California Surveyors Forums

Client owns land in NE1/4 regular section
Clients SW cor is CTR sec
In 1940s section is surveyed by well respected local surveyor. Conc mons were set at sec cors, 1/4cors, and Ctr sec.
in 1970s 2 Parcel maps were filed. Both find and accept the con mon at CTR sec and 1/4 cors, and did not survey entire sec (opposite 1/4 cors).
in 1990s section is surveyed and orig conc mons fd at all cors except N1/4 cor which is established at mid pt.
A new CTR sec is established at intersection.
The orig con mon set to be CTR section is also fd at 20ft away. it is rejected and new mon set.
This is in very rugged mountain terrain sparsly populated.
The remains of old barb wire fence meanders but more closly matches conc mon

A. the con mon is orig, undisturbred, set in good faith to be CTR sec and has stood for more than 50yrs. It should prevail as CTR sec

B. the con mon is more than 20 ft from the intersection of 1/4 cors. It should be rejected

C.???

is 20ft acceptable in rugged terrain?
which mon would you like more?
TIB

Precision does not control in a situation such as this.

A is the correct answer.

A and if you see the guy that rejected and reset the concrete monument center 1/4 corner in the 1990s you kick him in the knee

I was going to suggest flogging for the 1990s surveyor, but a kick to the knee will do.

A has to be the correct answer. 50 yrs.!

rugged terrain has no bearing. precision of measurements has no bearing.

Physical evidence at a property corner that has a reliance by the adjoiners for this long of a period of time and a traceable lineage as a survey monument must prevail, otherwise property lines would up and move every time someone got a new measurement tool.

is all of the land within the Section privately owned? If so accept the con. mon. It there is unpatented US Gov't lands, there may be two corners, the con. mon which would control the private lands and the true C1/4 to define the Gov't ownership. for private lands it would hard to reject a mon. set which at the time was set by acceptable practice.

Even if there is undisposed public domain land within the section, if the conc mon at the Center of Section was placed to be at the intersection of the original positions of the exterior 1/4s, then it is the true center of section even if not set precisely.

Since the surveyor resorted to proportional measure rather than replacing according to whatever evidence may have remained of the original location, it is certain that the N 1/4 set in the 90s is not at the original location for that corner, and so it follows that the center of section set in the 90s cannot be at the correct location. It could be that there was no remaining evidence in the 90s providing a direct link to the original position for the N 1/4, but that in itself is not enough to reject the conc mon set for the N 1/4, or the position that it once occupied if that position could be reliably re-established.

Lacking reliable evidence to the contrary, the conc mons are probably the best evidence of the most likely original locations unless it can be shown that they were set without reference to the original locations or otherwise improperly.