Topic: What morons

[Keith™]

I dunno .. if trees and stumps were really good boundary markers, then why in the world did we ever switch to capped rods and concrete monuments?

I know they can be moved and removed, but I doubt that is as serious a problem as a stump getting removed .. as a land owner, I'd be more likely to blast a tree stump than dig up a concrete monument.

incidently, unless you have the full legal, there is no way you can get it right

[James Cannon]

I remember walking through the woods one day, when I was out doing chores with my father, and I tried pulling an Iron Rod out of the ground, and was close to doing so before my dad hollered at me to leave it be, and told me what it was.

If I had succeeded, we would have lost a property corner

[Mark]

Hardly the worst 'Legal' description I've ever seen.   

A description of real property by government survey, metes and bounds, or lot numbers of a recorded plat including a description of any portion thereof subject to an easement or reservation, if any. Such must be complete enough that a particular parcel of land can be located and identified.

[mjfarrell]

trees, and rocks (not stumps) were expedient, given their time and the fact that in those days folks were not buying and selling 7,000 S.F. lots they were homesteading entire Sections or more of land.  The transition to smaller more portable monumentation for parcels was gradual, and related mostly to the shrinking of the parcels in question not so much to do with the permanence or lack thereoff of the monument, and the advent of the Public Land System

in those days folks knew that Big Oak tree, or giant rock was there property corner, so they left it alone, and concentrated on removing only the trees and stumps from the fields or pastures they wished to clear they had enough work to do already than chop down and or blast out their property markers....

try pulling an 50 year old oak tree out of the ground 'by accident', or moving a 10 ton granite boulder.... go ahead, just try it

[Mark]

I dunno .. if trees and stumps were really good boundary markers, then why in the world did we ever switch to capped rods and concrete monuments?

Here in FL it's required by law.

(22)  "Monument" means a survey marker which must:

(a)  Be composed of a durable material.

(b)  Have a minimum length of 18 inches.

(c)  Have a minimum cross-section area of material of 0.2 square inches.

(d)  Be identified with a durable marker or cap bearing either the Florida registration number of the professional surveyor and mapper in responsible charge or the certificate of authorization number of the legal entity, which number shall be preceded by LS or LB as applicable.

(e)  Be detectable with conventional instruments for locating ferrous or magnetic objects.

If the location of the monument falls in a hard surface such as asphalt or concrete, alternate monumentation may be used that is durable and identifiable.

[Keith™]

try pulling an 50 year old oak tree out of the ground 'by accident', or moving a 10 ton granite boulder.... go ahead, just try it

Oh I quite agree, but I'm afraid that I'll not be convinced a tree, a stump or a big rock is a particularly good boundary marker.

Sure it works when you are talking about a hundred thousand acres or something equally massive ... but as you have stated, when we start talking about relatively small parcels of land, and by relatively small, I mean anything under 100 acres or so, you start getting into pissing matches with adjacent land owners over a foot or less. I've seen it more than once ... a couple of years ago we had a lawsuit filed locally over a boundary dispute that was nothing more than a couple of inches one way or the other. The argument was whether the boundary started at the leading edge of the power pole or the center. In the end, it was decided that the power pole was entirely on one parcel ... a mere 4 inches ... and thousands of dollars were spent trying to prove ownership. I can readily see how this would play out if the corner were marked by a 30" oak ... Your tree fell on my house .. I'm gonna sue you!!! ... no it's not my tree, you own half of it!!!
It just breeds bad juju.

[Keith™]

I dunno .. if trees and stumps were really good boundary markers, then why in the world did we ever switch to capped rods and concrete monuments?

Here in FL it's required by law.

I figured it must ... but then one has to ask ... why did they see the need to pass such a law?

[Dinosaur]

Most of the places you find these prominent rocks and trees used in property descriptions are in remnants of old Spanish Land Grants (such as in Florida and Texas) made prior to the adoption of section / township / range system used when the rest of the country was surveyed.  These original descriptions are still parts of deeds and thus still in use along side and with the modern format.  Their limitation is that they are useless in describing new property subdivisions as they can not be placed as desired.

[Mark]

Yes, but you have to have a good breakdown of the Section first.

OK ....

"Breakdown" meaning surveyed location of all pertinent monuments within the Section or at least Quarter supported with monument records of same and any plat or right-of-way maps.  If the controlling monuments are in place, a proper survey will establish the bearings and your property is defined by parallel lines from them.  If the Section is missing pertinent monument information, the surveyor must then establish the prorated locations of those missing and set them if necessary.

You can survey the whole section and right of ways therein, it won't make any difference, the description is garbage!

[Dent Cermak]

The language revolves around "chain of title" and the GLO plat. Problem is, MOST surveyors never refer to the GLO and operate on the assumption that all sections are 5280'x5280' and that all section lines are N-S and E-W. If it were only so. A "standard section" is a rare animal in reality. The location of Quarters and Quarter/quarters based on this assumption causes 90% of all boundary disputes.
Reference to a section corner or lot corner and the recovery of that corner is required in most states. Often those corners are marked with lighter knots (most I have found are in excellant condition even though some are 100 years old.) or with stone carins or fence corners or concrete monuments. Those items are usually referrenced in the deed.
I have no problem with that. What I hate is a non-metes and bounds description such as Mark listed. Such descriptions are subject to interpretations and MANY geometric shapes can be produced that fit the description. So how do you determine the "proper" corner and land shape?
It's all just a SMALL part of what makes sueveying interesting. AND, Yes Mark, we are surrounded by morons in our field and not all of them are attorneys. This is why I think the law needs to be changed, Lawyers should not be allowed to write legal descriptions. The legal description should be written by the surveyor based on his "in the field" survey.  The Surveyor should provide tha Attorney a stamped Plat and a stamped Legal Description and that then would be made Exhibit "A" and "B' of the Warranty Deed.