Crosswords, Sudokus, Cryptoquotes, and Boundary Retracements

2018 PSLS Annual Surveyors Conference; Hershey, PA Crosswords, Sudokus, Cryptoquotes, and Boundary Retracements Question: Which option best describes your credentials: 1) PLS 2) LSIT 3) Esq. 4) Surveying student or technician 5) Law student 1

Puzzle: a game or problem designed to test ingenuity or knowledge Difficulty Levels from: 1 star to 4 star Follow the clues, solve the puzzle, support your conclusions Evidence (clues) of footprints 2

the Footsteps of the Original Surveyor Fundamental phrase (rule) familiar to those of us in the retracement business. Why is this rule so important to our profession? Because the Courts have decided it to be so! Why did Courts decide such a thing? Because it is one of the strongest clues to the question of intent! So we search for clues (evidence of Footsteps) accordingly. the Footsteps of the Original Surveyor Therefore: Boundary location is mostly about law and history. And measurements are taken to assist in locating, and for the purpose of documenting the boundary once it is located. 3

The Search for Evidence (clues) of Footsteps PAPER (deeds, adjoiners deeds, chain of title, aerial photography, recorded or unrecorded plans, etc.) PEOPLE (parties to subdivision, local landowners, ones that know the history, old folks have special value) LAND SURFACE (recorded or unrecorded monuments, possession lines, blazed trees, etc.) INTRODUCTIONS 4

Speaker: Gregory Clark From northwest Pennsylvania Licensed PLS for 35 some years Primary focus on land boundaries past 30 years or so Boundary retracements Expert testimony in court about 10 occasions Favorite word is WHY Hobby: Agriculture Question: Which option best describes your boundary retracement experience: 1) Less than 5 years of retracement experience 2) 5 years or more of retracement experience 3) Served as an Expert Witness for boundary retracement once 4) Served as an Expert Witness for boundary retracement more than once 5

The Most Interesting Man in the World probably a Surveyor. Surveying: A most interesting profession HISTORY research ARCHAEOLOGY PAST TECHNOLOGY sciences/engineering neat tools LAW land ownership boundary principles DENDROLOGY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT best use of land surface create boundaries FUTURE ORGANIZED SOCIETY chaos without boundaries 6

BOUNDARIES AND LANDMARKS by A. C. Mulford 1912 Reprint Preface gathering all evidence available is necessary for the best solution there are no clear answers to most retracement problems surveyors facts of life: (1) there are few fixed rules (2) the watchwords are Patience and Common Sense Hoping for: Interaction and discussion among those of us in attendance 7

Question: As a retracement surveyors; our primary responsibility is to determine location of which of the following: 1) Ownership boundaries? 2) Deed description boundaries? 3) Possession boundaries? 4) Title boundaries? 5) Nearest blackberry patch? The plan is to Review Opinion and Court Order of Distefano v Moore No. 222 CD 2013 And in the process discuss the elements of: 1. Intent, 2. Deed reference to unrecorded plan, 3. Possession, 4. Actions of parties during conveyance, 5. Actions subsequent to deed, 6. Mutual mistake of fact, 7. Sufficient evidence. 8

Why this particular case? It touches on: 1. Extrinsic evidence 2. Significance of adjoiners deeds, 3. Actions of the parties, 4. Clearly distinguishes deed staking v. boundary retracement, 5. Phone call April, 2017 The plan is also to 1. Discuss importance of collecting/analyzing sufficient evidence, 2. Understand how boundary case law guides the surveyor, 3. Realize the value of effective communication 4. Discuss the two sets of principles retracement surveyors follow (measuring boundaries & locating boundaries) 9

GOALS Understand the importance of collecting/analyzing sufficient evidence when performing boundary retracement Understand the role of pertinent case law regarding boundaries Understand the value of effective communication between attorney, client, and surveyor Define concisely the function of a Boundary Retracement Surveyor Retracements Surveys are not all the same Each boundary has a unique story to tell Each provides the surveyor a new experience Each leads us to search for clues in new places Each allows us to walk new places Some more challenging than others Variety makes our profession interesting 10

A time machine would be a good tool to have. Easier to follow footsteps that are fresh on the ground. Especially cases when we stir the pot of evidence and no solution rises to the surface. To be able to go directly to the parties of a subdivision to answer the question of intent?! Boundary Retracement Difficulty Levels Origin < 30 years, (the boundary isn t that old), Survey performed & monuments set at time of subdivision, Original monuments found, Description(s) confirm position of monuments, Original parties available. Challenge 11

Challenge Boundary Retracement Difficulty Levels Origin 30-50 years, Description(s) mathematically? Some monuments found as described, Some monuments found but not as described, Original parties no longer available, Challenge Boundary Retracement Difficulty Levels Origin 50-300 years, Monuments scarce or not existing, Standards followed by original surveyor unknown, Description(s) less likely to reflect intent of parties, 12

Challenge Boundary Retracement Difficulty Levels Origin any time, Land surface disturbed in vicinity (surface mining etc), No referencing of evidence prior to disturbing, Deeds in vicinity describe boundaries by adjoiners, Boundary Retracement Difficulty Levels Land surface changes with time, Standards of measuring change with time, Lack of foresight by original parties or subsequent owners, Human nature (tendency to be more concerned with here and now, and less about future generations/centuries) diamonds, and boundaries, are forever, Monuments not protected/respected, Challenge A few reasons boundary retracement can be challenging Public misunderstanding (often have no perception of principles of boundary retracement) Strange assumption that surveyors are super miracle workers (just average run-of-the-mill miracle workers) 13

ROAD 1/5/2018 BACKGROUND TO THE CASE (History) FARM LINE WEISER RESIDUAL CONVEYED TO MOORE 1982 1983 DISTEFANO 329 x265 SKETCH OF THE LAND (NOT TO SCALE) WEISER COMMON GRANTOR 1979 MOORE (defendant) 270 x200 1977 BAUER 222 x209 1976 SIEGEL 218 x208 1977 DISTEFANO (plaintiff) 220 x248 14

TIME LINE (deeds) 1/5/1989 W. Moore to L. Kahle 1 ac 12/29/1959 A. Weiser to P. Weiser parent tract 9/17/1976 P. Weiser to R. Siegel 218 x208 7/8/1977 P. Weiser to V. & A. Distefano 1.25 ac 11/4/1977 P. Weiser to G. Bauer 209 x222 6/26/1979 P. Weiser to W. Moore 1.24 ac 11/8/1982 P. Weiser to W. Moore residual with exceptions!!! 6/8/1983 P. Weiser to V. Distefano 2 ac Plaintiff s Exhibit 1 UNRECORDED MAP DATED 6/17/82 MENTIONED IN 1983 DEED FOR 2 AC. Discovered after completion of surveys and shortly before court date 15

Plaintiff s Exhibit 2 Distefano Deed 1977 Plaintiff s Exhibit 3 248 x 220 1.25 Acres 16

Distefano Deed 1977 Plaintiff s Exhibit 3 248 x 220 1.25 Acres Distefano Deed 1983 Plaintiff s Exhibit 5 CONTAINING 2 acres as surveyed by DRC on June 17, 1982 17

Distefano Deed 1983 Plaintiff s Exhibit 5 Siegel Deed 1976 Plaintiff s Exhibit 6 218 x 208 1.04 Acres 18

Siegel Deed 1976 Plaintiff s Exhibit 6 218 x 208 1.04 Acres Moore Deed 1979 Plaintiff s Exhibit 7 100 & 100 270 x 200 1.24 Acre 19

Moore Deed 1979 Plaintiff s Exhibit 7 100 & 100 270 x 200 1.24 Acre Bauer Deed 1977 222 x 209 20

Bauer Deed 1977 222 x 209 Moore Deed 1982 Agreement of Sale mentioned 21

Moore Deed 1982 Agreement of Sale mentioned MODIFIED TIME LINE (deeds) 1/5/1989 W. Moore to L. Kahle 1 ac survey map attached?? 12/29/1959 A. Weiser to P. Weiser parent tract 9/17/1976 P. Weiser to R. Siegel 218 x208 7/8/1977 P. Weiser to V. & A. Distefano 1.25 ac??? Sales agreement??? 11/4/1977 P. Weiser to G. Bauer 209 x222 6/26/1979 P. Weiser to W. Moore 1.24 ac 11/8/1982 P. Weiser to W. Moore residual with exceptions!!! 6/8/1983 P. Weiser to V. Distefano 2 ac Mention of sales agreement dated 6/24/1982 in deed to W. Moore dated 11/8/1982 22

THE CASE OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT September 12, 2014 THE CASE OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT September 12, 2014 5 parts 1. BACKGROUND 2. FACTS 3. DISCUSSION 4. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 5. ORDER 23

Page 1 Page 2 Surveyor 1 >> intended 24

Page 3 intended intent intent intention intended intent Three surveyors provided expert testimony Surveyor 1: performed survey for Plaintiff in 2006 but testified for Defendant in 2014 Surveyor 2: performed survey for Plaintiff in 2011 and testified for Plaintiff in 2014 Surveyor 3: performed survey for Defendant in 2013 and testified for Defendant in 2014 25

TIME LINE (period of controversy) 2006 Surveyor #1 performed survey for Plaintiff (Distefano) Defendant (Moore) commenced to occupied land to lines per Surveyor #1 (letters were exchanged) 2011 Surveyor #2 performed survey for Plaintiff (Distefano) 2013 Surveyor #3 performed survey for Defendant (Moore) 6/2014 Boundary dispute argued in Court 9/12/2014 Opinion and Order of Court issued Surveyor 2 >> Page 4 Plaintiff s Exhibit 2 (miniaturized & colored) also referred to as Court Exhibit 1 26

Page 5 *** << Surveyor 1 Page 6 Surveyor 2 >> *** Surveyor 2 >> *** 27

Page 7 Surveyor 2 >> << Surveyor 2 Page 8 intent << Surveyor 2 Surveyor 1 >> *** << Surveyor 3 Surveyor 1 >> << Surveyor 1 << Surveyor 3 << Surveyor 1 28

Page 9 intent *** intended mutual mistake intent *** Page 10 mutual mistake *** intent 29

Page 11 Page 11-A Plaintiff s Exhibit 2 (miniaturized & colored) referred to as Court Exhibit 1 30

Page 12 Page 13 31

End of the case Return from break Question: which represents title boundary separating tracts? 1) A. 2) B. A. POSSESSION ALONG CURVE (TREE LINE/FENCE/STONE ROW) MONUMENT B. STRAIGHT LINE BETWEEN MONUMENTS MONUMENT 32

ROAD 1/5/2018 FARM LINE WEISER RESIDUAL CONVEYED TO MOORE 1982 1983 DISTEFANO 329 x265 SKETCH OF THE LAND (NOT TO SCALE) WEISER COMMON GRANTOR 1979 MOORE (defendant) 270 x200 1977 BAUER 222 x209 1976 SIEGEL 218 x208 1977 DISTEFANO (plaintiff) 220 x248 Recap of the case points of interest 1977 Distefano deed (1.25 ac)didn t call for Siegel (1976) as north adjoiner. Map by Campbell dated 6/17/82 mentioned in 1983 Distefano deed not recorded and not available to any of the 3 surveyors. Map discovered in real estate office shortly before trial date. Plaintiff introduced map as evidence; Defense objected but judge overruled. 1982 Moore deed (Weiser residual) mentions agreement with Distefano (2 ac). Suggests 1 year from sales agreement to actual deed in 1983. This may indicate 1977 Distefano deed was first agreed to in 1976, or prior to Siegel deed. 1979 Moore deed (1.24 ac) gave description specifying dimensions along both Siegel and Distefano. Evidence there is no gap between. Deed staking (deed measurements only) of 1977 Distefano 1.25 ac would result in gap toward north (Siegel) 33

Recap of the case points of interest Deed staking of 1977 Distefano 1.25 ac deed would result in 0.65 acre area. Verdict: 1.184 acres. Row of spruce trees along Siegel were of a size to have been planted in 1977. Ruling that Plaintiff s intent (testimony) was clear and credible. Also clear from actions (Plaintiff s father planted row of spruce trees). Also clear from subsequent actions of the Developer (1979 deed to Defendant). Determining intent (solution to boundary location) required consideration of evidence beyond description in deed for the subject property. Recap of the case points of interest DEED DESCRIPTIONS and PHYSICAL LIMITS OF TITLE (intent) often do not agree. DEED REFORMATION adjusts, or corrects an erroneous description. if MUTUAL MISTAKE is clear, precise, convincing. 34

Questions: Are Deed Descriptions of subject property the only evidence of boundary location that should be considered in retracements? Are Deed Descriptions the best evidence to be considered when retracing? Is there a line we (Surveyors) should not cross in search for evidence of boundary location? Meeting of the Minds the Surveyor and the Client Is the Client anticipating one service, but the Surveyor providing another? Surveyor offers opinion of location, but location of what? 35

Meeting of the Minds the Surveyor and the Client 1) If offering opinion of boundary location per DEED DIMENSIONS, state as such. 2) If offering opinion of boundary location per TITLE (intent), state as such. Client likely can not distinguish between the two. Both may be virtually the same. Or they may be distinctly different. Court exhibit 1 36

QUESTION: If requested to perform a survey knowing a controversy exists do you tend to: 1) Turn down the client to avoid the controversy? 2) Accept the job knowing the circumstances? GOALS 37

GOALS Understand the importance of collecting/analyzing sufficient evidence when performing boundary retracement Understand the role of pertinent case law regarding boundaries Understand the value of effective communication between attorney, client, and surveyor Define concisely the function of a Boundary Retracement Surveyor GOALS EVIDENCE 38

THE DEED THE DESCRIPTION IN A CLIENT S DEED IS OFTEN ONE OF THE FIRST PIECES OF EVIDENCE EVALUATED WHEN PERFORMING A RETRACEMENT SURVEY QUESTION: 1) Do you require client or attorney to provide any/all record information utilized in performance of survey? 2) Do you typically perform records research yourself? 3) Do you contract records research with third party; abstractor, etc. 39

?? A DEED IS A DEED IS A DEED?? DEED DESCRIPTIONS ARE NOT ALL CREATED EQUALLY WHO WROTE THE DESCRIPTION? LAYPERSON? LANDOWNER? SURVEYOR? ATTORNEY? HOW LONG AGO WAS IT WRITTEN? WAS IT WRITTEN ACCORDING TO ACCURATE SURVEY MEASUREMENTS? DOES THE DESCRIPTION MENTION MONUMENTS? IS THE DESCRIPTION MATHEMATICALLY CORRECT? ETC.?? A DEED IS A DEED IS A DEED?? DEED DESCRIPTIONS ARE NOT ALL CREATED EQUALLY MATHEMATICAL CORRECTNESS IS NO GUARANTEE OF BOUNDARY LOCATION GENERALLY, MONUMENTS (when existing) CONTROL OVER MEASUREMENTS MEASUREMENTS HAVE ERROR; (science) IF CALLED-FOR MONUMENT IS NO LONGER EXISTING, THEN WHERE WAS IT ORIGINALLY? THEORY: OBJECTIVE IS TO DETERMINE BOUNDARY (corner) LOCATIONS AND THEN MEASURE BETWEEN TO DESCRIBE THE PROPERTY DEPENDING ON QUALITY OF DESCRIPTION, DEED DIMENSIONS ARE OFTEN USED ONLY AS A LAST RESORT TO DETERMINE PHYSICAL LOCATION OF BOUNDARY 40

?? A DEED IS A DEED IS A DEED?? DEED DESCRIPTIONS ARE NOT ALL CREATED EQUALLY THE BIG QUESTION!! DOES THE DESCRIPTION ADEQUATELY REFLECT THE INTENT OF THE ORIGINAL GRANTOR/GRANTEE CONCERNING BOUNDARY LOCATION? Who better to judge this than the boundary surveyor? Why search deed descriptions back to boundary origin: Look for typographical errors Look for transcription errors Could be a dozen re-conveyances after the first; Does each rewriting agree with the first? 41

still: Was the first description error free? The true boundary location is as etched on the ground by original parties The description is an attempt to transcribe to paper those etchings on the ground. A few examples of evidence that may be considered when performing a boundary retracement survey Deed description Testimony of parties creating line Adjoiners Deeds Descriptions in chain to boundary origin Testimony of area residents Physical Objects; Monuments, Possession Lines, Recorded and Unrecorded Maps and Plans 42

A question the retracement surveyor must answer: At what point am I satisfied I have collected and analyzed sufficient evidence in order to arrive at a defendable opinion regarding boundary location? Do Possession Lines Indicate Original Intent of Boundary Location? LIMIT OF OWNERSHIP MUTUALLY RESPECTED BY NEIGHBORS ON GROUND GIVING INDICATION WHEN STEPPING ACROSS FENCES HEDGES TREE LINES ETC 43

Do Possession Lines Indicate Original Intent of Boundary Location? AGE IS IMPORTANT IS POSSESSION LINE ANCIENT? CAN POSSESSION LINE BE TRACED BACK TO CREATION OF BOUNDARY? DO ORIGINAL MONUMENTS EXIST CONTRADICTING POSSESSION? DO DEED MEASUREMENTS APPROXIMATE POSSESSION? ETC Do Possession Lines Indicate Original Intent of Boundary Location? FROM WEBINAR BY KNUD HERMANSEN NOVEMBER, 2016 44

GOALS CASE LAW Exerpt from: AUTHOR S PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION, Knud Hermansen Boundary Retracement and Procedures for Pennsylvania Principles, the backbone of this document, are not rules that are to be followed in all cases, or without verification. Rather, they are rules of law that must be followed unless the contrary can be shown or proven. Principles are rules that are employed as required to be consistent and impartial, and frequently, they are the only alternative to confusion. In other words, without clear or express guidance otherwise, the surveyor should adhere to the principles of law. The surveyor should be knowledgeable and confident enough to question each principle. 45

QUESTION: Do you research boundary case law: 1) Never 2) Occasionally 3) Frequently 4) Nearly Always 5) Always case law Provides basis for extent of allowable discretion/extent of liberties in evidence Guide toward general priorities (hierarchy) of evidence INTENT is the key word Provides examples of rulings under similar circumstances 46

case law Example 1: Lodge v Barnett, 48 Pa. 477 (1864) Where the objects called for in a deed, or the places where such objects stood are found, they will control case law Example 2: Will v Piper, 184 Pa.Super. 313, 134 A.2d 41 (1957) In determining correct boundaries of land, method of locating lines by courses and distances may result in manifest error, and when it does this method should not be employed. 47

case law Example 3: Sweigart v Richards, 8 Pa. 436 (1848) the [retracement] distances in some of the lines [are] to be lengthened beyond the perches mentioned in the patent. But this is a circumstance so common in the early surveys, as to be of itself of small moment. case law Example 4: Ryan v Hudak, 409 Pa. 211, 185 A.2d 570 (1962) intent In determining the intent of the parties, the court may consider subsequent acts of the parties tending to show the construction that they themselves placed upon the writing. 48

case law Example 5: McCausland v Fleming, 63 Pa. 36 (1869) Pedigree and boundary are the excepted cases wherein reputation and hearsay of deceased persons are received In evidence. (an interesting bit of information) case law Example 5: LONG RUN TIMBER CO v DEPT. OF CONSERVATION; 145 A.3d 1217 (2016) ascertain the intent intention intent intended 49

case law Example 5: LONG RUN TIMBER CO v DEPT. OF CONSERVATION; 145 A.3d 1217 (2016) purpose of the adjudicator is to ascertain intent of the grantor at the time of the original Resort is to be had First to natural objects Next to artificial monuments Then to adjacent boundaries And thereafter to courses and distances BUT case law Example 5: LONG RUN TIMBER CO v DEPT. OF CONSERVATION; 145 A.3d 1217 (2016) rules of construction with regard to boundaries not imperative or exclusive but aids in determining intention of the parties yield to a contrary showing AND 50

case law Example 5: LONG RUN TIMBER CO v DEPT. OF CONSERVATION; 145 A.3d 1217 (2016) these rules (of construction) do not apply where monument claimed is so manifestly wrong as to lead to an absurd result (self explanatory) case law Example 5: LONG RUN TIMBER CO v DEPT. OF CONSERVATION; 145 A.3d 1217 (2016) before physical monument is accepted as a boundary, there must be evidence that the monument was intended for that purpose which may be shown if mentioned in deeds or any past parties erected it to mark boundary (a monument may be valid whether or not mentioned in deed) 51

case law Example 5: LONG RUN TIMBER CO v DEPT. OF CONSERVATION; 145 A.3d 1217 (2016) general rules will yield where, in any given case, a consideration of all the facts and circumstances shows that one method would be the more reliable or certain (re-stating that general rules of construction are not always imperative or exclusive) General principles 1. Natural monuments 2. Artificial monuments 3. Calls for adjoiners 4. Bearing & distances (measurements) 5. Area or quantity (Order of importance) 52

GOALS EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION QUESTION: In addition to a map, do you prepare a narrative report: 1) Never 2) Occasionally 3) Frequently 4) Nearly always 5) Always 53

QUESTION: Do you make yourself available to adjoiners and other interested parties regarding boundary information: 1) Never 2) Occasionally 3) Frequently 4) Nearly Always 5) Always When retracing a boundary, have you ever been asked: Where was your starting point? or You use GPS, don t you? (client making assumptions) 54

Retracement Surveying: Perhaps the most misunderstood profession Why? General public often think they have fundamental notion of what it is we do. Perhaps because it is common to own a tape measure. We perform our services on the land; people live on the land; something in common?? Better to have no notion than a wrong notion. Retracement Surveying: Perhaps the most misunderstood profession We should be careful not to perpetuate common misconceptions. Effective communication, written or oral, can be challenging. 55

Communication between attorney, client, and surveyor (and adjoiners) Effective communication has value; and especially essential in cases of boundary dispute Communication between attorney, client, and surveyor (and adjoiners) Effective communication has value; and especially essential in cases of boundary dispute Prepare narrative report; especially in cases of potential boundary dispute (describe elements leading to conclusion of boundary location) 56

Communication between attorney, client, and surveyor (and adjoiners) Effective communication has value; and especially essential in cases of boundary dispute Prepare narrative report; especially in cases of potential boundary dispute (describe elements leading to conclusion of boundary location) Client and Attorney likely cannot distinguish between deed staking and boundary surveying (explaining the difference can be difficult) Communication between attorney, client, and surveyor (and adjoiners) Effective communication has value; and especially essential in cases of boundary dispute Prepare narrative report; especially in cases of potential boundary dispute (describe elements leading to conclusion of boundary location) Client and Attorney likely cannot distinguish between deed staking and boundary surveying (explaining the difference can be difficult) If preparing for day in court insist on pre-trial conference with Client and Attorney (know the questions and be prepared to answer) (don t assume any to be mind readers) (credibility is at stake) (surveyor may have to help attorney with specific wording of questions) 57

Communication between attorney, client, and surveyor (and adjoiners) Effective communication has value; and especially essential in cases of boundary dispute Prepare narrative report; especially in cases of potential boundary dispute (describe elements leading to conclusion of boundary location) Client and Attorney likely cannot distinguish between deed staking and boundary surveying (explaining the difference can be difficult) If preparing for day in court insist on pre-trial conference with Client and Attorney (know the questions and be prepared to answer) (don t assume any to be mind readers) (credibility is at stake) (surveyor may have to help attorney with specific wording of questions) A less correct opinion of boundary location may at times prevail over the more correct (ability to communicate can be a factor) GOALS FUNCTION OF RETRACEMENT SURVEYOR 58

Act 367 Registration Law (page 4) 59

Boundary may be: physical limit of possession. physical limit of ownership. physical limit of title. physical limit of deed dimensions. All may coincide, or each may be separate and distinct. Question: As a retracement surveyor; your primary responsibility is to determine location of which of the following: 1) Ownership boundaries. 2) Deed description boundaries. 3) Possession boundaries. 4) Title boundaries. 5) Nearest blackberry patch. 60

Define concisely the function of a Boundary Retracement Surveyor (20 words or less) o o o Define concisely the function of a Boundary Retracement Surveyor o Determine boundary location as intended by party(s) that first created the line. One person s short answer 61

Property Boundary: As retracement surveyors, our primary focus is on the physical reestablishing of lines on the ground as intended by original parties to indicate boundary location. or Title Boundaries A Few Things to Consider When Retracing Each of us develop a process or set of basic rules that work for us. The number of variations can be as many as are in this room. These basic rules allow us to have a semblance of consistency. Without claiming any one set of rules is better than another, allow me to express a few basic rules that work for me. 62

A Few Things to Consider When Retracing At the top of the list: Perform each boundary retracement with the awareness you may have to defend your conclusions in court. Seldom is there a dispute, and rarely does a dispute end in court. But this rule gives incentive to be thorough in the search for evidence. Be able to explain viable reason for opinion. A Few Things to Consider When Retracing 2: Survey each boundary of the property individually Each has its own history and pieces of evidence to consider. Each affects a different neighbor. Helps open the mind to otherwise neglected information. 63

A Few Things to Consider When Retracing 3: Perform work without bias or prejudice Each boundary is also the neighbors boundary. Client is paying the bill, but obligation is to footsteps and posterity. Act as if the boundary itself is paying for my services. A Few Things to Consider When Retracing 4: Locate a common line as if employed by both client and adjoiner Increase chance of discovering potential dispute areas. Better serves the client, and community More thorough knowledge of entire neighborhood. That adjoiner may be a future client. 64

A Few Things to Consider When Retracing 5: always remember: Opinions of location can be argued Available to neighbor(s) to explain/discuss outcome. If dispute, encourage sharing data with neighbor s Surveyor. Be open to consider new evidence if presented by others. Who better to sort through factors of location than Surveyors? Effective communication can promote satisfactory outcome. CLOSING 65

CLOSE WITH A FEW EXCERPTS FROM A FAVORITE BOOK BOUNDARIES AND LANDMARKS by A. C. Mulford 1912 BOUNDARIES AND LANDMARKS by A. C. Mulford 1912 Reprint Preface gathering all evidence available is necessary for the best solution there are no clear answers to most retracement problems surveyors facts of life: (1) there are few fixed rules (2) the watchwords are Patience and Common Sense 66

BOUNDARIES AND LANDMARKS by A. C. Mulford 1912 collect all data possible and the rest is largely a matter of common sense If, however, the evidence for and against re-locating an old line in a certain place is evenly divided conference of all parties should be arranged way of preserving the peace BOUNDARIES AND LANDMARKS by A. C. Mulford 1912 patience to collect all the evidence which can be found bearing upon the case at hand Patience and Common Sense Fire, flood and earthquake wipe out the greatest works of the engineer, but the land continueth forever profession of the Surveyor deals with one of the most fundamental facts of human society the possession and inheritance of land Curiously enough the Surveyor is isolated in his calling, and therein lie his responsibility and his temptations 67

BOUNDARIES AND LANDMARKS by A. C. MULFORD, 1912 The distance named will enable the Surveyor to tell when he approaches the near vicinity but the position of the corner should be determined from the sum total of evidence dimension named in the deed should be binding only in the case of lack of other trustworthy evidence BOUNDARIES AND LANDMARKS by A. C. MULFORD, 1912 do not mean by this that the matter should be gone at haphazard, but that the mind should be receptive no fixed rule of procedure can be laid down, and the realization of this seems to me to be the first step toward a right solution of problems of this nature hear all evidence and quick to analyze, arrange and weigh this evidence 68

BOUNDARIES AND LANDMARKS by A. C. MULFORD, 1912 More Exerpts from Mulford page 2 Loose, faulty and ignorant conveyances, the use of perishable landmarks or no landmarks at all and innumerable other things have conspired to render the boundaries of land the most uncertain of things BOUNDARIES AND LANDMARKS by A. C. MULFORD, 1912 More Exerpts from Mulford page 3 it is far more important to have a somewhat faulty measurement of the spot where the line truly exists than it is to have an extremely accurate measurement of the place where the line does not exist at all 69

BOUNDARIES AND LANDMARKS by A. C. MULFORD, 1912 More Exerpts from Mulford page 6 fundamental description of property the DEED, and it is necessary first to consider the nature and intention of this instrument in order to understand why it is so often disappointing and deficient from the surveyor s standpoint BOUNDARIES AND LANDMARKS by A. C. MULFORD, 1912 More Exerpts from Mulford page 8 endeavor to determine the boundaries of the land as originally intended to be conveyed 70

BOUNDARIES AND LANDMARKS by A. C. MULFORD, 1912 More Exerpts from Mulford page 55 a curious fact that a great many lawyers who are continually dealing with land transfers are ignorant of the simplest details of surveying the surveyor is probably equally ignorant of the law of property BOUNDARIES AND LANDMARKS by A. C. MULFORD, 1912 More Exerpts from Mulford page 89 the false or faulty survey may pass unchallenged through the years, for few but the Surveyor himself are qualified to judge it 71

BOUNDARIES AND LANDMARKS by A. C. MULFORD, 1912 More Exerpts from Mulford page 89 in the hands of the Surveyor, to an exceptional degree, lie the honor of the generations past and the welfare of the generations to come QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? DISCUSSION? 72

2018 PSLS Annual Surveyors Conference; Hershey, PA Crosswords, Sudokus, Cryptoquotes, and Boundary Retracements THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING 73