I recently completed a survey on a parcel that I did proportionate distances on the record. A short time later, another Surveyor came out and surveyed the adjoining parcel and did not proportion the distance. He said he thought it was not legal to do so.
I this area, The current record is still from the 1870's. The Section is recorded as being 80 chains x 80 chains. A quarter of a section being 40 x 40 chains. All or most deeds and records created to date have been done in accordance to this old record by Title compaies and others.
A farmer owned the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Section. over time, he divided this up and sold it. This was done without surveys and was based upon the old record. Meets and bounds descriptions were written as well as over the same period of time the parcel owners North of this had done the same. The old timers knew of discrepencies in the old section lines, so when they measured to place a fence, they would come from both directions and split the difference.
The old record distance for the quarter described above was 660'. The meets and bounds descriptions made reference to this distance of North 660' both on the point of beginning and another course of South 660'.
When the Section Corners were located and surveyed, the Section was determined to be larger than record. This Quarter was large by about 36 feet. The occupation lines were surveyed and compared with record and the actual surveyed aloquot portion lines of the Section. Occupation matched with the aloquot portion of the Section of which made the distance of 660', to about 669'. Therefore, all descriptions that had distance of 660 feet were proportioned to match actual 1/4 1/4 1/4 aloquot part of the section.
The other surveyor kept record distance of 660 feet and is in conflict with the occupation. Now the owner to the North wants the other surveyors client to buy the property to the fence that I believe he does not own based on my survey. He is my client.
So the question is, "When do you proportion or not proportion a distance?"
Replies
Sorry my last post went to reply to a post not at the end of the posts. Also, I misspoke about the original surveyor changing his notes....some would strike thru as when they came in from west going east (here in Florida), they usually set a corner at 40 chains, then coming back thru from usually south to north and "closing"...SOME would calc a closure, strike thru the 40 and put a new # in. In many instances, you have field notes that say one thing, but a "scrivener" would change the numbers on the "township map" of the survey based on office calcs....so there is a LOT to look at deciphering these old texts and maps. As with many things, it is NOT simple.
You also have to remember these "surveyors" were not out to set absolutely perfect 1/2 mile posts....they were basically tasked with quantifying the country after the Lousiana Purchase for a couple or 3 bucks/mile. The Country back then didn't look like it does today. Because the whole country was rural, no one EVER put out a wild fire so the underbrush wasn't like it is today in most places. They were practically running across the country. It was a really hard life. If you think working for "the government" now is hard waiting to get paid...these guys had to feed and cloth themselves, keep their equipment repaired and in good working order, manufacture 6" x 8" x 3-4 foot long litewood posts for every 1/2 mile, fight indians and disease, and measure/monument a few THOUSAND square miles per job and couldn't get paid for a year or 2 (or 3) after a job was done. When the sun went down, you ate and went BACK to work cleaning and "crimping" the gunters chain back to 66.0 feet, hewing more section corners, and the head surveyor (the recorder as they were known) would set up a transit around midnight and shoot polaris for an hour or so..........
Learning to read these field notes and apply them into the township map is a really interesting study and is very relevant to what we do today especially in rural areas with few plats etc......
Timothy,
Thanks for the great response to my discusion!
I have spent many hours over the years retracing old government section surveys. Reading and desifering old notes and maps, determining the calls to physical features such as topography, old roads, ditches, buildings, etc., to locate the original section corner. Researching chain of title and determining deed description lines. All to determin the location of one small parcel of ground.
I have never found a quarter section yet that is exactly 2640.00 feet as the old record indicates. These old surveys are still what is being used as the official County Record. The majority of the old and new deed descriptions that have been created have been based on this old record survey.
So, New Senerio. If a land owner has quarter of a quarter of a quarter of a section and wishes to sell the East portion of this, he or the Title Co., or an Attorney, writes a description based on what is on record. This would be at 660.0', North to South, according to record (a fraction of the section). He intends to sell all of what he has title to. He and the other land owners have measured the ground on their own to determine fences in the past to save on cost and to show they can can measure. The title still reflects he owned a quarter of a quarter of a quarter regardless of fenceline line locations. The actual surveyed quarter, quarter, quarter section size does not match the record (short 7'). The fence line on the North does not match the aliquot part of the section by 5' ± but is close to the record of 660'.
What does a surveyor do now?
Hello Daryl! I fully agree with your actions in this survey. First of all the original survey establishing the section lines of that section
are fixed and cannot be changed by a surveyor. While the original field notes normally prevail, if the undisputable field evidence
of section line location indicates a difference, then the field evidence prevails--thus proration--ie aloquot part.
I believe you are right on Daryl.
Just an 'ole surveyor
Don Best
PS Abit of humor for you: My boss is an RLS and he was trying to "move" the State boundary the other day. HA!
I do not agree with you in this case. The original owners intent was sell all of the ground in the 10 acre parcel. He had no other record than what was in the County and it called his original 10 at 660'x660' when the meets and bounds descriptions were created. The occupation of his parcel matched the proration of the 10 Acre parcel. In this case, you should prorate.
660 x 660 is 10 acres, not 5.... and you do make a few valid points, but if every survey was as easy to just read the deed and stake it, we would have so much chaos in the court room daily, it would overwhelm the courts.
" Your job as the surveyor is to first break the section down using the 8 controling corners of said section to determine your forty acre tract"
please let me add, that inable to perform a thourough retracement, all monuments need to be searched for, not just the 8 you can drive too. some counties/states all the 16th corners were set in the original survey.
there is also usually evidence or perpetuation of the original monuments set after the original survey, that can point to the missing original corners. the field notes can also be benificial to restablishing or finding original corners, via witness corners, topo or natural calls
too many surveyors today, get a call, give a quote, go dig up 8 corners, compute there deed and collect the money. this is truly a slap in the face to the profession.
dig dig dig!
research research research!
a quick trip to the courthouse, will provide "intent", remember not all descriptions were written by surveyors, and not all deeds written by surveyors were written with the rights of the adjoiners in mind.
it is nearly impossible or at least unethical to accept a deed from a client and go survey it, without any further research.
"The controling content apears to be the distance that is spelled out in these deeds" the controlling content would be found during a title search, to determine what was sold first and last and how it was described.
"Your job as the surveyor is to first break the section down using the 8 controling corners of said section to determine your forty acre tract, the fact that it is large or small is of no concern to you. You then cut out the tracts sold off by their legal description (intent)660x 660"
why break down the section if your going to use the 660 calls in the deed? wouldnt that be overkill, if your going to use the cardinal calls and distances? being an aliquote description and the intent was to sell a 10 acre parcel relative to the section, if you used the 660 distance there would be surely a gap or overlap, so the size of the section, larger or smaller than the original does matter, and should be a concern it will reflect the real dimension or ratio of the 660
it is important to read the field notes on all surveys, no matter how simple or complex it may seem.
good discussion,
Intent is indeed a "dangerous" word and central to the discussion. In the "old" days, intent was "what the words say". Now in these "modern" days of civil decisions based on deeper thought; the concept is more fuzzy.
I noticed 25 years ago that many Surveyors want to have their cake and eat it too in these matters. As an expert witness, I can tell you something many don't want to hear. We are NOT just fact finders, we are walking, talking arbiters whether we want that mantle or not. When you set an iron in the ground, you have just told a man what he owns whether you like it, agree or disagree with the concept or not. Here in Florida we have had to identify the irons with caps with our names and License #'s for over 25 years now. Now go into court and try not to stand behind that interpretation (via your drawing) of the description and start explaining the concept of "deed" corners versus "ownership" corners and you are not going to get very far with the Judge. "It's not my job" doesn't fly well in a Civil Courtroom.
There is a basic tenant in all professions, written or not, to "do no harm". Like a couple of you were discussing...I've seen many surveyors just accept "the north 660 of the East 660" as an excuse to do no research, lower their price and go do "an easy one" without the required "proper" research and analysis and relying on some nebulous thought process to throw this into the purvey of the courts if there is ever a "problem".
MANY MANY legal descriptions through the years have been written by Attorneys and I am one of a militant group here in FLorida that is trying to get them out of that business without them proving they have taken additional specialized training to competently do so. The BAR is far to strong for us to succeed so far, but one day we might get a hearing so as to illustrate why, in the name of Public Safety, that Surveyors should be the sole proprietors of "new" legal descriptions.
It has been proven and accepted in FLorida case law that Attorneys and others like "gasp" Title Company employees who write legal descriptions until turned into the State for engaging in regulated practices outside their sphere have "always" used 660 x 660, many times intending to sell all the land in that 10 acres without creating gaps, gores, overlays or hiatuses. They were just too ignorant at the time they performed the "service" to do it correctly.
Why give MORE weight to a metes & bounds description? It came from someone, somewhere based on a survey...ok...but was the survey correct? I would argue if it is based on faulty work (interpretation), the legal description is faulty and you HAVE to go back thru the Chain of Title and see when/where the conundrum was started and to determine actual intent. I've been "required" many times to write a "new" legal description and I always try to talk the parties out of it. If you have a deed that you can interpret and lay out on the ground; why change it to "fit your numbers"?
660 x 660 is not always 660 x 660. How about when it is followed by the words "10 acres more or less"? Well that right there is intent to divide as per aliquot. What about when you have a deficiency instead of excess? Are you going to "take" your 660 x 660 without regards to Jr/Sr rights? If you look at the long term implications of your professional actions, I almost ALWAYS come to the conclusion that you should hold the technique of aliquot division and stay strong and ready to defend your actions in court. Remember...you have already staked it out so you have very little choice. Explain your actions or tell the court that you are too incompetent to "know" or "believe" that you are correct. This is NOT TO SAY that some stronger evidence can be found that would change your mind later on.
Remember this work you do will be the precursor for future work in the area. It is my belief and I stand behind it 100 percent that a Surveyor's real job is, 1) retrace the fading footsteps of previous surveyors 2) MONUMENT and show the DEFENSIBLE BOUNDARY LINES on your drawing. No if's and's or buts. Our pressure valve that might or might not "save" us later in Civil Court is that most certifications still state "to the best of my knowledge and/or belief" which allows us a way out or to "change our mind) if new evidence is found.
If I have one of these that is questionable, and the deeds are equally split between perfect and aliquot breakdowns, I physically stake the most conservative line as I can look the man in the eye and say " I KNOW you own up to here, no problem". This is your DEFENSIBLE BOUNDARY LINE. Then I describe carefully and quantify any additional area that he may have a claim upon.
I don't believe that it is good survey practice to go out and create gaps and hiatuses because of "what the words say". No one in their right mind ( and a requirement for a contract is " a right mind" ) would "intend" on creating a gap or overlap. Especially with the fence agreeing closely with you, I believe you are on firm ground with your intepretation. An unmonumented fence is a strong recognizor in court, especially an old one. You already have statements from owners who "split the difference" so it is a known among the adjacent landowners. It IS a statement of ownership. One thing many surveyors ignore is the reputation and field practices of the original government surveyors. Some were MUCH better than others. They were REQUIRED (MOST of the time) to "close out" their township surveys. Did they? or just leave their notes at 40 chains and NOT DO THE WORK? Most who really really did the job correctly without taking some bloody OBVIOUS shortcuts ended up and changed their notes (after closure) to 40.05 or 39.96 chains etc etc etc. If the Gov't survey notes SAY 40 chains to the quarter and a lawyer writes a deed to fit that, how can you say without doubt what the intent was? It is a logical argument that the "intent" was indeed the aliquot parcel!!!!!!
Monumentation AND Occupation are critical here. If you find that fence at 660, and the deed is Sr., run with it....but my cases are usually never that cut and dried upon careful inspection of adjacent deeds. Just a couple of salient points that I have experienced.
Research, Research, Research, Try to find Itent, Search, Search, Search for existing monumentation and past surveys on the property and adjoiners properties, Survey the Section, Survey the Evidence, Weigh the Evidence against the description, Seek Testimony from adjoining and past owners. Sound like alot?. So is liability. Not done yet. Calculate corners, Search again for monuments and more evidence. Check occupation to record, check occupation to proportionate ( only if deed makes referance distance to fration of section, Block, or Lot size, and County record is only from original survey of which the deed description was generated from). Bottom line is, you should look at proportionate measurement if the County record is still from original survey and fractional distances are called out in a meets and bounds description. I say look at. Not always do. Researce and evidence should help you make your descision. If a distance is not a fraction of a section, or that of an original block or lot size, or does not make the call to such a line, I would be careful prorating.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next