Retracement of a 1925 Plantation Lot with Conflicting Calls
You are retracing Lot 12 of the Kilohana subdivision on Kauai, created by a 1925 plat. The deed begins at an iron pin at the makai corner, runs N 12°30′ E 250.00 ft to a stone mound, then 200.00 ft to the edge of a county road. You recover the iron pin and a 3-ft basalt mound that matches the deed's description. Your total-station measurement from pin to mound is 248.62 ft on a bearing of N 12°47′ E. The mound is also called for as a corner of Lot 11, and a 1968 registered survey map shows the same mound. The road right-of-way is 40 ft wide, monumented by county pins on centerline. The client wants the lot area maximized and asks whether you can hold the record 250.00 ft and the record bearing to push the line makai.
1. Which evidence controls the location of the lot line-the record bearing and distance or the recovered stone mound? Explain the hierarchy of evidence and how the 1968 map affects your judgment.
Read the worked answer
The recovered original monument controls over the record course. The stone mound is a called-for monument, it is corroborated by Lot 11's deed, and it appears on a 1968 registered survey map. Those facts strongly support the conclusion that the mound is the original corner and has not been disturbed. The record bearing and distance are subordinate calls; they describe the line but do not override a found original monument. The 1968 map is useful corroboration and evidence of long acceptance, but it is not a new legal line. The iron pin at the beginning is also an original monument and should be held. The road centerline monuments provide a check on the overall position but do not justify rotating the common line to maximize area. A surveyor retraces the boundary; the surveyor does not relocate it to favor the client.
2. If the mound is accepted, how should you handle the 1.38 ft distance discrepancy and the 17′ bearing difference? Would you proportionally adjust the line? Why or why not?
Read the worked answer
Hold the mound and record the measured bearing and distance between the recovered monuments. The 1.38 ft difference is a record-versus-measured discrepancy, not a license to hold the record distance. The 17′ bearing difference is small enough to be explained by a different bearing basis-magnetic bearing with unrecorded declination, a different reference meridian, or early instrument limitations-and it does not by itself prove the mound is wrong. Proportional adjustment is a method for re-establishing a lost corner between found original monuments; it is not applied to a found, undisturbed original corner. If both endpoints are original, the line is the line between them. Area is residual and subordinate to the monument. Document the measured values, the record values, and the basis for accepting the mound so a later reader can follow the reasoning.
3. Suppose the landowner produces evidence that the stone mound was rebuilt by a bulldozer in 1970 after being knocked over. How does that change your analysis and what would you do next?
Read the worked answer
If the mound was rebuilt in 1970, it is not the original monument and loses its controlling status. The record calls, the 1968 map ties, and any remaining original evidence then become more important. I would search for remnants of the original stone or an original pit, examine the 1968 map for ties to other monuments, and look for the iron pin and road monuments to reconstruct the original position. If the original corner position can be established from undisturbed original monuments, I would hold that position. If the corner is truly lost, I would re-establish it by proportionate measure between the nearest original monuments, using the record distances, and clearly label it as a calculated or re-established corner. I would not treat the 1970 pile as original simply because it is old.