Record or prorate?

[land butcher]

I would call the SW corner off. With everything else matching it appears there was some bust in setting it. Then put the missing corner in.
This seems reasonable especially since there are no occupation issues
I would think a corner record would suffice.

[Jim Frame]

I couldn't go with a CR on that. You've not only got a material (2') discrepancy, but also "[e]vidence that, by reasonable analysis, might result in materially alternate positions of lines or points" due to the very question that generated this thread. I think you're in ROS country.

.

[E_Page]

Have you looked for evidence that might indicate that the SW corner of Lot 1 might not be in its original position?

[E_Page]

If you don't have information showing how the fieldwork was conducted to set the corner common to Lots 1 & 2, how can you be confident that you would be resetting it in it's original position?

The original surveyor may have come from either the SE of 2 or the SW of 1. Either way, you may be very close to the original position or you may be 3' away from it. If you prorate the difference, you can be certain of being about 1.5' from the original position, but you will be following the standard solution lacking more definitive evidence of the original location, and you would be approtioning the shortage equitably.

I'd be trying to locate the original surveyor's records and/or making an extra detailed search for additional physical evidence before making a decision. If I was unable to find either, I'd probably go record off the SE of 2 and pray that the measurement errors of the original survey were limited to the observations in locating or setting the SW of 1. My reasoning being that apportioning the error will certainly result in monumenting a position which never existed (based upon the 4 monuments matching quite well vs 1 not), and that it is slightly more likely that the difference in measurements to the SW of 1 was due to a localized error to that one point than it was due to a shortened chain used only along the S line of the survey.

I didn't ask before, but I presume that the 1st thing you did upon finding the discrepancy was check the validity of your own work to ensure it isn't your error. (?)

[Double_Proportion]

Good evening folks.

This is a very interesting topic and I’d like to butt in if I may, I have learned a lot and been pointed in the right direction over the years from your discussions.

There are several different ways this could potentially be handled as I see it;

a) Prorate; they are simultaneous conveyances are they not?
b) Hold record, and as the Brown principle states; if the error is identifiable, place it where it occurs; however is the error really in the pipe that is in the southwest corner, you state the southwest corner is at an old fence line at an exterior subdivision corner.

I may be way off base, but unfortunately the problem at hand affects more than just the stated parcels, presumably it affects adjoining parcels as well. My thoughts are an expanded survey is necessary to determine exactly who is entitled to what, and when I say survey I am referencing to the title research and office review as well as fieldwork, only then will you be able to determine with some form of certainty where the mistake is and how much liability you are taking on by position you choose, unfortunately it’s a sue happy world and these are thins surveyors in the 2012's need to consider. Consider the lots are undeveloped currently, the position you choose will be contested possibly by future surveyors, as has been said, no reason for the forum post if alternate solutions did not exist, ultimately document the solution and RS for sure.

Now for the lashing from the pro’s.

PS I have more in my brain but if Friday night.

[Dylan Kolstad]

I'm afraid you're going to have to do more research into the exterior bounds of the subdivision to see whether there was any logic to the placement of that southwest corner (does the northwest corner of Lot 1 also match the fence?). It may be that the surveyor assumed the subdivision was at 90 degrees, but when it came time to set that southwest corner, he didn't want to dispute the fence... maybe he also gave up after that, didn't set the SE cor of Lot 1 and hoped you would fix the problem for him!

[PLS7393]

One thing that jumped out at me is a question if the SW corner was set at an offset of 3' to facilitate the construction of a fence? A little more research is needed to confirm the location of the SW corner in my review, and not impractical since the parcel map was filed in the 1980's.