the survey I want the lines to be straight, I want the geometry to be pretty.
In most places I survey only the surveyors care about two tenths. Maybe it matters in San Francisco's Financial District but in timberland that's exactly on line for all practical purposes.
I get five feet may matter on a city lot but does it matter enough to spend $200,000 on litigation costs? Is it worth it for the litigant to destroy their financial and mental health? Not to mention their relationship with the neighbors?
"Gee, I wish we had one of them doomsday machines." -General "Buck" Turgidson
-
David Kendall
- Posts: 687
- Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2014 1:45 pm
- Location: Ferndale
Re: Monuments
Would you care to elaborate on that statement? What do you consider casual improvements?Jim Frame wrote: What kind of lot distances are you talking about? For long straight lines that have a bunch of lot monuments on them and only casual (or no) improvements, I don't have a problem calling a monument off a bit.
-
Jim Frame
- Posts: 1599
- Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:52 pm
- Location: Davis, CA
- Contact:
Re: Monuments
In general, things that aren't exceptionally expensive and/or not precisely located during construction. Another criterion might be the answer to the question, would a prudent person be inclined to file suit if the location were challenged by a small amount, say less than half a foot? A wood privacy fence is a good example -- if the center of the fence winds up within a couple of tenths of the target location, the builder did a pretty typical job. A storage shed might be another example. In both cases, it's unlikely that someone would sue his neighbor (or a surveyor!) if the item were found to be over a parcel line by a couple of tenths.What do you consider casual improvements?