Avatar

Poll: Does your state have a law (Land Surveying)

by Randy Rain @, Sanderson Florida, Friday, August 06, 2010, 09:10 (1762 days ago)

against disturbing survey markers.

Florida yes.

177.121 Misdemeanor to molest monument or deface or destroy map or plat.--It is a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083, for any person to molest any monuments established according to this part or to deface or destroy any map or plat placed on public record.

Avatar

Poll: Does your state have a law

by Kent McMillan @, Austin, TX, Friday, August 06, 2010, 09:16 (1762 days ago) @ Randy Rain

against disturbing survey markers.

Florida yes.

177.121 Misdemeanor to molest monument or deface or destroy map or plat.--It is a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083, for any person to molest any monuments established according to this part or to deface or destroy any map or plat placed on public record.

Actually, don't you need to post the part that describes what qualifies as a monument for the purposes of that statute?

--
Best regards,
Kent McMillan, RPLS Austin TX

Avatar

Poll: Does your state have a law

by Randy Rain @, Sanderson Florida, Friday, August 06, 2010, 09:23 (1762 days ago) @ Kent McMillan

177.031 Definitions.--As used in this part:

1-21 ommited.

(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.

Avatar

Kent;

by Randy Rain @, Sanderson Florida, Friday, August 06, 2010, 09:58 (1762 days ago) @ Kent McMillan

Consider this topic my mia culpa and acquiescence to you argument about not being specifically and legally enjoined from a particular act or behavior. So now I'm curious how many states have enacted laws and regulations prohibiting removal of survey markers set by others and the specifics of those laws and regulations.

RRain

Avatar

Poll: Does your state have a law

by NorthernSurveyor @, Anchorage, AK, Friday, August 06, 2010, 09:20 (1762 days ago) @ Randy Rain

Are there monument molesters in Florida? Or did they just convert another molestation law? Inquiring minds want to know.

--
"We the willing, led by the unknowing, have been doing the impossible, for the ungrateful. We have been doing so much, with so little, for so long, that we are now qualified to do anything with nothing."

Avatar

Northern

by Randy Rain @, Sanderson Florida, Friday, August 06, 2010, 09:31 (1762 days ago) @ NorthernSurveyor

Here in Florida we have a huge variety of molesters, must be something to do with the weather. On a side note do you ever do any surveying out Adak way?

RRain

Avatar

Northern

by NorthernSurveyor @, Anchorage, AK, Friday, August 06, 2010, 11:46 (1762 days ago) @ Randy Rain

Randy, havn't been out to Adak in years. Pretty much all shut down now out there since the Naval base closed. They had no fuel last winter for generator, people about froze. Last time I was there was 2003 or so, had to fly airborne direct georeferenced photography for the entire island. A very difficult job with the bad weather and remoteness. We got r done though.

--
"We the willing, led by the unknowing, have been doing the impossible, for the ungrateful. We have been doing so much, with so little, for so long, that we are now qualified to do anything with nothing."

Avatar

Northern

by Moe Shetty ⌂ @, Baltimore, HARM CITY, Maryland., Friday, August 06, 2010, 11:59 (1762 days ago) @ NorthernSurveyor

will be in anchorage next week, visiting my bride's family. her father is having heart troubles. heart attack during fishing. didn't want to compromise his ifq's fuel etc. so finished out the license. three days later, the medical center in homer tells him he had a heart attack. tough man

--
Eddie Glawe, LS #21391 Maryland

Poll: Does your state have a law

by Dan Rittel @, Stuart - Des Moines, Iowa, Friday, August 06, 2010, 09:23 (1762 days ago) @ Randy Rain

Iowa - Yes.

Just signed and passed this year. You can read the bill by clicking here (Change to Iowa Code Sec. 716.6).

Made it a crime of criminal mischief in the 4th degree, a serious misdemeanor, that I believe is punishable by confinement for no more than one year and a fine of at least $315 but not more than $1,875.

--
Dan Rittel
Twitter: @barefoot_LS

Avatar

Poll: Does your state have a law

by Kent McMillan @, Austin, TX, Friday, August 06, 2010, 10:29 (1762 days ago) @ Dan Rittel

But how is "monument" defined in Section 355.1? That part linked doesn't say, but it appears that for some reason fence posts were overlooked.

--
Best regards,
Kent McMillan, RPLS Austin TX

Monument Defined

by Dan Rittel @, Stuart - Des Moines, Iowa, Friday, August 06, 2010, 10:43 (1762 days ago) @ Kent McMillan

But how is "monument" defined in Section 355.1? That part linked doesn't say, but it appears that for some reason fence posts were overlooked.


355.1 DEFINITIONS.

As used in this chapter unless the context otherwise requires:

7. "Monument" means a physical structure which marks the location of a corner or other survey point.


One could argue that a fence post is just as much a physical structure (if not more) as a #5 rebar.

--
Dan Rittel
Twitter: @barefoot_LS

Avatar

Monument Defined

by Kent McMillan @, Austin, TX, Friday, August 06, 2010, 11:02 (1762 days ago) @ Dan Rittel

7. "Monument" means a physical structure which marks the location of a corner or other survey point.[/color][/b]


So, in other words, a physical structure which doesn't mark the location of a corner or other survey point isn't a "monument" within the meaning of the Iowa statute. That would seem to allow the removal of mistakenly placed survey markers which aren't actually at the corners.

--
Best regards,
Kent McMillan, RPLS Austin TX

Avatar

Poll: Does your state have a law

by Dan B. Robison ⌂ @, Little Rock, Arkansas, Friday, August 06, 2010, 09:23 (1762 days ago) @ Randy Rain

ARKANSAS

Damage or Destruction of Property
5-38-214. Willful removal or destruction of landmarks established by legal survey.
(a) Any person who willfully cuts down, destroys, defaces, removes, or carries off any
witness tree, monument, or other landmark established by legal survey and used to delineate a boundary line is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) Furthermore, in any civil suit involving damages to property arising from the removal or destruction of a marker established by a legal survey, the complaining party is entitled to recover three (3) times the damages.
History. Acts 1963, No. 247, § 1; 1977, No. 807, § 7; A.S.A. 1947, § 41-1976; Acts 2005, No.1994, § 348.

Destruction of Section Corners in Improvement Districts

14-86-501.
Applicability.
The provisions of this subchapter shall apply to engineers and commissioners in all
improvement districts in this state.
History. Acts 1921, No. 82, § 4; Pope's Dig., § 3222; A.S.A. 1947, § 20-1108.

14-86-502.
Penalty.
(a) (1) Any engineer or commissioner who shall neglect, fail, or refuse to comply with any of the provisions of this subchapter shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be fined in any sum not less than fifty dollars ($50.00) nor more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250).
(2) Twenty-five dollars ($25.00) of the fine shall be paid to the informer.
(b) Each corner destroyed where there is a failure to comply with the provisions of this
subchapter as to corners shall constitute a separate offense.
History. Acts 1921, No. 82, §§ 3, 5; Pope's Dig., §§ 3221, 3223; A.S.A. 1947, §§ 20-1107, 20-1109.

14-86-503.
Duty to perform.
(a) It is made the duty of the commissioners of any district to cause the work described in §14-86-504 to be done by the engineers.
(b) All corners destroyed shall be reestablished at once during the time construction work is being done in the district.
History. Acts 1921, No. 82, § 2; Pope's Dig., § 3220; A.S.A. 1947, § 20-1106.

14-86-504.
Location of corners and notes required.
(a) (1) It shall be the duty of all engineers in the employ of any improvement district in this state or engineers doing any work for the improvement district, if the doing of the work or the construction of the improvement, or any work connected therewith, destroys any section corner or quarter section corner, to locate each corner so destroyed correctly in accord with the United States survey field notes of the corner and cause to be erected reference monuments of some indestructible material, which may be either concrete, stone, galvanized iron pipe, or cast iron posts not less than two-by-four inches (2" x 4") and sunk in the ground not less than three feet (3').
(2) The posts or monuments shall be placed forty-five degrees (45°) N. E., forty-five
degrees (45°) N. W., forty-five degrees (45°) S. W., and forty-five degrees (45°) S. E., if possible, from the corner and shall be far enough away from the corner so as not to be covered up or destroyed in constructing the improvements.
(b) (1) A copy of the engineer's notes of his locating the survey of each corner and the
monuments thereto shall be kept. The notes shall tell how he proceeded in locating each corner, giving the course and distance from the true corner that each witness or monument is placed, and the kind of monument. The notes shall be so full and complete that any surveyor can, from the notes, find the corner without difficulty.
(2) The notes shall be filed by the engineer in the office of the county clerk in the county in which the corners are situated and shall be recorded by the clerk in a book kept for that purpose. The book shall be correctly indexed as to section, township, and range so as to be readily referred to or found from the index.
(c) The cost or charge for locating the corners and recording the notes shall be paid by the district as a part of the cost of the construction of the improvement.
History. Acts 1921, No. 82, § 1; Pope's Dig., § 3219; A.S.A. 1947, § 20-1105.

--
Waf gf Lpwp fmsfgywypx ncl zowyicwfot c vcyozef. Nafx af ceeydfg yx Ceucxlcl, af lwyoo lcn ayilfov cl c qcoocxw jpxkzfepe, hzw, ht waf wyif pv ayl gfcwa, ayl lsyeyw ncl hepufx.

Avatar

in Maryland...

by Moe Shetty ⌂ @, Baltimore, HARM CITY, Maryland., Friday, August 06, 2010, 09:28 (1762 days ago) @ Randy Rain

§ 14-111. Survey markers.








(a) Type required.- Each individual licensed to practice land surveying or property line surveying under the Maryland Professional Land Surveyors Act shall use the type of stake, marker, monument, or other landmark designated by the State Board for Professional Land Surveyors.





(b) Penalty for damage or removal of marker.- Any person who willfully obliterates, damages, or removes any stake, marker, monument, or other landmark set in the property of another person by any civil engineer, surveyor, or real estate appraiser or any of their assistants, except if the stake, marker, monument, or other landmark interferes with the proper use of the property, is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction shall be fined not more than $500.





(c) Boundary lines.- If there is a dispute over any boundary line or if the bounds mentioned in a document are lost, on petition of any party in interest, the circuit court of the county where the property lies may establish the boundary lines or the location of the missing bounds. The court may appoint engineers, surveyors, or other experts to assist the court in its determination, and the fees of the experts are costs in the proceeding.








[An. Code 1957, art. 21, § 14-111; 1974, ch. 12, § 2; 1982, ch. 877; 1983, ch. 7; 1989, ch. 236, § 2.]







courtesy Michie's legal resources

http://www.michie.com/maryland/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp=mdcode

--
Eddie Glawe, LS #21391 Maryland

Avatar

in Maryland...

by Kent McMillan @, Austin, TX, Friday, August 06, 2010, 10:33 (1762 days ago) @ Moe Shetty

(b) Penalty for damage or removal of marker.- Any person who willfully obliterates, damages, or removes any stake, marker, monument, or other landmark set in the property of another person by any civil engineer, surveyor, or real estate appraiser or any of their assistants, except if the stake, marker, monument, or other landmark interferes with the proper use of the property, is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction shall be fined not more than $500.

Yes, under that law, the person who owns the property that the erroneous marker encroaches onto could remove it lawfully, but not the surveyor who placed it, it would appear. :>

--
Best regards,
Kent McMillan, RPLS Austin TX

Avatar

Poll: Does your state have a law

by Dave Karoly, Sacramento, CA, Friday, August 06, 2010, 09:39 (1762 days ago) @ Randy Rain

In California it's Penal Code Section 605.

Avatar

Poll: Does your state have a law

by Randy Rain @, Sanderson Florida, Friday, August 06, 2010, 09:49 (1762 days ago) @ Dave Karoly

California Penal Code Section 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.

I don't think that Kent's intent is malicious, misguided perhaps, but not malicious.

RRain

Avatar

Poll: Does your state have a law

by Cee Gee ⌂ @, central Maine, Friday, August 06, 2010, 09:55 (1762 days ago) @ Randy Rain

I don't believe Maine does (prove me wrong kids, prove me wrong).

Avatar

Only highway boundary markers

by Randy Rain @, Sanderson Florida, Friday, August 06, 2010, 10:10 (1762 days ago) @ Cee Gee

Title 23: HIGHWAYS
Part 1: STATE HIGHWAY LAW
Chapter 13: CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS
Subchapter 10: PERAMBULATION OF BOUNDARY LINE
§1114. Preservation of existing monuments

No person shall willfully or maliciously disturb or injure, or, except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, remove, obliterate, deface or cover up any monument or mark designating this boundary line of the State. Any persons desirous of removing and replacing any such monument or mark may apply in writing to the Department of Transportation, who may grant permission therefor under its supervision, first making provision for preserving the exact location of the original boundary or mark, and giving notice to the State of New Hampshire of the time and place at which proposed action is to be taken. The monument shall be reset in the identical location from which it was removed or at a convenient distance therefrom upon the boundary line. A full description of any change in such monument or mark, signed by the representatives of both states, shall be recorded with the Secretary of State. [1971, c. 593, §22 (AMD).]

Avatar

Poll: Does your state have a law

by Steve Gardner @, Roseville, CA, Friday, August 06, 2010, 09:57 (1762 days ago) @ Randy Rain

Right, Randy. I think the hard part to prove would be the "malicious" part. If the person thinks he's doing a public service or it just gets in the way of his lawnmower, I don't think a judge would consider that malicious. I don't have any cases to back that opinion up with, though.

Poll: Does your state have a law

by adamsurveyor @, Colorado, Friday, August 06, 2010, 11:13 (1762 days ago) @ Steve Gardner

Right, Randy. I think the hard part to prove would be the "malicious" part. If the person thinks he's doing a public service or it just gets in the way of his lawnmower, I don't think a judge would consider that malicious. I don't have any cases to back that opinion up with, though.

Prove maliciousness? Heck prove they removed it at all. Then if you get them to admit (or prove that) they removed it and that it was malicious.....see if you can get the district attorney to prosecute.

Two good purposes of a law, as I see it, is to be able to cite it to would-be mischief-makers, and to be able to get the client to sue someone for the cost to reestablish the corner location.

The fines are often minimal to the cost of resetting it.

Avatar

Poll: Does your state have a law

by Kent McMillan @, Austin, TX, Friday, August 06, 2010, 10:37 (1762 days ago) @ Randy Rain

California Penal Code Section 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;

Yes, a land surveyor who is serving the public good and the affected landowners by removing mistakenly located survey markers could hardly be said to be acting maliciously, which is the key distinction.

--
Best regards,
Kent McMillan, RPLS Austin TX

Poll: Does your state have a law

by GEORGIASURVEYOR, The land of Smoke and Ash!, Friday, August 06, 2010, 13:51 (1761 days ago) @ Kent McMillan

Ah, but unless your law does not recognize Adverse Possession the surveyor who removes said monumentation under the assumption that they are doing a public service, are in fact acting maliciously because they are removing evidence that may be used to argue Adverse Possession. Remember, unless your property owner owns all the parcels adjoining the iron in question, then you are affecting the claims of ownership that another has without due regard to whether they have a legal interest in said property. You can only give opinions, even if they may later prove correct, that the neighbor does not now have a good faith claim to said monumentation. I believe, and I am sure that you will correct me if this is an incorrect understanding of Texas law, that a person may claim adverse possession if they have cultivated the land for 10 years without paying tax on land and in as little as 5 yrs if they cultivated and paid taxes. Certainly, if he has a survey showing that he owned to the rebar you decided sucked, he would be able to claim color of title. Certainly if he had been mowing to said iron, he would be considered cultivating. Say, how many years had that iron been in the ground/ Doesn't Texas law say that if that neighbor had been occupying with color of title for 3 yrs that your client would be SOL. Heck, he cannot even legal retake the land (say by someone yanking said iron) without bringing suit. Yeah, you screwed up if you moved an iron that had been there 3 years.

Avatar

Poll: Does your state have a law

by Steve Gardner @, Roseville, CA, Friday, August 06, 2010, 09:54 (1762 days ago) @ Dave Karoly

CA Penal Code 605 makes it a misdemeanor to "Maliciously remove any monument erected for the purpose of designating any point in the boundary of any lot or tract of land..." I don't think the monument has to meet the standards pertaining to surveyors regarding suitable materials and such. It could be a 2"X2" hub with no tag or some other flimsy marker as long as it is intended to mark a boundary.

As I have mentioned before, I worked on a case for the Board of Registration where a surveyor removed a monument and returned it to the surveyor who set it because he could tell it was set in error in a location not intended by the surveyor. The Board nailed him for it because it violated the standard of practice to remove any monument.

Avatar

Poll: Does your state have a law

by Dave Karoly, Sacramento, CA, Friday, August 06, 2010, 10:12 (1762 days ago) @ Steve Gardner

We generally don't remove monuments because we have public records of what they are but I can see it in the case of a lot line adjustment.

In fact I found a monument this week; I don't know yet if it's the original monument or the adjusted monument. They are about 80' apart. I've searched 80' north and 80' south and haven't found another monument; the original (now defunct corner) may have been removed by someone to reduce confusion which I don't necessarily disagree with. I prefer, as a Land Surveyor, to have all of the monuments so I know where they are without reference to a measurement but I can understand not wanting property owners to use the wrong monument causing a potential conflict.

Avatar

Poll: Does your state have a law

by butch @, MI, Friday, August 06, 2010, 10:04 (1762 days ago) @ Randy Rain

Michigan:

54.202 Definitions.
Sec. 2. As used in this act:
(a) “Property corner” means a geographic point on the surface of the earth, which is on, is a part of, and controls a property line.
(b) “Property controlling corner” for a property means a public land survey corner or any property corner which does not lie on a property line of the property in question but which controls the location of 1 or more of the property corners of the property in question.
(c) “Public land survey corner” means any corner actually established and monumented in an original survey or resurvey used as a basis of legal description for issuing a patent for the land to a private person from the United States government.
(d) “Corner”, unless otherwise qualified, means a property corner, a property controlling corner, a public land survey corner, or any combination of these.
(e) “Accessory”, with respect to a corner, means any exclusively identifiable physical object whose spatial relationship to the corner is recorded. Accessories may be bearing trees, bearing objects, monuments, reference monuments, line trees, pits, mounds, charcoal-filled bottles, steel or wooden stakes, or other objects.
(f) “Monument” means a marker that occupies the position of a corner and that possesses or is made to possess a magnetic field.
(g) “Reference monument” means a special monument that does not occupy the same geographical position as the corner itself but whose spatial relationship to the corner is recorded and that serves to witness the corner.
(h) “Surveyor” means a professional surveyor who is licensed to practice professional surveying under the occupational code, 1980 PA 299, MCL 339.101 to 339.2721.

54.210d Defacing, destroying, altering, or removing corner monument or reference monument; penalty; temporary removal; resetting; report; “person” defined.
Sec. 14. (1) A person who defaces, destroys, alters, or removes a corner monument or reference monument is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000.00, or imprisonment for not more than 180 days, or both, and shall be responsible for the costs of reestablishment and replacement of the monument and filing of the corner record by a surveyor. A corner monument or reference monument may be temporarily removed for construction purposes if the corner is properly witnessed by a surveyor before removal. The monument shall be reset, rewitnessed, and refiled by a surveyor within 30 days after the completion of construction. A corner monument or reference monument shall not be temporarily removed for more than 1 year. A person who knows that a corner monument or reference monument has been defaced, destroyed, altered, or removed shall report that fact to the county surveyor of the county in which the corner is located.
(2) As used in this section, “person” means an individual, partnership, corporation, association, governmental entity, or other legal entity.

In (2) above, 'Surveyor' is not specifically mentioned but of a surety it is not excluded under the definition of "person"

Avatar

Poll: Does your state have a law

by Randy Rain @, Sanderson Florida, Friday, August 06, 2010, 10:14 (1762 days ago) @ butch

(f) “Monument” means a marker that occupies the position of a corner and that possesses or is made to possess a magnetic field.

I think that Kent's argument may win out in this case.

RRain

Avatar

Poll: Does your state have a law

by Dave Karoly, Sacramento, CA, Friday, August 06, 2010, 10:17 (1762 days ago) @ Randy Rain

If the Surveyor and two property owners go to the corner and the Surveyor points out the original and the offending piece of rebar shaped debris and all are agreed to pull the debris out of the ground I don't see any malicious intent.

On the other hand if a Surveyor flags up an old monument and then it disappears the next day and it can be proven the property owner who doesn't like the monument did it then that would probably be malicious.

But it's only a Misdemeanor so it's not like he's going to San Quentin for 20 years.

Several years ago the adjoining property owner pulled up a bunch of our traverse spikes which fortunately we didn't need anymore. But the wily old Sheriff's Deputy (professional colleague of the wily old Park Ranger) went to the offending parties house and noticed all of our spikes in the bed of his pickup. So the Sheriff's Deputy pointed out that if he compensated us for the cost of the damage there would probably be no need to do an arrest. The offending party agreed to pay. The PC 605 wasn't directly implemented but it was used as a threat.

Avatar

Poll: Does your state have a law

by butch @, MI, Friday, August 06, 2010, 10:31 (1762 days ago) @ Randy Rain

yeah there is enough wiggle room probably to attempt to recuse oneself from the intent of this statute. The spirit being when a 'corner' is set by a professional surveyor, its intent is to designate that surveyor's professional opinion as to the corner's location - right or wrong (position-wise) is a major gray area, a can of worms one can understand the legislature not wanting to open.

Interestingly also, if the monument doesn't possess a magnetic field I suppose its fair game too.

Avatar

Poll: Does your state have a law

by Kent McMillan @, Austin, TX, Friday, August 06, 2010, 10:44 (1762 days ago) @ butch

(d) “Corner”, unless otherwise qualified, means a property corner, a property controlling corner, a public land survey corner, or any combination of these.

(f) “Monument” means a marker that occupies the position of a corner and that possesses or is made to possess a magnetic field.

(g) “Reference monument” means a special monument that does not occupy the same geographical position as the corner itself but whose spatial relationship to the corner is recorded and that serves to witness the corner.

54.210d Defacing, destroying, altering, or removing corner monument or reference monument; penalty; temporary removal; resetting; report; “person” defined.
Sec. 14. (1) A person who defaces, destroys, alters, or removes a corner monument or reference monument is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000.00, or imprisonment for not more than 180 days, or both, and shall be responsible for the costs of reestablishment and replacement of the monument and filing of the corner record by a surveyor.

Yes, in Michigan, it appears that would be perfectly legal for a land surveyor to remove a survey marker that isn't occupying a property corner or referencing it in the public record, since the marker removed would not be either a "corner monument" or a "reference monument" as defined by the statute, which makes perfect sense.

--
Best regards,
Kent McMillan, RPLS Austin TX

Avatar

Poll: Does your state have a law

by Ed, Friday, August 06, 2010, 10:10 (1762 days ago) @ Randy Rain

Randy, I think all states have various laws against disturbing or destroying private property, which survey monuments certainly are. However, in Texas, I've read
that a surveyor can disturb or destroy a monument just by claiming the right to do so. Kind of like the law of eminent domain or something.

Some of you Texas surveyors might correct me on this, though.

Take care,
Ed

Avatar

Poll: Does your state have a law

by JB ⌂ @, Charlotte, NC, Friday, August 06, 2010, 10:26 (1762 days ago) @ Ed

The supreme law (per my truck's vanity plate) DEU 19:14:
Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour's landmark, which they of old time have set in thine inheritance, which thou shalt inherit in the land that the LORD thy God giveth thee to possess it.

DEU 27:17 is even better but it was already taken:
Cursed is the man who moves his neighbor's boundary stone." Then all the people shall say, "Amen!"

Avatar

Poll: Does your state have a law

by butch @, MI, Friday, August 06, 2010, 10:34 (1762 days ago) @ JB


DEU 27:17 is even better but it was already taken:
Cursed is the man who moves his neighbor's boundary stone." Then all the people shall say, "Amen!"

Applies dually to the surveyor who mis-staked it too I suppose ;-)

Avatar

Poll: Does your state have a law

by Dave Karoly, Sacramento, CA, Friday, August 06, 2010, 10:49 (1762 days ago) @ JB

A Surveyor I know surveyed a client's lot adjoining the lot. Someone at the Church (which had junk piled up on the client's lot) removed all the line stakes. So the next time he wrote Deuteronomy 19:14 on the lath and they didn't disappear again.

Avatar

Poll: Does your state have a law

by Kent McMillan @, Austin, TX, Friday, August 06, 2010, 10:45 (1762 days ago) @ Ed

Randy, I think all states have various laws against disturbing or destroying private property, which survey monuments certainly are.

Actually, very few of the laws cited so far would prevent the removal of survey markers that don't mark or reference property corners. :>

--
Best regards,
Kent McMillan, RPLS Austin TX

Avatar

NY

by Angelo Fiorenza @, Forest Hills, NY, Friday, August 06, 2010, 10:40 (1762 days ago) @ Randy Rain

New York State Education Law - Article 145 - § 7209 Special Provisions
9 a. Any person who knowingly damages, destroys, disturbs, removes,
resets, or replaces any boundary marker placed on any tract of land by a
licensed land surveyor, or by any person at the direction of a licensed
land surveyor, for the purpose of designating any point, course or line
in the boundary of such tract of land in which he or she has no legal
interest, shall be punished by a civil fine of not more than five
hundred dollars and shall be liable for the cost of reestablishment of
said boundary marker.

Avatar

NY

by Kent McMillan @, Austin, TX, Friday, August 06, 2010, 10:49 (1762 days ago) @ Angelo Fiorenza

New York State Education Law - Article 145 - § 7209 Special Provisions
9 a. Any person who knowingly damages, destroys, disturbs, removes,
resets, or replaces any boundary marker placed on any tract of land by a
licensed land surveyor
, or by any person at the direction of a licensed
land surveyor, for the purpose of designating any point, course or line
in the boundary of such tract of land in which he or she has no legal
interest, shall be punished by a civil fine of not more than five
hundred dollars and shall be liable for the cost of reestablishment of
said boundary marker.

Well, that would appear to criminalize the surveyor who has to remove some mistakenly placed boundary marker in order to find the original that exists below it. How practical a law is that?

--
Best regards,
Kent McMillan, RPLS Austin TX

Avatar

NY....DUH.

by Angelo Fiorenza @, Forest Hills, NY, Friday, August 06, 2010, 11:03 (1762 days ago) @ Kent McMillan

b. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph a of this subdivision,
a licensed land surveyor licensed under section seventy-two hundred
three of this article or a person acting at the direction of any such
licensed land surveyor, may remove an existing marker if substandard in
nature in order to place an upgraded marker in the same location and
shall note the same on the map of survey.


Maybe you have jumped to a conclusion without looking a bit further......


(We've got guys around here who like to kick those pins over 0.18 just like in Texas.)

Avatar

NY....DUH.

by Kent McMillan @, Austin, TX, Friday, August 06, 2010, 11:21 (1762 days ago) @ Angelo Fiorenza

b. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph a of this subdivision,
a licensed land surveyor licensed under section seventy-two hundred
three of this article or a person acting at the direction of any such
licensed land surveyor, may remove an existing marker if substandard in
nature in order to place an upgraded marker in the same location and
shall note the same on the map of survey.

Well, the way I read that, you can't remove an existing marker just to dig to see if there is some other maker beside or below it. The only reason you can remove an existing maker is if the marker is "substandard in nature". That still sounds like a remarkably poor law because it guarantees that, if observed, the erroneously set markers will effectively conceal any older monument below them.

--
Best regards,
Kent McMillan, RPLS Austin TX

Avatar

Well Said, Kent

by Angelo Fiorenza @, Forest Hills, NY, Friday, August 06, 2010, 11:31 (1762 days ago) @ Kent McMillan

Hopefully this will discourage you from coming up to NY and starting a survey business.

Avatar

Well Said, Kent

by Kent McMillan @, Austin, TX, Friday, August 06, 2010, 12:00 (1762 days ago) @ Angelo Fiorenza

Hopefully this will discourage you from coming up to NY and starting a survey business.

LOL! Who would want to survey where actually digging for the original evidence of land boundaries is illegal? :>

--
Best regards,
Kent McMillan, RPLS Austin TX

Well Said, Kent

by Duane Frymire @, Friday, August 06, 2010, 12:48 (1762 days ago) @ Kent McMillan

Well, what's in a "location"? If I remove a marker that's substandard entirely because it does not properly mark the corner but purports to, and I replace said "corner" marker in the correct position, am I not in compliance with the law? The "location" was the "corner" right?

Still, in NY I merely make the client aware of erroneous markers and wonder aloud what purpose they serve and how they might be detrimental. I also make those with interest in the land aware that it's not a violation of statute if they choose to move said goat stakes to better pasture.

This has always been my policy, even before the above mentioned law was passed a couple years ago. I've never removed a stake, but I inform my clients of what may be in their best interest.

The thing is, the evidence is not really destroyed. At least two surveyors could put it back if required. People move stakes for bad reasons all the time and I have to constantly inform them that they can't move enough of them to fool a good surveyor.

But the real funny part of the NY law is that it ended up not addressing that real problem. The correct stake that the adjoiner keeps removing. If it's correct, they have an interest in the property. So, absolutely nothing accomplished once again by the legislation, in my view.

Avatar

Well Said, Kent

by Kent McMillan @, Austin, TX, Friday, August 06, 2010, 13:03 (1762 days ago) @ Duane Frymire

Well, what's in a "location"? If I remove a marker that's substandard entirely because it does not properly mark the corner but purports to, and I replace said "corner" marker in the correct position, am I not in compliance with the law? The "location" was the "corner" right?

Actually, as I read the New York statute, to be protected, the boundary marker need only have been placed by a surveyor or someone acting under his or her direction, for the purpose of marking a boundary. If it was placed even under some grossly erroneous theory for the purpose of marking a corner, it is protected.

Any person who knowingly damages, destroys, disturbs, removes, resets, or replaces any boundary marker placed on any tract of land by a licensed land surveyor, or by any person at the direction of a licensed land surveyor, for the purpose of designating any point, course or line in the boundary of such tract of land in which he or she has no legal interest,

As for the "location" of the marker, isn't that inherent in the definition of a marker, i.e. that the marker itself defines a location?

a person acting at the direction of any such licensed land surveyor, may remove an existing marker if substandard in nature in order to place an upgraded marker in the same location and shall note the same on the map of survey.

--
Best regards,
Kent McMillan, RPLS Austin TX

Well Said, Kent

by Duane Frymire @, Friday, August 06, 2010, 14:02 (1761 days ago) @ Kent McMillan

Kent, ordinarily the "clear" meaning of statutes does not apply in NY. We are allowed to interpret them in an artful, or boundary surveying sort of way:)

For instance, I have been told by attorneys that our also recently passed right of entry law that requires "reasonable notice" is satisfied when (if discovered) I am asked what I'm doing on someones property, I merely reply "surveying". My concern was that under previous law we were not really trespassing if there were no signs and no one asked us to leave. So, if we did not send letters to all adjoiners under the new law we would be trespassing.

At any rate, we have informed all personnel that the little card with the law on it is not made of kryptonite.

Avatar

NY

by jud ⌂ @, Lexington, OR 97839, Friday, August 06, 2010, 10:50 (1762 days ago) @ Angelo Fiorenza

All of these laws are useless, unless a witness that observed the act and is willing to testify to having witnessed it under oath in court is found. Know of many pins pulled or destroyed by construction on private property and the numbers are right up there with public employees or those doing contract work for the public. Never have seen any charges brought because a witness can not be found to get the charge beyond speculation. The only way we can prevent this type of thing is to mine all monuments, after a few bangs most will avoid anything that looks like a survey marker. Many laws are passed to please someones interest but written in a way that they are unenforceable, our representatives are good at doing that.
jud

Avatar

NY

by Dave Karoly, Sacramento, CA, Friday, August 06, 2010, 10:52 (1762 days ago) @ jud

A Surveyor's marker that no one can see is nearly useless.

Avatar

NY

by Ed, Friday, August 06, 2010, 11:22 (1762 days ago) @ jud

All of these laws are useless, unless a witness that observed the act and is willing to testify to having witnessed it under oath in court is found. Know of many pins pulled or destroyed by construction on private property and the numbers are right up there with public employees or those doing contract work for the public. Never have seen any charges brought because a witness can not be found to get the charge beyond speculation. The only way we can prevent this type of thing is to mine all monuments, after a few bangs most will avoid anything that looks like a survey marker. Many laws are passed to please someones interest but written in a way that they are unenforceable, our representatives are good at doing that.
jud

You know, when you get right down to it you're mostly right.

But, I don't agree with that mining them part!:)

Avatar

Poll: Does your state have a law

by Ed, Friday, August 06, 2010, 10:47 (1762 days ago) @ Randy Rain

My take on this subject has always been; if I find what appears to be a monument set by another surveyor, and in my opinion is out of position as indicated by record and other adjoining evidence found, and it is flagged as such, to locate it and denote it's position on the plat and to visually point it out to the client in the field and explain the situation to him/her as best I can. But, I don't move them or pull them up or anything like that. That is for the clients and their neighbors to decide. Just the way of my practice. I'm not saying it's the best practice. That's just my individual philosophy. After all, evidence is evidence and who am I to destroy it.

Avatar

Poll: Does your state have a law

by Kent McMillan @, Austin, TX, Friday, August 06, 2010, 10:51 (1762 days ago) @ Ed

My take on this subject has always been; if I find what appears to be a monument set by another surveyor, and in my opinion is out of position as indicated by record and other adjoining evidence found, and it is flagged as such, to locate it and denote it's position on the plat and to visually point it out to the client in the field and explain the situation to him/her as best I can. But, I don't move them or pull them up or anything like that. That is for the clients and their neighbors to decide.

See, that clearly is a poor practice to rely upon lay people to correctly identify the erroneous markers to be removed. The professional surveyor himself or herself should be
removing those markers so that the proper ones remain. Otherwise, the mess just grows, which defeats the entire purpose of weedomg out the junk markers.

--
Best regards,
Kent McMillan, RPLS Austin TX

Avatar

Poll: Does your state have a law

by Ed, Friday, August 06, 2010, 11:12 (1762 days ago) @ Kent McMillan

See, that clearly is a poor practice to rely upon lay people to correctly identify the erroneous markers to be removed. The professional surveyor himself or herself should be
removing those markers so that the proper ones remain. Otherwise, the mess just grows, which defeats the entire purpose of weedomg out the junk markers.

I see you missed the point entirely about me calling out where I certify the correct corner to be by my plat. There are usually less problems caused by doing that and locating the other monument on the plat and explaining the discrepancy to the client than destroying what adjoiner Joe has believed to be "his" corner. Wrong as it might have been. I'm certifying to what I certify to no matter what else is around there or what anyone else believes.

Avatar

Poll: Does your state have a law

by Kent McMillan @, Austin, TX, Friday, August 06, 2010, 11:27 (1762 days ago) @ Ed

I see you missed the point entirely about me calling out where I certify the correct corner to be by my plat. There are usually less problems caused by doing that and locating the other monument on the plat and explaining the discrepancy to the client than destroying what adjoiner Joe has believed to be "his" corner. Wrong as it might have been. I'm certifying to what I certify to no matter what else is around there or what anyone else believes.


So, is your plat recorded in the public records and will all subsequent surveys from now until the end of time be made with a copy of it in view?

--
Best regards,
Kent McMillan, RPLS Austin TX

Avatar

Poll: Does your state have a law

by jud ⌂ @, Lexington, OR 97839, Friday, August 06, 2010, 11:19 (1762 days ago) @ Kent McMillan

Don't know if you really believe that Kent but my take is to describe it well and where it is located on the record of survey filed with the county surveyor. This is a filing state, so unless prior to 1947, there should be a filed survey showing that marker as being set, by whom and how the position was determined. Some of the older surveys filed were very limited in what was shown but they are much better today. A filed boundary survey will be available for all to view for as long as surveys are filed and those record kept. Those surveys filed in this state are a better memorial to the surveyor than any stone or other structure could ever be.
jud

Avatar

Poll: Does your state have a law

by Kent McMillan @, Austin, TX, Friday, August 06, 2010, 11:35 (1762 days ago) @ jud

Don't know if you really believe that Kent but my take is to describe it well and where it is located on the record of survey filed with the county surveyor. This is a filing state, so unless prior to 1947, there should be a filed survey showing that marker as being set, by whom and how the position was determined. Some of the older surveys filed were very limited in what was shown but they are much better today. A filed boundary survey will be available for all to view for as long as surveys are filed and those record kept. Those surveys filed in this state are a better memorial to the surveyor than any stone or other structure could ever be.

Yes, in a recording state where it is light work to get copies of all maps pertaining to a line or corner, there is much less of a cost associated with maintaining multiple erroneous markers in the vicinity of a corner. Even in a recording state, however, I'll bet you still get landowners making assumptions about survey-marker-looking things they find and proceeding from there without consulting a surveyor.

Isn't it also true that some of those same records of surveys show corners that exist without monuments at the actual corner, showing small reference ties from the corner to some existing monument, a situation that most landowners wouldn't be able to make sense of?

--
Best regards,
Kent McMillan, RPLS Austin TX

Avatar

Poll: Does your state have a law

by butch @, MI, Friday, August 06, 2010, 11:28 (1762 days ago) @ Kent McMillan

My take on this subject has always been; if I find what appears to be a monument set by another surveyor, and in my opinion is out of position as indicated by record and other adjoining evidence found, and it is flagged as such, to locate it and denote it's position on the plat and to visually point it out to the client in the field and explain the situation to him/her as best I can. But, I don't move them or pull them up or anything like that. That is for the clients and their neighbors to decide.


See, that clearly is a poor practice to rely upon lay people to correctly identify the erroneous markers to be removed. The professional surveyor himself or herself should be
removing those markers so that the proper ones remain. Otherwise, the mess just grows, which defeats the entire purpose of weedomg out the junk markers.

Kent, what scares me about this is imagine if all surveyors do as you do - yes, even the bad ones. I don't think the intent of professional licensure for surveyors was for each one to anoint himself judge, jury, & executioner in terms of dispatching monuments of disaccord - granted, competent surveyors SHOULD arrive within the same general error ellipse, positionally. But destroying 'evidence' & essentially removing the other surveyor's ability to defend his work - assuming the other surveyor is identifiable - i don't believe that's ethical practice, let alone wise (or legal) practice. Agree to disagree on this one

Avatar

Poll: Does your state have a law

by Kent McMillan @, Austin, TX, Friday, August 06, 2010, 11:46 (1762 days ago) @ butch

Kent, what scares me about this is imagine if all surveyors do as you do - yes, even the bad ones.

Oh, the bad ones just use whatever they find. It never occurs to them to dig for an original if there is a marker visible on the surface.

I don't think the intent of professional licensure for surveyors was for each one to anoint himself judge, jury, & executioner in terms of dispatching monuments of disaccord

Well, that is dressing up the actual situation. The actual situation I see is that some quickie-dickie survey has popped in some survey markers without much research or careful investigation. So, to dignify the effort as something to be taken seriously if it is obviously incorrect and there is no one who will be injured by removing the mistaken monument is simply making the boundary visible and preserving the rights of all of the adjoining landowners.

- granted, competent surveyors SHOULD arrive within the same general error ellipse, positionally.

And what, exactly is the "error ellpse" of an original, undisturbed boundary monument? This whole discussion has been about the case where an original monument exists and some other surveyor has placed another marker in ignorance of the original.

Evidently some states think that protecting the public means encouraging the multiplication of boundary markers, as if the more markers there are at a corner, the better.

But destroying 'evidence' & essentially removing the other surveyor's ability to defend his work -

Sure, where the surveyor is to be sued for malpractice or will be the subject of a disciplinary action, I wouldn't advise the affected landowners that it would be a good idea to remove the mistaken markers until the lawsuit is settled or the complaint acted upon.

However, the erroneous marker is typically merely "evidence" that a surveyor (or more typically his or her employees) didn't find the corner for some undignified reason. It certainly isn't evidence of the original corner, which is usually what is at issue.

--
Best regards,
Kent McMillan, RPLS Austin TX

Avatar

Poll: Does your state have a law

by butch @, MI, Friday, August 06, 2010, 17:01 (1761 days ago) @ Kent McMillan


And what, exactly is the "error ellpse"(sic) of an original, undisturbed boundary monument? This whole discussion has been about the case where an original monument exists and some other surveyor has placed another marker in ignorance of the original.

So, you would take this approach towards 1/16th corners and centers of sections? Corners which may well have been set & duly recorded, with lands referenced & even conveyed using same location, perpetuated through some passage of time, but in disaccord with record information or instruction. In other words, corners set at the supposition that the originals are lost - or even incorrectly positioned (center section). Corners which may in fact be erroneous, but ones you don't so glibly yank if you value your license. I think you're thinking inside of a marginally small, isolated box, whereas the vast rest of us are thinking quite a bit outside of that box.

Avatar

Reminds me

by Keith, On the Central Coast of California, Friday, August 06, 2010, 17:04 (1761 days ago) @ butch

of my posting on my own 1/16 sec. cor. monuments that I know were not set with the accuracy that Kent espouses. (width of my finger nail)

Keith

--
Check us out here...... http://www.ccwwa.org/

Avatar

Poll: Does your state have a law

by Carl B. Correll ⌂ @, Christiansburg, VA, Friday, August 06, 2010, 11:42 (1762 days ago) @ Randy Rain

Yes. Some other language that is kinda funny too.


� 18.2-137. Injuring, etc., any property, monument, etc.

A. If any person unlawfully destroys, defaces, damages or removes without the intent to steal any property, real or personal, not his own, or breaks down, destroys, defaces, damages or removes without the intent to steal, any monument or memorial for war veterans described in � 15.2-1812, any monument erected for the purpose of marking the site of any engagement fought during the War between the States, or for the purpose of designating the boundaries of any city, town, tract of land, or any tree marked for that purpose, he shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor; provided that the court may, in its discretion, dismiss the charge if the locality or organization responsible for maintaining the injured property, monument, or memorial files a written affidavit with the court stating it has received full payment for the injury.

B. If any person intentionally causes such injury, he shall be guilty of (i) a Class 1 misdemeanor if the value of or damage to the property, memorial or monument is less than $1,000 or (ii) a Class 6 felony if the value of or damage to the property, memorial or monument is $1,000 or more. The amount of loss caused by the destruction, defacing, damage or removal of such property, memorial or monument may be established by proof of the fair market cost of repair or fair market replacement value. Upon conviction, the court may order that the defendant pay restitution.

(Code 1950, � 18.1-172; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15, 598; 1990, c. 933; 1999, c. 625.)

--
Carl B. Correll
VA LS 2502
540-392-8324

[image]

Avatar

Poll: Does your state have a law

by Kent McMillan @, Austin, TX, Friday, August 06, 2010, 11:57 (1762 days ago) @ Carl B. Correll

If any person:

1) unlawfully destroys, defaces, damages or removes without the intent to steal any property, real or personal, not his own, or

2) breaks down, destroys, defaces, damages or removes without the intent to steal:

a) any monument or memorial for war veterans described in � 15.2-1812,

b) any monument erected:

i) for the purpose of marking the site of any engagement fought during the War between the States, or

ii) for the purpose of designating the boundaries of any city, town, tract of land, or

c) any tree marked for that purpose,

he shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor; provided that the court may, in its discretion, dismiss the charge if the locality or organization responsible for maintaining the injured property, monument, or memorial files a written affidavit with the court stating it has received full payment for the injury.


Well, that's a complicated statute that just about has to be diagrammed in order to make sense of. It sounds as if it applies to Civil War memorials and the boundary markers of tracts of land that are part of a Civil War memorial. Are there quite a few of those?

--
Best regards,
Kent McMillan, RPLS Austin TX

Avatar

Poll: Does your state have a law

by Carl B. Correll ⌂ @, Christiansburg, VA, Friday, August 06, 2010, 12:33 (1762 days ago) @ Kent McMillan

Well, that's a complicated statute that just about has to be diagrammed in order to make sense of. It sounds as if it applies to Civil War memorials and the boundary markers of tracts of land that are part of a Civil War memorial. Are there quite a few of those?

Maybe around Richmond there are a few. I think they are lumping the term "monument" into one huge catch-all. Don't forget, we still have Lee-Jackson day here. It is on the Friday before MLK day, so goobermint employees get a 4 day weekend right after the holidays.

They tried putting the MLK and Lee day on the same day for a few years, and THAT didn't go over so well.
Lee-Jackson Day
Lee-Jackson-King Day (now separated)

--
Carl B. Correll
VA LS 2502
540-392-8324

[image]

Avatar

Poll: Does your state have a law

by DEREK G. GRAHAM OLS OLIP ⌂ @, North Aboyne Farm (Elora Ontario Canada), Friday, August 06, 2010, 12:27 (1762 days ago) @ Randy Rain

Yes our Federal Criminal Code does, Section 442 and 443, but it is more hono(u)red ;-) in the breach than the observance.

Interfering with boundary lines

442. Every one who wilfully pulls down, defaces, alters or removes anything planted or set up as the boundary line or part of the boundary line of land is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 398.

Interfering with international boundary marks, etc.

443. (1) Every one who wilfully pulls down, defaces, alters or removes

(a) a boundary mark lawfully placed to mark any international, provincial, county or municipal boundary, or

(b) a boundary mark lawfully placed by a land surveyor to mark any limit, boundary or angle of a concession, range, lot or parcel of land,

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

Saving provision

(2) A land surveyor does not commit an offence under subsection (1) where, in his operations as a land surveyor,

(a) he takes up, when necessary, a boundary mark mentioned in paragraph (1)(b) and carefully replaces it as it was before he took it up; or

(b) he takes up a boundary mark mentioned in paragraph (1)(b) in the course of surveying for a highway or other work that, when completed, will make it impossible or impracticable for that boundary mark to occupy its original position, and he establishes a permanent record of the original position sufficient to permit that position to be ascertained.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 399.

A person (Porter) who moved a survey marker got to be a guest of the Crown for a year in

Henderson v. Porter, 2001 BCSC 1601 (CanLII)

Date: 2001-11-21

URL: http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2001/2001bcsc1601/2001bcsc1601.html

R. v. Porter, 2002 BCCA 355 (CanLII)
t
Date: 2002-06-06

URL: http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2002/2002bcca355/2002bcca355.html

Cheers

Derek

Avatar

Poll: Does your state have a law

by Kent McMillan @, Austin, TX, Friday, August 06, 2010, 12:50 (1762 days ago) @ DEREK G. GRAHAM OLS OLIP

Interfering with boundary lines

442. Every one who wilfully pulls down, defaces, alters or removes anything planted or set up as the boundary line or part of the boundary line of land is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

443. (1) Every one who wilfully pulls down, defaces, alters or removes
[...]
(b) a boundary mark lawfully placed by a land surveyor to mark any limit, boundary or angle of a concession, range, lot or parcel of land,

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

(2) A land surveyor does not commit an offence under subsection (1) where, in his operations as a land surveyor,

(a) he takes up, when necessary, a boundary mark mentioned in paragraph (1)(b) and carefully replaces it as it was before he took it up; or

(b) he takes up a boundary mark mentioned in paragraph (1)(b) in the course of surveying for a highway or other work that, when completed, will make it impossible or impracticable for that boundary mark to occupy its original position, and he establishes a permanent record of the original position sufficient to permit that position to be ascertained.

So, then, how does it work when another surveyor drives a post in ignorance of the original that remains in place undisturbed? As I read those statutes, there is no provision by which the erroneous marker may ever be lawfully removed unless it it to be replaced "as it was before" it was removed.

Even if the miscreant surveyor is brought before your licensing body and disciplined, there still is no remedy for the actual land owner, is there?

--
Best regards,
Kent McMillan, RPLS Austin TX

Avatar

Poll: Does your state have a law

by DEREK G. GRAHAM OLS OLIP ⌂ @, North Aboyne Farm (Elora Ontario Canada), Friday, August 06, 2010, 13:10 (1762 days ago) @ Kent McMillan

Kent- "Ol' 58 feller"

When push comes to shove to remove incorrect monumentation, our Boundaries Act has a quasi solution ........

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90b10_e.htm

Section 10 Monuments

10. The Director may order the removal of any monument that conflicts with any boundary confirmed under this Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. B.10, s. 10.

Cheers,

Older, but not wiser

Derek

Avatar

Poll: Does your state have a law

by Kent McMillan @, Austin, TX, Friday, August 06, 2010, 13:22 (1762 days ago) @ DEREK G. GRAHAM OLS OLIP

10. The Director may order the removal of any monument that conflicts with any boundary confirmed under this Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. B.10, s. 10.

I hope that no Ontario Land Surveyor ever sets a new monument in ignorance of an existing monument that legally defines the corner in question. It sounds as if it takes an act of Parliament to remove the wild shot. I'm sure you have diligent and learned practitioners in Ontario who would never send their unlicensed employees out with instructions to spend as little time as possible on a survey, but in other parts of the world, it is almost the norm for residential property surveys.

--
Best regards,
Kent McMillan, RPLS Austin TX

Avatar

Poll: Does your state have a law

by Steve Gardner @, Roseville, CA, Friday, August 06, 2010, 14:25 (1761 days ago) @ Kent McMillan

Kent - All of a sudden the whole discussion has been about quickie-dickie surveyors (or whatever the term is) tossing two-bit rebars out the window hoping they stick without looking for the original monument that's still in place? This whole time I thought it was about removing a marker that was placed through a different analysis of the evidence and that one believes is incorrect. Or pulling out markers that you have no idea where they came from but don't match your analysis.

Either way, in California, I wouldn't do it. I'd show the found original monument or the one that I place in what I believe to be the correct position and if there's something nearby that I disagree with, I'll show it on my plat that is readily available to any future surveyor. What the property owner does with it after I leave is not in my control.

Avatar

Poll: Does your state have a law

by Kent McMillan @, Austin, TX, Friday, August 06, 2010, 15:07 (1761 days ago) @ Steve Gardner

All of a sudden the whole discussion has been about quickie-dickie surveyors (or whatever the term is) tossing two-bit rebars out the window hoping they stick without looking for the original monument that's still in place? This whole time I thought it was about removing a marker that was placed through a different analysis of the evidence and that one believes is incorrect. Or pulling out markers that you have no idea where they came from but don't match your analysis.

Well, I guess a few other people haven't followed this topic either. The whole subject has been removing survey markers that are erroneously placed in ignorance of the still existing original.

--
Best regards,
Kent McMillan, RPLS Austin TX

Avatar

Poll: Does your state have a law

by Steve Gardner @, Roseville, CA, Friday, August 06, 2010, 15:14 (1761 days ago) @ Kent McMillan

After review of the thread, I see that Dave K used that as an example at 10:17 where the surveyor points out the original and there's another surveyor's monument nearby, but I thought the basic theme of the thread was removal of monuments in general and the state laws that deal with that. In my world, there aren't original monuments to be found at all or even most of the property corners that we are asked to establish.

At what point do you see the thread veering in the direction of a situation where there is an existing original monument?

Avatar

No, Steve

by Kent McMillan @, Austin, TX, Friday, August 06, 2010, 15:25 (1761 days ago) @ Steve Gardner

After review of the thread, I see that Dave K used that as an example at 10:17 where the surveyor points out the original and there's another surveyor's monument nearby, but I thought the basic theme of the thread was removal of monuments in general and the state laws that deal with that. In my world, there aren't original monuments to be found at all or even most of the property corners that we are asked to establish.

At what point do you see the thread veering in the direction of a situation where there is an existing original monument?

Steve, this thread is a continuation of a discussion in a thread a day or so ago in which the subject of removing another surveyor's markers was discussed in the context of the other surveyor's marker being an erroneous marking of a corner for which the original monument remained in place. Here is where you may pick the trail up:


http://beerleg.com/index.php?mode=thread&id=9297#p9788

If you survey in an area where there are no original monuments, I can see how everything would seem to be an airy-fairy exercise in the ethereal realm of subjective opinion. Where I survey, it isn't that much of a challenge to identify the original monuments and to say with certainty where the boundaries marked by them are.

--
Best regards,
Kent McMillan, RPLS Austin TX

Avatar

Birthday Boy

by Steve Gardner @, Roseville, CA, Friday, August 06, 2010, 15:28 (1761 days ago) @ Kent McMillan

That's it, I'm moving to Texas. On second thought, why do they even need surveyors in Texas then?

Avatar

Surveying in Texas

by Kent McMillan @, Austin, TX, Friday, August 06, 2010, 15:34 (1761 days ago) @ Steve Gardner

On second thought, why do they even need surveyors in Texas then?

Well, most likely because no one else knows how to find and identify original corners and to form reliable opinions of the land boundaries based upon them.

--
Best regards,
Kent McMillan, RPLS Austin TX

Avatar

Poll: Does your state have a law

by Kent McMillan @, Austin, TX, Friday, August 06, 2010, 15:13 (1761 days ago) @ Steve Gardner

What the property owner does with it after I leave is not in my control.

BTW, that is I think a terrible choice to make, to expect the landowner to remove the incorrect markers. That is something that, in my opinion, should only be done by a professional surveyor (and not by his or her unlicensed employees). The surveyor is the person with the facts before him and the surveyor will be able to do it right.

--
Best regards,
Kent McMillan, RPLS Austin TX

Avatar

Poll: Does your state have a law

by Steve Gardner @, Roseville, CA, Friday, August 06, 2010, 15:51 (1761 days ago) @ Kent McMillan

Do what right? Operate the vice grips, or pick the one that needs to be removed? It's sort of confusing here in CA, because the Prof. Land Surveyors Act states in the list of things to be shown on Record of Survey maps "monuments removed". In the Board case I referred to earlier, my opinion that I wrote up for the Board was that the removal of the monument that was clearly erroneous was not a violation of the PLSA because the PLSA specifically allows it. The Staff Surveyor at the Board asked me "But would you do it?" I said "No". And he said "So, it's not standard practice then, is it?" and they cited the guy that did it. I prefer not to be that guy. The Board's citation said something like the proper thing to do would have been to contact the surveyor that set it, notifying him/her of the problem and let them correct it if necessary.

On one of my recent surveys, my client had built his fence to a grounding rod next to a power pole because it looks like a survey pin. It's about 2-1/2 feet from the property corner. I wouldn't necessarily get out the vice grips until I found out what it's hooked up to, though.

Avatar

Poll: Does your state have a law

by Dan B. Robison ⌂ @, Little Rock, Arkansas, Friday, August 06, 2010, 16:01 (1761 days ago) @ Steve Gardner

grounding rod next to a power pole because it looks like a survey pin. It's about 2-1/2 feet from the property corner. I wouldn't necessarily get out the vice grips until I found out what it's hooked up to, though.

Hello Lamp Post...(grounding rod)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca0I9GKakgQ

Simon Says "Good Night"

DDSM

--
Waf gf Lpwp fmsfgywypx ncl zowyicwfot c vcyozef. Nafx af ceeydfg yx Ceucxlcl, af lwyoo lcn ayilfov cl c qcoocxw jpxkzfepe, hzw, ht waf wyif pv ayl gfcwa, ayl lsyeyw ncl hepufx.

Avatar

Poll: Does your state have a law

by Kent McMillan @, Austin, TX, Friday, August 06, 2010, 16:06 (1761 days ago) @ Steve Gardner

Do what right? Operate the vice grips, or pick the one that needs to be removed?

Yes, you have to remove the right marker or it pretty well defeats the purpose of making a survey in the first place. Some markers will take special tools and more persistence than many landowners may have. I can see how a surveyor who was worried about billing the time that removing the monuments would take might want to push it off onto someone else. I wouldn't.

--
Best regards,
Kent McMillan, RPLS Austin TX

Avatar

Surveying Texas Style!!

by Keith, On the Central Coast of California, Friday, August 06, 2010, 16:10 (1761 days ago) @ Kent McMillan

Kent's post above should be put up on top for all to see!

Keith

--
Check us out here...... http://www.ccwwa.org/

Avatar

BLM Retiree

by Kent McMillan @, Austin, TX, Friday, August 06, 2010, 16:15 (1761 days ago) @ Keith

And I'm sure that the BLM never, ever ordered the obliteration of some existing survey marker, eh? :>

--
Best regards,
Kent McMillan, RPLS Austin TX

Avatar

Kent

by Keith, On the Central Coast of California, Friday, August 06, 2010, 16:17 (1761 days ago) @ Kent McMillan

BLM never ordered the obliteration of any survey monument, period!

--
Check us out here...... http://www.ccwwa.org/

Avatar

Kent

by Kent McMillan @, Austin, TX, Friday, August 06, 2010, 16:23 (1761 days ago) @ Keith

BLM never ordered the obliteration of any survey monument, period!

So, what do you want to wager?

--
Best regards,
Kent McMillan, RPLS Austin TX

Avatar

Kent

by Keith, On the Central Coast of California, Friday, August 06, 2010, 16:49 (1761 days ago) @ Kent McMillan

If you have proof of BLM ordering the obliteration of private survey monuments, bring it on!

--
Check us out here...... http://www.ccwwa.org/

Avatar

Kent

by Kent McMillan @, Austin, TX, Friday, August 06, 2010, 16:56 (1761 days ago) @ Keith

If you have proof of BLM ordering the obliteration of private survey monuments, bring it on!

So, you aren't so certain that it hasn't happened, then? BTW I see that you're already starting to moonwalk away from your original bombastic claim, which was:

BLM never ordered the obliteration of any survey monument, period!

--
Best regards,
Kent McMillan, RPLS Austin TX

Avatar

Kent

by Keith, On the Central Coast of California, Friday, August 06, 2010, 17:06 (1761 days ago) @ Kent McMillan

Bring it on Kent!

I am out of here for the next few hours, but will check back with that proof of any corner monument!

--
Check us out here...... http://www.ccwwa.org/

Avatar

Kent

by Kent McMillan @, Austin, TX, Friday, August 06, 2010, 17:16 (1761 days ago) @ Keith

Man, that is some fancy moonwalking, Keith.

You first said:

BLM never ordered the obliteration of any survey monument, period!

Then you walked that back to:

If you have proof of BLM ordering the obliteration of private survey monuments, bring it on!

and now it's:

I am out of here for the next few hours, but will check back with that proof of any corner monument!

So what is it that you want to claim BLM never obliterated? Was it:

a) any survey monument, period!

b) private survey monuments, or

c) any corner monument!

--
Best regards,
Kent McMillan, RPLS Austin TX

Avatar

Kent

by Keith, On the Central Coast of California, Friday, August 06, 2010, 20:02 (1761 days ago) @ Kent McMillan

Lay off the bottle of wine, you are not making sense.

Bring on whatever you have.

Keith

--
Check us out here...... http://www.ccwwa.org/

Avatar

Kent

by Kent McMillan @, Austin, TX, Friday, August 06, 2010, 20:26 (1761 days ago) @ Keith

Lay off the bottle of wine, you are not making sense.

You mean that you just didn't want to answer what were some quite straight-forward questions. :> This topic gets its a new thread.

--
Best regards,
Kent McMillan, RPLS Austin TX

Avatar

Kent

by Keith, On the Central Coast of California, Friday, August 06, 2010, 20:28 (1761 days ago) @ Kent McMillan

Simply telling you to put up or shut up.

Keith

--
Check us out here...... http://www.ccwwa.org/

Avatar

Poll: Does your state have a law

by Dan B. Robison ⌂ @, Little Rock, Arkansas, Friday, August 06, 2010, 16:14 (1761 days ago) @ Kent McMillan

Some markers will take special tools and more persistence than many landowners may have. I wouldn't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DG-pNt5fus

Dyn-O-Mite Dan, the Survey Man

--
Waf gf Lpwp fmsfgywypx ncl zowyicwfot c vcyozef. Nafx af ceeydfg yx Ceucxlcl, af lwyoo lcn ayilfov cl c qcoocxw jpxkzfepe, hzw, ht waf wyif pv ayl gfcwa, ayl lsyeyw ncl hepufx.

Avatar

Seems like a No-brainer

by Kent McMillan @, Austin, TX, Friday, August 06, 2010, 16:20 (1761 days ago) @ Dan B. Robison

Well, it seems like a no-brainer to me that if you want particular erroneous markers to be removed and others to remain, there is mainly a downside to turning the work over to Joe Landowner. A surveyor will know how to efficiently deface a chiseled "+", but Mr. Landowner may not even be able to find it when he finally gets around to the job. A surveyor will have some idea how to remove a nail in a drill hole or a rebar in rock, Mr. Landowner may just beat around on the latter and give up on the former.

Or, better yet, Mr. Landowner may tell his yard man which markers to remove while Mr. Landowner is off golfing. Too many variations of things going wrong when you expect laypeople to do what a surveyor ought to.

--
Best regards,
Kent McMillan, RPLS Austin TX

Avatar

Seems like a No-brainer

by P.L.Parsons, South Alabama, Friday, August 06, 2010, 17:33 (1761 days ago) @ Kent McMillan

I assume Texas requires recording of all surveys?

Avatar

Seems like a No-brainer

by Kent McMillan @, Austin, TX, Friday, August 06, 2010, 17:59 (1761 days ago) @ P.L.Parsons

I assume Texas requires recording of all surveys?

No, of course not. This is why leaving grossly replacements for corners where the original, controlling monuments remain in place is so injurious. Only the original subdivision is typically of record.

--
Best regards,
Kent McMillan, RPLS Austin TX

Avatar

Seems like a No-brainer

by P.L.Parsons, South Alabama, Friday, August 06, 2010, 18:01 (1761 days ago) @ Kent McMillan

So you've never had a more senior legal instrument come to light after your work?

Avatar

Seems like a No-brainer

by Kent McMillan @, Austin, TX, Friday, August 06, 2010, 20:30 (1761 days ago) @ P.L.Parsons

So you've never had a more senior legal instrument come to light after your work?

No, of course not. One of the things that a proper survey in Texas has to do is to determine the status of senior rights with respect to all adjoining parcels. Sometime I'll post an example of the research that is necessary to accomplish this.

Conveyances are recorded in Texas. Incidental maps of surveys of lots in platted subdivisions seldom are.

--
Best regards,
Kent McMillan, RPLS Austin TX

Avatar

Seems like a No-brainer

by P.L.Parsons, South Alabama, Friday, August 06, 2010, 21:36 (1761 days ago) @ Kent McMillan

So an unrecorded conveyance in Texas has no weight, or reduced weight in the eyes of the law?

Avatar

Poll: Does your state have a law

by Steve Gardner @, Roseville, CA, Friday, August 06, 2010, 16:22 (1761 days ago) @ Kent McMillan

I guess I'm not explaining myself well. It's not about the time it takes to remove the monument, it's the fact that the Board of Registration frowns on it.

Just yesterday I was looking for a monument near a fence intersection surrounded by blackberry bushes. The one I needed is shown on a recorded map with a notation that another one that he found and disagreed with is 0.9' from the one he set. I found the one he rejected and so I knew where to look for the one I needed. Neither one was what I would call an original monument because neither one was called for in the deeds or anything. Just two different opinions of the same corner. The reason I wanted that particular one was that the other corners of the property I'm working on were supposedly placed in relation to that one.

I say supposedly because I eventually found one of the other corners and it was on the line it's supposed to be on but about 7.5 feet West of where the map dimensions say it should be. It looks undisturbed, still has the tag on it and everything. I haven't figured out what to do about that yet. It's just a 2-acre parcel and the difference between the recorded dimensions and the location of the pipe might make a difference whether there are encroachments or not. I don't see where anybody's relied on it. Just rambling now.

Avatar

Poll: Does your state have a law

by Kent McMillan @, Austin, TX, Friday, August 06, 2010, 18:05 (1761 days ago) @ Steve Gardner

I guess I'm not explaining myself well. It's not about the time it takes to remove the monument, it's the fact that the Board of Registration frowns on it.

Just yesterday I was looking for a monument near a fence intersection surrounded by blackberry bushes. The one I needed is shown on a recorded map with a notation that another one that he found and disagreed with is 0.9' from the one he set. I found the one he rejected and so I knew where to look for the one I needed. Neither one was what I would call an original monument because neither one was called for in the deeds or anything. Just two different opinions of the same corner. The reason I wanted that particular one was that the other corners of the property I'm working on were supposedly placed in relation to that one.

Yes, I understood you perfectly when you said that you seldom dealt with original monuments where you are, that everything was just sort of airy-fairy subjective opinion based upon some sort of something but not a whole lot of anything. That clearly is a much, much different situation than the one I deal with where there are obviously faulty quickie-dickie attempts to reestablish corners that actually remain marked by their original monuments.

--
Best regards,
Kent McMillan, RPLS Austin TX

Avatar

Poll: Does your state have a law

by Joe the Surveyor, Friday, August 06, 2010, 13:09 (1762 days ago) @ Randy Rain

CT..yes, although I've never seen it enforced.

Avatar

Poll: Does your state have a law

by Charles L. Dowdell @, Huachuca City, Arizona, Friday, August 06, 2010, 16:35 (1761 days ago) @ Randy Rain

Arizona does, but it would be probably be pretty hard to enforce unless you could actually catch someone in the act and be able to offer proof. Then, if those that would enforce the statute did not persue the complaint, it would not have any displinary action taken anyway.

Avatar

Randy...this was a good post

by Just Mapit @, Friday, August 06, 2010, 16:39 (1761 days ago) @ Randy Rain

although it seems to have very little input from different states. It would be nice to see a post like this develop into something informative. I'm sure that's what your intent was. Thanks for posting your states law.

Over 100 posts and only 11 posters replied to the original question. 27 comments from Kent.

--
If A is success in life, then A equals x plus y plus z.
Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut.
Albert Einstein

Craig B. Davenport LS,PLS

Avatar

Thanks Mr Mapit

by Randy Rain @, Sanderson Florida, Friday, August 06, 2010, 19:44 (1761 days ago) @ Just Mapit

I was hoping for folks from more states to chime in because at this point I am curious how many states have a statutory prohibition against destruction or removal of "survey markers". I realize that most if not all of these statutes are virtually unenforceable. I would think however, that whether enforceable or not, those statutes would tend to govern the actions of conscientious surveyors.

As to the preponderance of posts from Kent in this thread...don't get me started. For some reason I get the mental picture of Kent out standing in a field, engaged in a vehement discussion of the finer points of surveying with, you guessed it, a fence post.
And just for the record I did acquiesce to Kent's argument that this is a state specific issue, hence this thread.

I like the wording of the Arkansas statute, "a) Any person who willfully cuts down, destroys, defaces, removes, or carries off any
witness tree, monument, or other landmark established by legal survey and used to delineate a boundary line is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.", it seems to overcome the ambiguity present in many of the other statutes quoted -established by a legal survey and used to delineate a boundary line- doesn't say anything about correctly delineating said boundary line. I also like the use of the word willfully rather than maliciously.

RRain

Avatar

Thanks Mr Mapit

by Kent McMillan @, Austin, TX, Friday, August 06, 2010, 19:56 (1761 days ago) @ Randy Rain

I like the wording of the Arkansas statute, "a) Any person who willfully cuts down, destroys, defaces, removes, or carries off any
witness tree, monument, or other landmark established by legal survey and used to delineate a boundary line is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.", it seems to overcome the ambiguity present in many of the other statutes quoted -established by a legal survey and used to delineate a boundary line- doesn't say anything about correctly delineating said boundary line.

Well, if it isn't used, i.e. if the adjoining owners agree that the original monument is what they will use, since it is the true corner of their properties, then there is nothing in the Arkansas statute that would prevent removing the unused survey marker, is there? Furthermore, if the survey that established the unused survey marker wasn't in conformance with the laws of Arkansas governing surveying, presumably it wasn't a legal survey in the full sense of the word, either, and could be lawfully removed on those grounds as well.

--
Best regards,
Kent McMillan, RPLS Austin TX

Avatar

Did you guys

by Randy Rain @, Sanderson Florida, Friday, August 06, 2010, 20:08 (1761 days ago) @ Kent McMillan

hear something. I thought for sure that I heard something.

Avatar

I found three monuments this last survey

by Paul Plutae @, Glendale, Friday, August 06, 2010, 20:08 (1761 days ago) @ Kent McMillan

That had 'justifiable removal' written all over them. I did not remove them. I did prepare an RS stating total rejection of them though. I think that is a much better way to get the point across of so called monuments set in a careless fashion. Leave the offending piece of junk in the ground and make it public record for all to see. I has a much bigger impact when the registrants tag number is visible on the RS and the monument.

Avatar

Yes, California is a recording state

by Kent McMillan @, Austin, TX, Friday, August 06, 2010, 20:15 (1761 days ago) @ Paul Plutae

I did not remove them. I did prepare an RS stating total rejection of them though. I think that is a much better way to get the point across of so called monuments set in a careless fashion. Leave the offending piece of junk in the ground and make it public record for all to see. I has a much bigger impact when the registrants tag number is visible on the RS and the monument.

Yes, in California where you're going to file a record of survey anyway, there isn't much of a cost associated with leaving confusions in place. It still would have been more professional if the junk markers were clearly of no redeeming value to have removed them and referenced their positions on the ROS, were the California BOR not so keen to perpetuate multiple boundary markers at all costs.

--
Best regards,
Kent McMillan, RPLS Austin TX

Avatar

Other parties were involved

by Paul Plutae @, Glendale, Friday, August 06, 2010, 20:24 (1761 days ago) @ Kent McMillan

Specifically the neighbors on either side of two of the erroneously placed markers. I do not know what their opinion is of the markers or even if they know of their existence. So it's best to leave them as they are. The third monument was a city placed spike that was supposed to be at a PRC, the city missed that by 2.4'. I might add that I do know who set the two private markers. I did not recognize his tag number when I saw it on the markers but when I looked it up I said “Ohh it’s Jerry. No wonder those are so far out of place” I had rejected them prior to discovering who set them.

Avatar

That's what I'm talking about

by Randy Rain @, Sanderson Florida, Friday, August 06, 2010, 20:20 (1761 days ago) @ Paul Plutae

Observe and report. Opinions are just that opinions. Including the OPINION that a particular monument is original or not.

RRain

RSS Feed of thread