Can Temporary Wooden Stakes or Lath with Ribbon Be Removed from the Property Line

[Zigner]

3. Any person who violates the provisions of this section is liable for the cost of reestablishment of permanent monuments or markers by a registered land surveyor.

You are misinterpreting what you are reading. "permanent monuments or markers" mean that either is permanent. There is no way that a small wooden stake or small plastic flag in the ground can be confused with anything "permanent" using the plain-English interpretation of the word, as is required when it is not specifically defined. The OP is not contemplating removing the "permanent" (below-ground) markers that the surveyor placed.

[budwad]

I disagree. The or does not refer back to permanent. What is the difference between a monument (which is permanent) and a marker that can be anything the surveyor marks in the course of a survey?

[PayrolGuy]

I disagree. The or does not refer back to permanent. What is the difference between a monument (which is permanent) and a marker that can be anything the surveyor marks in the course of a survey?

I agree that permanent is an adjective modifying both monument and marker.

[Zigner]

I disagree. The or does not refer back to permanent. What is the difference between a monument (which is permanent) and a marker that can be anything the surveyor marks in the course of a survey?

We'll have to agree to disagree. In any case, the OP already has a response from a poster who purports to be a Land Surveyor who has weighed in on the subject.

[budwad]

I know Landsurveyor for years and I respect his opinion most of the time these days. I responded to his post. The fact is though that the statute stands on its own.

Answer the question:

So for those of you who think the statute only applies to permanent markers I guess you think that you can walk onto a construction site and remove all or any of the stakes and flags that mark where corners, roads, houses, and elevations are without being liable to pay to have them replaced?

[Zigner]

Your analogy is flawed. What you are describing is vandalism and yes, one can expect to have to pay for the vandalism they perform.

What we're talking about in THIS thread is a private landowner removing temporary markings from their own property.

[budwad]

We are speaking of the removal of surveyor stakes aren't we in the contest of the statute? Why do you think that it is vandalism? If a neighbor destroyers survey stakes how is that not covered by the statute?

A land owner who wants to know where his boundary line is does not have to have permanent markers installed. So he pays for the survey and the surveyor places stakes and ribbons to denote the boundary line. Maybe the land owner wants to put up a fence. Then a neighbor removes the markers because he disagrees with where the stakes are placed. You think that the statute does not apply because the surveyor didn't place permanent markers. You are incorrect.

What we're talking about in THIS thread is a private landowner removing temporary markings from their own property.

No actually we are talking about markers that are placed on a boundary line. That is not the property owners land nor is it the neighbors. It is a demarcation of where the two properties meet.

I would suggest that you do some research about the words or and and when it comes to strict construction in statute law.

[PayrolGuy]

A land owner who wants to know where his boundary line is does not have to have permanent markers installed.

But the one in this discussion did have permanent markers installed.

[LandSurveyor]

No actually we are talking about markers that are placed on a boundary line. That is not the property owners land nor is it the neighbors.

In your previous post you suggested that temporary construction markers placed on a construction site by a licensed surveyor to indicate building location, elevations, etc. were protected by the same law as corner marks. Now you are limiting this to boundary lines. Is that correct?

Are you aware that many if not all temporary marks set on the ground at a construction site can be set by non-licensed persons?

[budwad]

In your previous post you suggested that temporary construction markers placed on a construction site by a licensed surveyor to indicate building location, elevations, etc. were protected by the same law as corner marks. Now you are limiting this to boundary lines. Is that correct?

That is not what I am saying. I was responding to Zigner where it was said that the stakes were on OP's property. If the stakes were on OP's property it wouldn't be the boundary line would it?

Are you aware that many if not all temporary marks set on the ground at a construction site can be set by non-licensed persons?

Yes, I am aware of that. I can place stakes on my own land if I chose to. But I think that anyone that goes through the trouble of going to school to become a surveyor would get their license and be registered. And according to the statute we are discussing,