California Surveyors Forums

Kudos to Mr. Gardner for stimulating so many brain cells on this post. Its like a runaway train! Thanks Steve...

Evan,

I had a good chuckle over your post regarding an engineering mentality towards surveying. I have been researching an old practice of the GLO that required mineral surveyors to show the patent description position of senior conflicting claims rather than the monumented position. This practice occurred for 5 years and created quite a stir in the mining industry. The practice ended with the passage of the Act of April 28, 1904 (see an earlier post to this thread for the text of the act).

Needless to say the GLO's practice created some rather novel-looking GLO "ownership" maps. If you can imagine a situation where the mineral surveyor in the course of surveying his client's claim locates all the rectangular PLSS corners in the area of his survey, but none of the corners to conflicting claims. He then calculates the coordinates of the PLSS corners and "hangs" the plats of the prior official surveys on those calculated corner positions. The senior claims were then shown on the plat whereever they happened to "fall". Sort of like a "pin the tail on the donkey" parlor game.

As you can well imagine, after the act was passed all sorts of possible solutions were proffered to "fix" the problems. Below is a link to a paper presented at the 1905 meeting in El Paso of the American Mining Congress. The author was a brand new professor at the Colorado School of Mines (he just graduated with an MS in Mining Engineering) and this was his first published paper. Mr. Arthur J. Hoskin was also a U.S. Deputy Mineral Surveyor who worked in Cripple Creek, CO in the 1890s. His solution was to create a new Federal department modeled after the USGS called the U.S. Mineral Survey. His proposed solution was to hire some really, really, REALLY smart engineers and have them go into each mining district to accurately survey the mess. After the surveys were completed by these really smart engineers, the U.S. Mineral Survey would require the mine owners to accept the (re)surveys and then force the mine owners to monument any lost corners at their own expense. This would preserve the integrity of the mining titles in the district. Then the engineers would pack up and go "fix" the cadastral mess in the next district!

Anyway, I thought you would enjoy the humor of an engineer suggesting that the problem could only be solved by some really smart engineers with modern survey equipment! The claim maps depicted in the article are for a section in the middle of the Cripple Creek mining district.

http://www.sdi-baja.com/~kooper/Propose ... urveys.pdf (355 KB)

Cheers,
Gene

For those interested in reading the complete Sinnott v. Jewett Land Decision (33 L.D. 91) here is a link that also includes a segregation diagram, connected sheet and plats of the two claims discussed in the decision. The segregation diagram shows the theoretical positions based solely on the record AND a perfectly square 1-mile section. The connected sheet shows the actual locations of the claims.

On the Silver Monument plat you will see a tie to the patent description position of the Emma Nevada lode claim. That position of the Emma Nevada is 1180 feet north-northwest of its monumented position (I verified this by finding the monuments. In reality, the discovery shaft/cut of the two claims are identical. Both are located in a scree slope on the southwest flank of London Mountain at an elevation of 12,500 and above.

I am posting this because the decision has an excellent compilation of case law supporting the general rule that monuments control over course and distance.

http://www.sdi-baja.com/~kooper/Sinnott ... 33LD91.pdf (4.655 MB)

Dane, great post. You have explained why we hold found original and why we might not.

It would seem that in the past, the majority of the subdivisions were created on the ground first and on paper second. The intentions of the parties revolved around locating lines in the field. And then the map is created to represent the field survey (as shown by Gene’s posts).

Modern subdivisions have this order reversed. The subdivision boundary is established in the field but the actual lots are created on paper. Thus the map has created the lots (even if there was no monumentation).

To expand on Ben's Post #52?

[2077.] Section Two Thousand and Seventy-seven. The following are
the rules for construing the descriptive part of a conveyance of real
property, when the construction is doubtful and there are no other
sufficient circumstances to determine it:
One--Where there are certain definite and ascertained particulars
in the description, the addition of others which are indefinite,
unknown, or false, does not frustrate the conveyance, but it is to be
construed by the first mentioned particulars.
Two--When permanent and visible or ascertained boundaries or
monuments are inconsistent with the measurement, either of lines,
angles, or surfaces, the boundaries or monuments are paramount.
Three--Between different measurements which are inconsistent with
each other, that of angles is paramount to that of surfaces, and that
of lines paramount to both.
Four--When a road, or stream of water not navigable, is the
boundary, the rights of the grantor to the middle of the road or the
thread of the stream are included in the conveyance, except where the
road or thread of the stream is held under another title.
Five--When tide water is the boundary, the rights of the grantor
to ordinary high-water mark are included in the conveyance. When a
navigable lake, where there is no tide, is the boundary, the rights
of the grantor to low-water mark are included in the conveyance.
Six--When the description refers to a map, and that reference is
inconsistent with other particulars, it controls them if it appears
that the parties acted with reference to the map; otherwise the map
is subordinate to other definite and ascertained particulars.

I have not done an in depth study to see how the court has applied section 2077, perhaps someone will someday.

We do need to look at the facts in this particular instance. if memory serves, we are discussing a parcel that was conveyed via a lot and block description.
There was no evidence presented that within the four corners of the deed there was any question that could lead one to the conclusion that the construction of the descriptive part of the conveyance was doubful and there were no other circumstances to determine the meaning of the deed.
It appears that the on the face of the section, its purpose is to lay down rules for construing the desciption WHEN THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THE DEED.

Our problem here is caused by the discovery of physical evidence, that could lead to the notion that there is some other intention between the parties other than that which is presented in the written record. This is an entirely different matter, even though rules of 2077 are also useful here, they maybe misapplied in this instance.

Many surveyors use "intent" as a crutch, and inappropriately. Citing a zoning law as justification of throwing out a monument is not a reason in any citation I'm aware of. If that were the case, every time you see 1.00 acre of land were you need 1.00 acre to build, we should just "adjust" our measurements to make sure they have one acre despite finding the monuments of record that would make it 0.99 acres, right? Afterall, the owers intended to sell complying lots! - Nice try, but not a reason to throw out valid original and called for monuments. Many Counties and Cities also use the "record" acreage when considering the zoning, so the argument becomes weaker.

You can debate it all you want, but I don't think it's going to fly because the intent of the survey is where the monuments were set in the ground. There are simply too many court cases holding artificial monuments over map dimensions.

However consider this:

You perform a survey, and you find pipe that fits the description. Its 7 feet from where it should be (but close to the exterior line of the parent parcel). The other monuments fit well, just this one is out. Did someone move it? Was it set "in error"? What should you do?

A: File a Record of Survey showing your survey. Show the boundary as holding the exterior lines, and the dividing line being constructed from a retracement of the exterior lines only; prorating in the interior line and not accepting the found pipe. Justify your solution by stating that you cannot rely on the monument because the measurement you have between this pipe and other pipes in inconsistent with the measure "factor" of the other monuments by the same surveyor, for the same survey. It's likely to have been disturbed, and is thus invalid- this being supported by case law where disturbed monuments do no hold over distances. (As for trying the Corner Record: I think that if you're not accepting the pipe, you could try it but the fact is that you have a justifiable material discrepancy even though you're not accepting it- but you can try).

I've done this. I found a pipe at a BCR of a street. It was off by 2 feet. Once I retraced both streets, every measurement was within hundredths of the record by the same survey. Am I forced to accept this pipe? No. The "true" position would have landed in a wall footing. The pipe was set in the 50's and the wall was built in the 90's. The pipe, although in good condition and vertical, was probably set by the crew building the wall. It simply was not consistent with the other measurements and I did not accept it. This is a perfectly acceptable solution given the facts.

B: Holding the Pipe: You're going to have to come up with more than "monuments" hold for this one due to the large error. Occupation, acceptance, actions by both parties are something to consider. Without those, I think you left with a pipe that could have been moved by someone, at some time.

Without pouring over the 7 pages (?) of replies, I would say the pipe is not acceptable but needs to be shown for future generation should any other supporting evidence come to light.

Eric, courts have spent hugh amounts of time attempting to discern the intent of the parties. Do not take my word for it, search cases and see what the courts have to say about "intent of the parites".

My argument for the rejection of the pipe is that there is evidence, that to accept the pipe would defeat the intentions of the parties. The pipe is not in harmony with other original monuments. There is no evidence of detrimental reliance on the pipe. There is no evidence to support an intention OF THE PARTIES, that would be contrary to the map and their intentions to convey real property based upon the map ,except the pipe and an easliy movable shed encroachment.

But, no evidence has been presented that explains the existence of the pipe and how the shed was located. Further, evidence has been presented that honoring the pipe could potentially create SMA violations.

My argument is not based upon area, as I have stated before. From what has been presented, my opinion is that the parties intented to convey based upon the map, absent evidence to the contray. This is one of the lessons in the controversial case BRYANT V BLEVINS. To over come the deed and show a contrary intent, we need EVIDENCE.

bruce hall wrote:moderators of this site could make this thread a "sticky"?

(We are not yet that sophisticated on this forum. I have asked this same question before but nothing comes of it. I believe the answer was that there are no moderators. Given the high level of activity on this site, one would think it should be sufficient to ensure that it would be easy to find some among us who had the necessary skills, and who would be more than willing to act as a volunteer moderators, should CLSA headquarters be convinced to structure things that way.

Sorry for the sidetracking post, but all the other forums I've ever participated in had volunteer moderators, stickies, etc. Why it can't happen here remains a mystery to me.)

I was hoping for at least a double feature Dave!! ;-)

"The surveyor should be careful in determining intent. I would not recommend looking for “intent” by quoting a portion of Brown that pertains to sequential conveyances, when the map in question is a simultaneous conveyance. I believe the rules are different."


Similarly, I would not look so much to the Blevins case for guidance in this instance. The Blevins case was not about whether or not to accept a found original monument of a simultaneous conveyance, as we have here.

Here, you have what appears to be an original monument set (erroneously or not - ignore that for now, we'll get back to it) to mark a corner between simultaneously created parcels. The vast majority of case law guides us to accept it. Doing so is certainly an uncomfortable thing to do, because it seems most likely that it was set in error, possibly set as an offset and the CoC neglected, or possibly moved by some 3rd party (no one has offered that as a possibility, it may be remote, but should be considered).

I don't have Skelton with me right now, so I can't check the larger context of Dane's quotes from that source, nor have I attempted to find and read the cited cases. I suspect that most, if not all pertain to sequential conveyances. Don't forget that even if the point in question is a point of a subdivision, if it is on the exterior boundary, it has some significance to the sequential conveyances of the parent parcels, if those parcels were sequential. They may also have significance to the interior simultaneously created parcels. Such a monument may yield to a senior parcel adjoining the subdivision, yet still control the interior line created by the subdivision. So be careful in determining the context of the advice from those sources. ***see Edit below***

In the case at hand, IMO, you need to look first at reliance. That will also speak to intent of the conveyance, which may be different from the intent prior to creation of the parcels. The intent may have been to create parcels of a certain area and shape. That is expressed on the map.

In CA, if the monuments are in, the seller is supposed to show the buyer where they are. I recall having to sign something stating that the seller did show me the corners of my property. If the landowners were made aware of the monuments in the ground at the time of sale, those physical points, as they existed, erroneously set or not, are clear intent of the conveyance because that is wat was shown to the buyer as a clear indication of the extent of the property. If you can clearly show otherwise, then you may have a good basis for rejecting an errant point.

What might constitute a clear demonstration of the monument not representing the intent of the conveyance? If someone moved it from its original position, that would void it's validity. If the landowners somehow knew the point to be in error, then it would not represent the intent.

In conjunction with a greater body of evidence, the fact that a particular monument is out of place relative to the rest can be supporting evidence in favor of rejecting it, but I am unaware of a single case that supported rejecting an original monument solely on that basis.


Gene, I'll have to read your engineer's report later on. It should be entertaining.



***Edit: Ian has at least on survey behind him in which the junior lot corners of a subdivision on the exterior line came to control the exterior line (forming angle points). I just wanted to acknowledge that this can happen so that my statement is not taken as an absolute rule.

Evan,
What if the realtor shows you the monuments and says, “These are your property corners” but these same monuments were set as offsets?

Also, the case I posted (#52) shows ignoring monuments.

A synopsis of the facts for those of you arriving late and who don’t have the time to review the whole thread.

Per Post 1, the Surveyor: “was hired to find and/or replace the corners on a 2.3-acre parcel created on a 2002 Parcel Map. Four corners. The two southerly corners had been found and accepted on the Parcel Map. I found those, the measurements between them matched the map. I stumbled upon the pipe "near" the northeast corner that is the character and bears the tag of the Parcel Map surveyor. It is within 0.3' of the north line of the map, but 7.5' too far West. I looked 7.5' East for evidence it might have been moved or maybe another pipe - nothing. Tried contacting the surveyor, he's deceased.â€￾
“the neighbor put up a rickety hogwire fence to keep his dogs in his yard another 17 feet West of the pipe just a few weeks ago.â€￾
“Oh, yeah, if you go with the map dimensions, the line cuts the corner of the neighbor's shed. If you go to the pipe, the line clears the shed.â€￾

Per Post 3:â€￾ This property is in Placer. It's a two-way Parcel Map. Parcel A on the West (subject parcel), B on the East. This corner is the northeast of A. The south line is identical with the north line of a previous Parcel Map and the property to the north is not on a recorded map.â€￾

Per Post 6: “Oh, another factor that might or might not be relevant is that the mapped parcel is at absolute minimum size for the zone, so if the pipe is the corner, the parcel's too small. That might also tip the scales of justice in favor of the mapped corner (?).â€￾

Per Post 30: “This particular county requires all parcel corners to be monumented and this tagged pipe is shown on the recorded map.â€￾

Per Post 59: “OK, I just talked to the neighbor. He is the original owner of Parcel B and without any prompting from me, he says he was shown the pipe as being the corner and the shed was there when he bought the place and was always intended to be on his property.â€￾

Given the above facts, how do you relate the evidence with the law to do what you were hired to do, namely to: “find and/or replace the corners“?

I posted the above statement of facts as developed by the surveyor so we could just deal with the issues at hand.
The discussion has been over-populated with Straw Men and polluted with Red Herring, and I was hoping we could deal just with the facts.

So, given the facts, does anyone want modify their position?

Yes S826,

Given the facts as you encapsulated them:

As to Post 1: Found the mons where they are. Unless it can be shown that the mon in question is not in it's original location, or that the landowners had other reason to suspect it was incorrect, it is the corner.

The fence is meaningless. The shed may or may not mean something, and may bear further investigation.

As to Post 3: OK, good to know where we are in the world.

As to Post 6: May be supporting evidence, which together with a larger body of evidence, could be used to overcome the monument position as it sits. By itself, it is insufficient.

As to Post 30: It's not an offset is it? OK, just kidding! It is monumented per county specs. it is an original monument. It just isn't where we expected to find it. This happens all the time, but usually more in the magnitude of a few tenths rather than a few feet. It's the magnitude that people are squirming about. Is acceptance solely a question of magnitude, or distance from the expected position?

As to Post 59: My first reaction is, how quick was the neighbor to point this out? I may be reading a little into it, but he seems a little more savvy about the significance of reliance than most landowners. That's one of the reasons the possibility of the monument having been moved occurred to me. If my suspicions regarding the neighbor are unfounded, then his understanding of the monument is evidence supporting acceptance of it.

Given this fact set, I have not read that there is enough evidence to overcome the presumption that the monument controls. I'm not sure that I would be done investigating whether the intent of the conveyance could be found to agree with the intent as expressed on the map yet though.

Steven, were you able to get any more info out of the County's project file on this?

Steve,

I went back to your original post and separated out what I interpreted as the basic relevant facts and inserted them below with their associated timestamps (looks like while I was doing that, others have done the same thing-but I’ve omitted your other comments I viewed as speculation or opinion).

Going back to your basis of bearings; you state you started with 2 found monuments and then found a 3rd one, which is the monument in question. This is when the discrepancy surfaced. We have to assume you closed your traverse or were you able to make redundant measurements, ensuring closure and that your ties to the 3rd monument have been checked. Have you considered going east and west from your 2 monuments on the south line and verify the next monuments over (and occupation)? What about doing the same on the north line? I’d be curious if this 3rd monument is still an anomaly based on ties to other surrounding monuments. You state you searched at the record location for another pipe or for evidence it might have been moved. How diligently did you search? Did you initially search lightly with little disturbance and look for signs of an old hole?

Without answers to these basic questions, it seems a little premature to be delving too deeply into such a wide realm of boundary principles. In any case, I’d suggest reeling this back into some very basic principles. Take a breather from this discussion, simplify your thinking, give your instinct a chance to kick in, and I think you’ll find your answer.

The Chronology:
08-19-2010, 09:39 AM
I was hired to find and/or replace the corners on a 2.3-acre parcel created on a 2002 Parcel Map. Four corners. The two southerly corners had been found and accepted on the Parcel Map. I found those, the measurements between them matched the map. I stumbled upon the pipe "near" the northeast corner that is the character and bears the tag of the Parcel Map surveyor. It is within 0.3' of the north line of the map, but 7.5' too far West. I looked 7.5' East for evidence it might have been moved or maybe another pipe - nothing.

08-19-2010, 09:39 AM
the neighbor put up a rickety hogwire fence to keep his dogs in his yard another 17 feet West of the pipe just a few weeks ago.

08-19-2010, 09:39 AM
Oh, yeah, if you go with the map dimensions, the line cuts the corner of the neighbor's shed. If you go to the pipe, the line clears the shed.

08-19-2010, 10:02 AM
Parcel A on the West (subject parcel), B on the East. This corner is the northeast of A. The south line is identical with the north line of a previous Parcel Map and the property to the north is not on a recorded map.

08-19-2010, 02:32 PM
I plan on calling the neighbor this afternoon, but it sounds like nobody knew about the pipe.

08-23-2010, 02:13 PM
I've got a call in to the neighbor but haven't talked to him yet. He's the original owner of Parcel B; he bought it from the subdivider the year after the map recorded

8-23-2010, 05:24 PM
OK, I just talked to the neighbor. He is the original owner of Parcel B and without any prompting from me, he says he was shown the pipe as being the corner and the shed was there when he bought the place and was always intended to be on his property.

08-24-2010, 07:32 AM
He seemed sincere but I wish I had been talking to him face-to-face because it would have been easier to check for sincerity than over a crackly cell phone connection

Yesterday (9/12/10), 11:46 AM Steve recapped some previous things here:
1)when I talked to the neighbor, he said he was shown the errant pipe as the corner when he bought the place in 2003
2)I looked for any evidence that the pipe might have been at the mapped location and moved and found none
3)rejecting the pipe and holding the mapped line puts a corner of the neighbor's shed on the subject parcel
4)the neighbor says the shed was already there when he bought the place

The "offset" point is you don't accept the monument because you don't agree with its location. Why even measure at all if it doesn’t matter where the found original is?

Evan,
You say, “Unless it can be shown that the mon in question is not in it's original location, or that the landowners had other reason to suspect it was incorrect, it is the corner.” It isn’t in its original location. It’s 7.5’ from its original location.

You say "It is monumented per county specs. it is an original monument. It just isn't where we expected to find it.” Who cares where you expected to find it; hold it anyways (read with sarcasm). Evidently it doesn’t matter where it was set.

You say “This happens all the time, but usually more in the magnitude of a few tenths rather than a few feet.” A few tenths is not a blunder and doesn’t need to be treated as such.

You say, “Is acceptance solely a question of magnitude, or distance from the expected position?” YES. If you knew why it was set in the wrong spot you wouldn’t accept it.

You say, “That's one of the reasons the possibility of the monument having been moved occurred to me.” Either that or it was set in error, either way you shouldn’t be holding it.

wagers on whether or not Gardner found "only" 3 monuments. I say he found more than three. He probably found at least 5. The three he mentioned and two others at the southeast and southwest corners of the two parcels that he is supposed to be working on.

$500 says he found more than three.

Steve, if you didn't, Let me know NOW!!!! If you did find more than three, don't say anything until I get some takers.

And another thing, I betcha Gardner has a lovely hole dug, unless the ground is reeeeaaaaaaal hard. I betcha he dug even when the metal detector didn't ring.

Ben, Ben, Ben (heavy sigh).....

An "offset" is not an incorrect point. It is a point deliberately set at a point other than the corner, at a specific distance from the corner, usually along a side line or parallel to a particular line. It is not the result of a blunder. If it is an offset, an intended to be so, there should be some record of it.

If by "offset", you just mean a point accidently placed in an erroneous position, use the correct terminology.

You make a great leap, assuming facts not in evidence to say that because a monument is not where you expect it to be according to a map, that it is not in the place where it was originally set.

Yes it does matter where it was set. And as a retracement surveyor, it is your job to determine that original location, not to fix others' past mistakes and place it where it was supposedly intended to be set. As has been amply pointed out in this thread by others, you have no authority to do fix those mistakes, you can only point them out and show how they affect the configuration of the boundary or relate to the boundary.

I have seen several times where a monument is not in the location it was intended to be according to the corresponding map. I'm talking about points which fall outside of the reasonable range of random error, so most likely constitute some form of blunder, but still amount to a few tenths or maybe a couple of feet. Simple example: I-man shoots a distance to rodman holding on a chaining nail, says "Zero Five Two, away!". Rodman, nursing a hangover repeats to himself "zero five two. zero five two...", fumbles around for his tape, hammer, and iron and mumbles to himself "zero five two, to, to, to... yeah alright", and the monument is 1' blundered out of position. But we don't freak out because if we're dealing with a rural or semirural property, 1' is probably right on the edge of our envelope of concern vs our limit of mathmagical sensibility.

If you think acceptance is solely a question of magnitude, well... I'm struggling between diplomacy and my tendency to be blunt in my opinions here. I think professional decorum prevents me from a making fully candid reply here.

If a monument was deliberately moved, that is a fraudulent act, and is treated completely differtently from a mistake. I doubt that I can explain it any clearer than it already has been. All I can say is that you should take some time to read up on the subject.

In this thread’s specific case, I really could go either way but, I lean more towards holding map and calling found original a blunder (not meant to show the intentions of the parties). After quoting Code of Civil Procedure 2077, the following Appellate court said this:

LILLIS v. URRUTIA, 9 Cal.App. 557 (1908)

99 P. 992

S.C. LILLIS, Respondent, v. ANTONIO URRUTIA et al., Appellants.

Civ. No. 499.

Court of Appeal of California, Third District.

December 21, 1908.


Quote:
These rules, obviously, are conventional aids for the determination of the intention of the parties to conveyances and to assist in locating the ground as actually surveyed. If otherwise that intention is made clear or the survey is conclusively delineated, even monuments called for may be disregarded, for the reason, as the code has it, that the construction is not doubtful and there are "other sufficient circumstances to determine it."

In Harrington v. Boehmer, 134 Cal. 199, [66 P. 215, 489], it is said: "Of course, where there is a discrepancy between field-notes and a plat, the latter being made from the former, and the former being the better evidence as to where the line was run in the field, the plat must give way to the field-notes. The question in all cases similar to this is, where were the lines run in the field by the government surveyor? A government township lies just where the government surveyor lines it out on the face of the earth. These lines are to be determined by the monuments in the field." End Quote.

(To add to Dane’s comments)
To me, the above quote gives a couple of reasons “why” we hold found original but when the “why” no longer applies, the general rule doesn’t either. In other words, I’m totally on board with holding found original when that is what was done first and the plat done second. Or the plat created based on the field survey.

I quoted Brown, as a reference so that folks coiuld see that courts STILL consider the INTENT OF THE PARTIES. I also listed a few random CA case that I came across,while looking for something else. I also listed some excerpts from Skelton. Admittedly, the the bulk of these cases arise out of problems with sequential conveyances.So, if I am misapplying the rules, then I stand corrected. I am not relying soley on a quote from Brown.

I had a concern that perhaps these cases may not be the state of the law since there were quite old. But since Brown was still indicating that intent is an important consideration, as of 2003, it is probably a good bet that, where warranted a court will still look at intent.

Is a consideration of intent out of line in this case? Was the parcel conveyed based upon the monuments? Was it conveyed based upon the map alone? Which one of these represents the intent of the parties? I do not understand how you could stake the line without collecting evidence and evaluating that evidence and then arriving at a professional opinion as to one location or the other. I am not suggesting advocating one position over the other. What I am advocating is a process, that involves evidence and its evaluation.

I wonder if a "FIRST" survey executed at odds to the intent of the parties is binding?

Evan, the only direction that Blevins may have to offer here is that there must be evidence to overcome the deed location. Where is the evidence to show that the pipe set so far away from the mapped corner represents an alternate intention to the map?

What is the source of the presumption that "monuments control" Is it because the monument exists? Is it because it was set by a surveyor? Pehaps the source emenates from the fact the the monument is set to mark the intentions of the parties?

What say you?

Civil Procedures 2077 was created in 1873 but thankfully includes the provision, “When the description refers to a map, and that reference is inconsistent with other particulars, it controls them if it appears that the parties acted with reference to the map; otherwise the map is subordinate to other definite and ascertained particulars.”

I see both sides but what really tickles me is somehow we as surveyors can give our professional expert opinion as to the intentions of the parties unless there is a “found original” involved. Now, somehow the “found original” is the intention of the parties even though the modern subdivision establishes the lots first on paper and then monuments these intentions.

Are we really stuck with holding found original no matter what? That is not indicative of a profession that uses evidence, facts, and logic to come to a logical conclusion as to the location of boundaries. Again, is there no room to call a blunder exactly what it is?