Monuments - Who owns them?

[pls7809]

A client has hired you to survey their property and set monuments at the boundary corners. Who owns the monuments? Does anyone own the monuments? The public?

[Warren Smith]

Given the fact that there it is a misdemeanor to disturb them, there must be a public interest once they are set.

[pls7809]

I agree with that. A little more for the story. A Client has asked me to state in the contract that they own the monuments being set. I don't believe I can make that determination. Another surveyor friend said that since they are supposed to be set without prejudice and since the reason we are licensed is to protect the public, then they are part of the public domain. The misdemeanor part is a good point as well.

[Ric7308]

I believe you are on the right track here with this one. Monuments are part of the public domain and not necessarily owned by any one party and I would be surprised if the land surveyor has the authority to transfer or limit those rights.

[Warren Smith]

Not to mention that a circular monument may be centered on a corner, but "encroaches" on all adjoiners.

[bruce hall]

would seem to be owned by the people who own the land. I am hired by Bill to set his common rear corner with Joe. that corner belongs to both of them. I set this pipe and a half or a quarter of it is on Bills land and the other half or quarter of the pipe is on Joes land.

I know that pipe isn't mine anymore, I contracted to set it so the landowners could use it. I can't/shouldn't take it out unless I put it in the wrong place, and neither should they. Maybe another surveyor could in order to lessen (mitigate) the confusion of the pincushion effect.

I also don't think the monument is owned by Julie who lives four miles away and has no ownership rights at this common corner to Bill and Joe.

I am probably wrong here but I would say that if I set the pipe at a 1' x1' offset into Bills property, then Joe has no right to the ownership of that monument, even though it marks his corner. The ownership then resides with Bill. Joe has a right to use the monument to mark his common line with Bill, but that's about it.

Never really thought about ownership of the monuments, cause I know it isn't mine anymore. Just storing it in the truck till I found a use for it.

[Dylan Kolstad]

If owner A hires you to set corner monuments on common line with owner B, and pays for this, and A removes the pins at some point in the future, does B have any claim for damaged or any remedy? I assume not, even if B had relied upon them for whatever purpose. I would think the public generally would own the pins (or the performed service that they represent) at least as much as the one who paid for the service. Why would B have any specific ownership just by virtue of the encroachment?

[D Ryan]

I know the original post had a specific question, "Who owns the monuments?". Looking at the bigger picture, maybe the concept of preserving boundaries is paramount to a single focused question. If the penal code, civil code, or streets and highways code doesn't get one's attention, maybe the threat of lightning will hold sway...

Dave Ryan
Humboldt County

California Penal Code §605
605. Every person who either:
1. Maliciously removes any monument erected for the purpose of designating any point in the boundary of any lot or tract of land, or a place where a subaqueous telegraph cable lies; or,
2. Maliciously defaces or alters the marks upon any such monument; or,
3. Maliciously cuts down or removes any tree upon which any such marks have been made for such purpose, with intent to destroy such marks;
--Is guilty of a misdemeanor.

California Streets & Highways Code §732
732. Any person who wilfully injures, defaces, breaks down or removes any monument or stake placed, erected or used by the department to designate any point in the boundary or survey of any State highway or proposed State highway is guilty of a misdemeanor.
732.5. Survey monuments shall be preserved, referenced, or replaced pursuant to Section 8771 of the Business and Professions Code.

Ca. Civil Code §841
841.
(a) Adjoining landowners shall share equally in the responsibility for maintaining the boundaries and monuments between them.

Deuteronomy 27:17
"Cursed be he that removeth his neighbour's landmarks: and all the people shall say: Amen."

[scarpa]

Bruce: Julie may live four miles away from the monument; however, she may have a vested interest in the monument as her land may be dependent upon it.

[Warren Smith]

The provisions of the compiled statutes are in effect for the benefit of the well being of the People of the State.

It is a conscious public policy statement that there are penalties imposed upon the defacing, alteration or removal of monuments.

Interestingly, the Penal Code requires malicious intent, where the Civil Code requires willful intent.

[bruce hall]

"..........Julie may live four miles away from the monument; however, she may have a vested interest in the monument as her land may be dependent upon it......."

Julie MAY HAVE a vested interest, but I betcha dollars to donuts that she doesn't.

It would be very, very unusual for someone 4 miles away from my survey to have an interest in my land boundary determination. And if she does happen to have one, then what you say may be true. Sectionalized land might be the only case where this would apply, but I haven't really thought it all out.

One would think that a boundary marker would be an improvement to the land and usually improvements "run with the land", whatever that means.

Of course there are members on this forum who believe that monuments are part of the public domain and everyone who is anyone, kinda sorta, has an interest in every land monument. And maybe that's true.

[bruce hall]

"..........Julie may live four miles away from the monument; however, she may have a vested interest in the monument as her land may be dependent upon it......."

Julie MAY HAVE a vested interest, but I betcha dollars to donuts that she doesn't. (this phrase comes from a time when donuts cost a nickel)

It would be very, very unusual for someone 4 miles away from my survey to have an interest in my land boundary determination. And if she does happen to have one, then what you say may be true. Sectionalized land might be the only case where this would apply, but I haven't really thought it all out.

One would think that a boundary marker would be an improvement to the land and usually improvements "run with the land", whatever that means.

Of course there are members on this forum who believe that monuments are part of the public domain and everyone who is anyone, kinda sorta, has an interest in every land monument. And maybe that's true.

[Tom Herrin]

If the common corner to A and B was a PLSS corner, tract corner, etc., Julie may have an interest in that corner.