Thoughts of a Land Surveyor.

[Steppenwolfe]

One more point I'll add, surveyors, judges, lawyers don't really have control over boundary corners or land, the land owners do. When land owners see the corners I set, honor them, build fences to them, they validate my work. They say "look, that's a corner Dodge Man set, that's my corner". The neighbor says "yes it is, that's my corner too". They have validated my work. If they say "that Dodge Man is an idiot, he doesn't know what he is doing, let put the corner over here". They have invalidated my work, made it worthless, all my education, expensive equipment is trumped by what the landowners did. Landowners have control over their boundaries, its when they don't agree that problems arise.

I know our surveyor has done probably 6 different surveys for us, in the past six years. Very well respected man and surveyor. But, in his words, if you don't file the survey at the courthouse it isn't a legal document, it is only his opinion. Our case has been a little different than finding corners, so maybe that has something to do with it.

 

[dodge man]

Some states are recording states, they require a survey to be recorded. Illinois is not a recording state, so my work doesn't have to be recorded, although I encourage people to do it. The exception would be subdivisions, they need to be recorded.

 

[95XL883]

Dodge Man, Dadnatron,

Let me give another example of a surveyor's mistake. I am really curious to hear Dodge Man's take. (To cut the suspense, while I had a legal right to push the issue, it would have been very contentious. In my judgement, by dropping the matter, i didn't risk anything even though I was giving something up. As long as I wasn't risking anything, I was willing to let the matter drop, even if it wasn't fixed correctly.)

When my wife and I were looking at our property, we were told generally where the corners were and that a survey had been done. We entered into a contract to buy the property with one of the conditions being that we were given a copy of the survey. When we got the copy, we looked at it closely and my wife kept saying she didn't understand one thing. About the fifth time trying to explain it to her, I finally understood her question. She had found a gross error on the survey that was in our favor.

Going back to when that survey was done, there was one 50 acre rectangular tract. The surveyor was apparently hired to split it into what we were told was 40 acre tract and a 10 acre tract. He drew up the metes and bounds descriptions of the two tracts. The problem was the corners specified in that description didn't agree by a substantial amount, about 550', from where the seller of our tract was acting like the corners were and where the corners had been set (rebar in concrete). (The supposed 10 acre tract was a vacant house in foreclosure. It was owed by the FHA waiting for the redemption period to expire.) The discrepancy was also in the description of the supposed 10 acre tract.

I'll try to make this simple but metes and bounds is somewhat difficult. From the agree upon starting point, our northwest corner, (corner #1) the description read to go south 1,604 feet (corner #2), then west say 700' (I don't remember exactly this number)(corner #3) and then south another 600' (again that number is approximate)(corner #4) then west to the section/quarter section line (corner #5), back north to the next section/quarter section line(corner #6), then east 1,340' to the point of beginning (corner #1). The discrepancy came at corners 2, 3, 4 and 5. They were set (rebar in concrete) about 550 north of the metes and bounds description. People had accepted an old fence as the property line but it didn't match any of these corners and covered only part of one side of the foreclosure property. My wife and I were the ones who went looking for the set corners and tried to match them to the legal description. So the mistake is each of four corners as set by rebar in concrete were about 550 feet different from the metes and bounds description. This was a 10 acre discrepancy.

If we had followed the metes and bounds description, we would have had a much larger tract which would have included a poorly built and maintained house in foreclosure than what the realtor had shown us. The FHA would have been screwed but they seem to be so poorly run who knows what they would have done. And a third land owner would have been very upset as title to about 10 acres of his ground had been "given away" by the metes and bounds description by the original surveyor.

From my perspective, we had a contract to buy a piece of ground about 10 acres larger than what we were being shown. In discussing this with the original surveyor, he told me, quite rudely, to go pound sand. In discussing this with the title insurer they stated the correct way for this to be "fixed" (assuming I was willing to settle for what I had been shown rather that what I had contracted to buy) was for the seller of my property to sign and file an amended metes and bounds description. The FHA would also have to sign an amended metes and bounds description. (Yeah, like that would ever happen in any type of timely fashion.)

Here is where I got my lesson in small town businesses and government as being incestuous. The original surveyor was the brother to the owner of the closing company. The county recorder was their sister. Once they realized the discrepancy, they "circled the wagons" to protect the surveyor/brother loudly proclaiming that the rebar set in concrete were the correct corners (It was more convoluted than that as there was a fence that was recognized as the property line but it quickly didn't follow the legal description and covered only a part of one side of the other tract. In addition, the rebar in concrete for two corners couldn't be located even with metal detectors or probing rods.) Instead of getting the seller's and the FHA's sign off adjusted metes and bounds descriptions, the owner of the closing company drafted a notice of correction (his termed) and filed it with his sister, the county recorder.

Other than a lot of legal fees and a long dispute, who knows how it would have turned out had we pushed to follow the original metes and bounds description. In the end, I hired a new surveyor who rewrote the metes and bounds to match corners 1, 2 and 6 as set by rebar in concrete and set new corners 3, 4 and 5 (rebar in concrete). The title insurer agreed to insure the property to that description. I immediately had a good fence installed between corners 2, 3 and 4 to minimize any confusion when the foreclosed property eventually sold and stop trespassers coming across that property onto mine. It seems to have worked. So far, now four plus years later, nobody has ever questioned the lines to my knowledge. Of course, it would be silly for anybody other than me to not accept it as I would wind up with another 10 acres and a house. It does bother me how rude the original surveyor was and that the adjustment wasn't done to the title insurer's direction. But I'm enjoying my ground and I don't see where I'm at any risk. Now, the people claiming title to the 10 acres to the south of me have some risk but there risk lessens with time. Hopefully this one never sees a lawyers involved dispute.

Dodge man, I'd like a truthful observation but regardless, I am resolved to be happy with what I've got and am chalking it up as a learning experience as to how I would handle it differently if I ever am in that position again. Thanks for any input you can give me.

 

[dodge man]

To be honest, from your description I don't really have a clear picture of the survey problem. With that said, it sounds like its pretty clear you understood what was meant to be done. There is a long standing principal that the intent of the parties is most important. It sounds like you knew the intents of the original survey, screwed up or not, and did the right thing by not trying to claim more than was intended. It would have been hard to claim a house you didn't think you were getting. I think I said above that property corners hold once they are set even if in error. The exception would be fraud or gross error. It sounds like this would be considered a gross error.

 

[Streetcar]

In surveying for road projects, I am amazed the number of times there are2 to 3 pins set within a couple of feet of each other

 

[two_bit_score]

Good thread!

 

[95XL883]

To be honest, from your description I don't really have a clear picture of the survey problem. With that said, it sounds like its pretty clear you understood what was meant to be done. There is a long standing principal that the intent of the parties is most important. It sounds like you knew the intents of the original survey, screwed up or not, and did the right thing by not trying to claim more than was intended. It would have been hard to claim a house you didn't think you were getting. I think I said above that property corners hold once they are set even if in error. The exception would be fraud or gross error. It sounds like this would be considered a gross error.

Thanks Dave. Sorry, I wasn't clearer. Metes and bounds is hard without a map or actually walking the ground. But you did get the point that in my opinion there was a serious discrepancy between the metes and bounds and the corner sets. (I still wish I could have found those two missing corner sets. Then again that may have really confused the situation.)

I don't want to say what the original intent was although it made sense to not follow the metes and bounds. In any event, I don't think I risked anything and I'm happy with what I got for what I paid. Thanks again.

 

[ustmd]

dodge man,

Thanks for your efforts on this thread.

Just a general question, how repeatable should I expect multiple surveys of the same plat (or adjacent one) is it reasonable to expect? In other words, is there a generally accepted level of error? I understand with locator pins, there should be a high level of accuracy, but once you get into bearing/distance, I can see accuracy issues showing up.

No hidden agenda behind the question. Just curious if my general rule of thumb of putting fences at least 1 foot inside the property line is sufficient to avoid arguments with the next neighbor and their well meaning/working to acceptable guidelines surveyor.

 

[dodge man]

That question can depend on the size of the survey. For a lot in town I would say offsetting your fence a foot is more than enough or too much. For a rural survey, not a bad idea.

We measure to the nearest 0.01 of a foot which is 1/8 of an inch. We can not really measure that close but almost. Part of the problem is the stability. Corners get frost heave, equipment or mowers run them over, utility companies work near them etc.

As a general rule on a modern survey I like my measurements to repeat with in 0.10 feet or a little better, which is a little more than an inch. I like to see better than that, say 0.04 feet on smaller lot surveys.

 

[Opti-Mist]

Very interesting. After settling an estate for a deceased relative, I received a tax delinquency notice for a parcel. When I drew up the description I realized that it actually was the end of a county road which had at one time been a part of the original property which had been subdivided and an access road created. Needless to say no one at the county was interested so I chose to ignore the issue. Then someone bought the deed at the tax sale. Once they figured it out, they contacted me to see if I would sign a deed to them so they could get rid of it by deeding it to the county. Of course I would, and did, and the county became the owner of the road which they had been maintaining for years.