"The Pincushion Effect"

[LS_8750]

There's no such thing as a wrong original survey.

[Olin Edmundson]

Clearly. But how can we tell the difference given that many/most early surveys set only wooden stakes, didn't call for anything in the legal description, and didn't file a recorded map? If a non-record monument, an old fence line, or any other piece of something that we come across isn't directly tied to original, we must ignore them (unless they are shown on a recorded map) correct? If this connection isn't clearly established, it seems that we may be risking negligence.

[Jim Frame]

There's no such thing as a wrong original survey.

But the contrary may be shown.

[CBarrett]

Accepting previously incorrect monuments is something that California surveyor's have a hard time accepting.

I had to grit my teeth and do that last week while retracing the exterior of a 1994 Parcel Map done by a local grandfathered civil. I'm familiar with his work and had low expectations, but even still I was surprised (and dismayed) to find discrepancies between his map and the monuments of 0.3' to 0.7', with no consistency in direction. There are no improvements other than some wandering fences, and his is the first field survey of record, so I bit the bullet, accepted them and moved on.

How did his wonky monuments fit with jr/sr rights of surrounding properties?

[CBarrett]

Clearly. But how can we tell the difference given that many/most early surveys set only wooden stakes, didn't call for anything in the legal description, and didn't file a recorded map? If a non-record monument, an old fence line, or any other piece of something that we come across isn't directly tied to original, we must ignore them (unless they are shown on a recorded map) correct? If this connection isn't clearly established, it seems that we may be risking negligence.

In this case you are having to review your hierarchy of evidence, and the pedigree of any monuments and accessories you find, any jr/sr rights that may exist and see how it all fits together.

Brown's book has a pretty good outline of hierarchy of evidence when it comes to official records, quasi official records, private records and testimony. You don't ignore evidence until you understand it, then you decide what impact it has.

[LS_8750]

Per above, "If a non-record monument, an old fence line, or any other piece of something that we come across isn't directly tied to original, we must ignore them (unless they are shown on a recorded map) correct?"

As an aside, I've seen first hand the dilemma surveyors face when using terms like "non-recorded monument" and/or "monument of unknown origin". You as the surveyor are yourself using the term "monument" and by using that term you have given meaning to whatever the pedigree of that thing is that you have identified as a monument. Oh, and monuments control, right?

Seems we have possibly found Mr. Lucas' inspiration for authoring "The Pincussion Effect"?

Cooley:

"Occupation, especially if long continued, often affords very satisfactory evidence of the original boundary when no other is attainable; and the surveyor should inquire when it originated, how, and why the lines were then located as they were, and whether a claim of title has always accompanied the possession, and give all the facts due force as evidence. Unfortunately, it is known that surveyors sometimes, in supposed obedience to the State statute, disregard all evidences of occupation and claim of title and plunge whole neighborhoods into quarrels and litigation by assuming to "establish" corners at points with which the previous occupation cannot harmonize."

GIVE ALL THE FACTS DUE FORCE AS EVIDENCE.

GIVE ALL THE FACTS DUE FORCE AS EVIDENCE.

GIVE ALL THE FACTS DUE FORCE AS EVIDENCE.

[Jim Frame]

On of my clients recently prevailed as the defendant in an agreed boundary case in a downtown residential area of a small city. The fence (and its replacements) separating the two parcels had probably been in the same place for circa 120 years or more, and was about 7 feet from the location of the line indicated on the old (1890-ish) subdivision map. The plaintiff's surveyor chose to ignore the fence and the old houses and placed the dividing line at record distance from the block corner, which would have pared my client's driveway down to about 6' in width.

The plaintiff appealed the lower court's decision. My client's appellate attorney said he was 90% sure he could win the appeal, but the cost of doing so drove my client to settle. He didn't give up any land, just some money to make the case go away. As it is, he spent about $150k defending a property line that never would have been challenged had a licensed land surveyor not ignored a fence that wasn't shown on a record map.

[DWoolley]

...
The plaintiff's surveyor chose to ignore the fence and the old houses and placed the dividing line at record distance from the block corner, which would have pared my client's driveway down to about 6' in width.

The plaintiff appealed the lower court's decision.

Monuments hold over maps. House foundations, occasionally fences, make for monuments when properly dated, the conflicting information is minimal and consistency between the "monuments" creates harmony.

Did the plaintiff's surveyor show the fences and foundations on the record of survey?

Based on the information given, it appears as though the plaintiff's surveyor should be sued for causing the problem.

DWoolley

[Jim Frame]

Based on the information given, it appears as though the plaintiff's surveyor should be sued for causing the problem.

My client isn't suing him. I don't know if his client, who also spent over $100k pursuing the matter, is suing him or not. I do know that he no longer works for the local firm, which - ironically - has the most comprehensive records of any outfit around.

And no, he didn't show the fences or the houses or the boatload of other conflicting information that was present in the case. My client's attorney told me that the guy said in court that if he'd known that litigation was going to result he would have done things differently (ouch!).

[DWoolley]

Based on the information given, it appears as though the plaintiff's surveyor should be sued for causing the problem.

My client isn't suing him. I don't know if his client, who also spent over $100k pursuing the matter, is suing him or not. I do know that he no longer works for the local firm, which - ironically - has the most comprehensive records of any outfit around.

And no, he didn't show the fences or the houses or the boatload of other conflicting information that was present in the case. My client's attorney told me that the guy said in court that if he'd known that litigation was going to result he would have done things differently (ouch!).

"...client's attorney told me that the guy said in court that if he'd known that litigation was going to result he would have done things differently..." but in the meantime, I will take their money, slap some stakes in the ground and run. The surveyor's mantra "feet don't fail me now!"

An all to common situation in my experience. Many of these surveyors are little more than fish in a barrel under scrutiny.

DWoolley

[Olin Edmundson]

LS8750, yes I agree with your comments. I was being facetious, sorry thought that was obvious. The reason pincushions exist, in my opinion, is due to the failure to distinguish between evidence that is either from the original, or perpetuated from the original, and that which is not. The axiom that original surveys can never be wrong is of course accurate. But, very rarely do we have this direct connection between the deed and original survey, and the ground. I've noticed a trend, and you hear plenty of it here on this forum, where "record" points are regarded as being far superior to those that are not. They are too often given way too much credit in my opinion. This mindset distorts the surveyor from seeing the larger picture, allows other important facts to be too easily disregarded, and ultimately leads to the pincushion.