The Stone, the Pin, and the Fence
An Ozark County landowner asks you to retrace the east half of a quarter-quarter section before selling it. The 1874 GLO plat calls for a limestone at the quarter corner, 18 by 12 by 6 inches, with a bearing tree 14 inches in diameter, oak, north 62 degrees east 21 links. You find a buried weathered limestone matching the size and a charred oak stump roughly in the bearing-tree position. The stone lies 0.38 ft south of the position computed from the nearest accepted section corners. A 1999 survey set a 5/8-inch rebar with cap 2.1 ft north of the stone and built the neighbor's fence to that pin. The deed calls 'to the quarter corner, thence east 1,320 feet.' The neighbor has used the strip up to the fence for a garden for 18 years and says the pin controls. The seller wants a plat showing the fence as the boundary to avoid a dispute.
1. Rank the boundary evidence and explain how you would treat the 1874 stone, the 1999 rebar, and the fence. What would you do before accepting or rejecting the stone?
Read the worked answer
Boundary retracement follows a hierarchy, not a vote. An original government monument, or evidence of its original location, outranks a later surveyor's monument, which outranks occupation. The limestone matches the GLO calls in material, size, and bearing-tree relation; a 0.38-ft offset from a computed position is well within the uncertainty of the original survey and the later corners. Before accepting it, I would excavate around it, check for original markings, search for the bearing tree or its stump, compare the 1874 notes and plat, and obtain the 1999 surveyor's file to see why the pin was set. I would not reject the stone merely because a rebar is nearby. The 1999 pin is a later, subordinate monument; it may be evidence of a boundary line but cannot displace an original corner. The fence is occupation. It can support a legal claim such as adverse possession or boundary by acquiescence, but those are legal conclusions with elements a surveyor does not decide. I would locate and tie all three and explain the conflict in the report.
2. Assume you accept the stone. How should the boundary line and the 1999 pin appear on your plat and report, and what minimum-standard documentation would you include?
Read the worked answer
On the plat I would show the accepted limestone as the corner, with a tie to a new witness monument or a new monument set alongside without disturbing the original. I would show the 1999 rebar as a found monument, labeled 'not accepted as corner,' with distance and bearing from the stone. The fence and garden would be shown as occupation, not as the boundary. The report would state the basis: GLO plat and notes, found stone and accessories, measurements, the computed position, the 0.38-ft discrepancy, the 1999 survey, and the occupation. I would include the research list, field notes, traverse closure, area, deed versus measured calls, and signature and seal. If the client wants the fence shown, I can show it as a physical feature and explain why it is not the deed line; I would not label it as the boundary.
3. The seller insists on showing the fence as the boundary. How do you respond professionally, and what Missouri minimum-standards or statutory issues arise if you comply?
Read the worked answer
I would not certify the fence as the boundary. The client can ask me to survey the occupation line and prepare a map of existing improvements, clearly titled and noted as not a boundary survey, if that is useful. But if the deliverable is a property boundary survey, Missouri minimum standards require research, field work, monumentation, closure, a plat or report, and the surveyor's independent professional judgment. Signing a boundary plat that contradicts the best evidence would be misrepresentation. I would explain that adverse possession and boundary by acquiescence are legal theories for the client's attorney; a surveyor can furnish evidence and measurements but cannot award title. I would document the client's request in the file and offer to meet with the neighbor and counsel. If the client insists on a false boundary certification, I would decline the boundary work.