Dave Karoly, post: 350118, member: 94 wrote: I think those books are mostly obsolete. Anyone can go to the Law Library and read the law and secondary sources.....
Law libraries have much more in them than the recorder volumes. They are packed with books that discuss the ramifications of those many cases, juxtaposing complimentary and contradictory statements. Clark serves that purpose for the law of boundaries.
Dave Karoly, post: 350118, member: 94 wrote: I think those books are mostly obsolete. Anyone can go to the Law Library and read the law and secondary sources themselves and it can be printed to a convenient PDF that can be read in the comfort of your own home.. They don't need a book which is the law run through the mind of one lawyer from Georgia. Such a book is almost worse than useless.
Browns Boundary Control still has some usefulness as a basic discussion of types of descriptions, subdivisions and deed cuts.
Well, that's one opinion. However I'm reminded of Clark's role and standing in the legal community.
I also recall that for an "obsolete" book, it was recently cited in Dykes vs Arnold by the justices who relied on it for their ruling. For those who've drunk the koolaid being preached by other Georgia lawyers, it might be of interest to know that the justices could not come to a legal conclusion that reliance and acquiesence alone raised the status of monument to that of original. It was Clark that provided them with guidance to the Michigan case which declared that work of county surveyors could be equated as original.
clearcut, post: 350168, member: 297 wrote: Well, that's one opinion. However I'm reminded of Clark's role and standing in the legal community.
I also recall that for an "obsolete" book, it was recently cited in Dykes vs Arnold by the justices who relied on it for their ruling. For those who've drunk the koolaid being preached by other Georgia lawyers, it might be of interest to know that the justices could not come to a legal conclusion that reliance and acquiesence alone raised the status of monument to that of original. It was Clark that provided them with guidance to the Michigan case which declared that work of county surveyors could be equated as original.
Obviously it is necessary to read things critically.
For example, if Lucas's book is read (Lucas is from Alabama, incidentally), it's not prudent to just go out and do what it says on Page 134 without some knowledge of local law and practice. (I just pulled that page number out of the air, it doesn't mean anything in particular).
Mark Mayer, post: 350164, member: 424 wrote: Law libraries have much more in them than the recorder volumes. They are packed with books that discuss the ramifications of those many cases, juxtaposing complimentary and contradictory statements. Clark serves that purpose for the law of boundaries.
Hence my reference to secondary sources such as Miller&Starr California Real Estate.
I concede I may be wrong about Clark.
Dave Karoly, post: 350118, member: 94 wrote: I think those books are mostly obsolete. Anyone can go to the Law Library and read the law and secondary sources themselves and it can be printed to a convenient PDF that can be read in the comfort of your own home.. They don't need a book which is the law run through the mind of one lawyer from Georgia. Such a book is almost worse than useless.
Browns Boundary Control still has some usefulness as a basic discussion of types of descriptions, subdivisions and deed cuts.
"They don't need a book which is the law run through the mind of one lawyer from Georgia. Such a book is almost worse than useless."
Except for the fact that the attorneys still cite this as one of the most important "learned treatises" on the subject, and the author as one of the most respected surveyors ever. When you testify that you don't agree with some of the principles espoused in a book that is now in its 8th edition the opposing attorney will cut you to shreds. I think that the surveying community has been done a great disservice by the continued release of volume after volume.
Dave Karoly, post: 350202, member: 94 wrote: ...I concede I may be wrong about Clark.
Clark is a wonderful collection of surveying reference. I would caution anyone from accepting EVERYTHING that is collected in one place as the higher authority. Over the years I've come to disagree with a number of published Clark/ Robillardian theorems. But my disagreement on a few points doesn't necessarily mean there isn't still a wonderful amount of reference available between the book's covers.
Check your State's Law Library.
Dave Karoly, post: 350118, member: 94 wrote: I think those books are mostly obsolete. Anyone can go to the Law Library and read the law and secondary sources themselves and it can be printed to a convenient PDF that can be read in the comfort of your own home.. They don't need a book which is the law run through the mind of one lawyer from Georgia. Such a book is almost worse than useless.
Browns Boundary Control still has some usefulness as a basic discussion of types of descriptions, subdivisions and deed cuts.
I agree with you that improved access to the primary and secondary sources of law provides a superior way for either lawyer or practicing surveyor to gain a greater understanding of how a surveyor should consider evidence and apply boundary principles, but I don't quite agree that books like Clark or the Brown books are obsolete.
How they are used in practice and education determines, at this point at least IMO, whether they are useful resources or "worse than useless". Unfortunately, the reader, and especially the instructor needs to parse the information in those texts, looking at coverage of similar material in different parts of each book, look closely at the similarities and the differences of the cases cited to support the given principles, and increasingly with each new edition, whether a given principle appears to be well supported by cited cases, or if the cited case(s) appears to be an aberration of jurisprudence or if the principle is actually the summary of a protracted argument by the author and is otherwise lacking in supporting reference.
Although each of those books, especially the Brown books are set up so that it appears that a reader can zero in on the section or chapter that addresses the particular application or principle the reader has a question about, I would strongly advise against that until the reader has a good familiarity with the full text and a reasonably good understanding of the principles discussed. As sometimes when one reads two sections of law that appear to contradict each other, either from different parts of the same Code or from different Codes, once one applies the principle that the judge (or in our case, the surveyor) is to read the law with the presumption that their intents do not conflict and the answer is to be sought that satisfies both, the correct answer begins to emerge. It's the same way, most of the time, with these books.
Although I feel, as you apparently do, that each of the Brown books and Clark appear to increasingly have a little too much of Walt's opinions of how the laws should be interpreted and less of how the majority of courts actually do interpret and apply the law, I place as much or more responsibility on the instructors teaching from these books, whether they be college professors with inadequate training or interest in the legal aspects of practice, or those in active practice who are supposed to be giving guidance to their employees who have a goal of becoming licensed. These instructors need to be almost continually reminding their students that the text books are written for a national audience and, in places contain a good deal of the authors opinion which may or may not agree with the actual state of the law in the jurisdiction where the student finds himself working and eventually practicing.
IMO, independent direct study of the law is a great, make that the best resource for the practicing surveyor having the goal to increase one's knowledge well beyond minimal competence. It is also an aspect of surveying education that should be incorporated as a major part of advanced survey law courses and in the mentoring of an LSIT on the path to licensure. I do not think that it is the best way to introduce a newbie to the basic principles.
I also feel that there is a place for well written text books at each level of education of the surveyor in the legal aspects of the profession. It's too bad that there aren't any well known and readily available alternatives to BCLP and EPBL for that purpose. I hope to see at least one competing series before I retire. Or in the alternative, see the Brown books gravitate back toward more closely reflecting the decisions of the courts and better advising surveyors and aspiring surveyors of the level of knowledge and expertise that the legal system actually expects of them rather than how a court might react when they find themselves disappointed in the "expert" guidance provided by surveyors in a particular case.
If I were to design the legal aspects portion of a survey curriculum, I would probably use the Brown books for lack of a better alternative, but would also require Mulford as mandatory reading at every level just to drill those principles into the students heads. I would also use the latest edition of American Jurisprudence as the more definitive source of principles, assigning students to access the cited cases and provide a brief analysis of at least one case per principle. At the advanced levels, the classes would focus as much or more on state law as federal. At the most advanced level, I would assign a term paper that would focus on a limited set of issues, but provide a fairly in-depth look at those issues by reference to and analysis of several cases and other writings on the subjects. Where most 4-year degree programs have two legal aspects classes, and then a description writing class and maybe a class that focuses on PLSS or some basic boundary surveying, I see that as just adequate for an Associate Degree. I'd be willing to bet that John Stahl's Associate Degree students get a better education in survey law than is provided at almost any ABET accredited 4-yr program.
For a BS Degree program, I'd increase the requirement to four 4-credit classes. In the current model, the first class covers different types of title in about a week and deed interpretation in about another week. I'd make that the entire focus of the first-level class.
But this is all a pipe dream. As long as the schools that offer 4-yr degrees grovel to ABET for accreditation and that requirement is driven by the state licensing boards, all of the accredited degrees are going to be increasingly bloated with general ed requirements designed to produce "well rounded" graduates, leaving limited room for classes devoted to one's major, most of which will be geared toward the mathematics and technology, and the legal aspects that are the basis of what will make up the bulk of practice for future licensees as it does now, will be given short shrift.
I'm getting way off topic again aren't I. Oops.
Back on track...
Clark is a good reference, but as I stated in an earlier post, looking to one section for an authoritative answer to a particular question can be misleading. When used that way, it's not much different than when a pseudo-religious person grabs one verse from the Bible out of context to make a point. Without further knowledge of what's in the book, that brief passage may appear to support a point that is clearly wrong in the broader context of the full writing.
One pseudo-expert can grab a short passage from one chapter to assert a certain "truth" while another "expert" can cite to another short passage in a different chapter to provide an equally persuasive counter argument to that "truth". Providing Clark to a lawyer can be a lot like providing a chainsaw to a 14 year old boy without the benefit of safety training or adult supervision. Clark really should come with safety warnings and the email address of someone who can explain the apparent contradictions when they're found.
Skelton kind of had that built into the structure of his book: 1) Here's the principle, 2) Here's the general application of the principle, 3) Here's the limitations on the principle. Those limitations are kind of like the chain brake on the chainsaw.
eapls2708, post: 350277, member: 589 wrote: Back on track...
Clark is a good reference, but as I stated in an earlier post, looking to one section for an authoritative answer to a particular question can be misleading. When used that way, it's not much different than when a pseudo-religious person grabs one verse from the Bible out of context to make a point. Without further knowledge of what's in the book, that brief passage may appear to support a point that is clearly wrong in the broader context of the full writing.
One pseudo-expert can grab a short passage from one chapter to assert a certain "truth" while another "expert" can cite to another short passage in a different chapter to provide an equally persuasive counter argument to that "truth". Providing Clark to a lawyer can be a lot like providing a chainsaw to a 14 year old boy without the benefit of safety training or adult supervision. Clark really should come with safety warnings and the email address of someone who can explain the apparent contradictions when they're found.
Skelton kind of had that built into the structure of his book: 1) Here's the principle, 2) Here's the general application of the principle, 3) Here's the limitations on the principle. Those limitations are kind of like the chain brake on the chainsaw.
Skelton's book is really good but way out of date. I think it's the model for the next big book.
Some of the books have presented rules without explaining the purpose of the rules and the numerous exceptions to the rules. Here's the rule, never violate it EVER! When a Surveyor says, hey, wait a minute, the purpose of the rule is to provide an algorithm to determine the intentions of the parties therefore the rule should not be used to violate the intentions of the parties plus one of the exceptions applies here. WAIT WAIT WAIT YOU WILL BE SHREDDED IF YOU DON'T WORSHIP AT THE ALTAR OF WALTER ROBILLARD!!!
Look the man is not infallible. The other article posted recently (by another author) read sort of like your Father in his Den with pipe and smoking jacket, Son, these higher principles and exceptions are not for you, don't worry your pretty little head about that, just stake the Deed and let the Judge figure it out.
Dave Karoly, post: 350282, member: 94 wrote: ...Some of the books have presented rules without explaining the purpose of the rules and the numerous exceptions to the rules. Here's the rule, never violate it EVER!...
I've never personally met Walt Robillard. I have endured two of his seminars a number of years ago. Between those encounters and reading a few of his published works, I get the idea Mr. Robillard would prefer we all think his way. I guess he and I have a difference in our basis operating systems. In my mind, I am fallible and I try and make sure I've considered everything available. I get the impression Mr. Robillard rarely considers the possibility he could be wrong. At least that's the impression I get.
The impression I get is that he doesn't have a lot of faith in the ability of other surveyors to properly evaluate evidence or to apply boundary principles to give effect to the intent indicated by the deed with the full body of evidence, so they shouldn't even try. Just follow only what is contained within the four corners of the deed, but thoroughly document anything that might be evidence, show it relative to the boundary of the written title and let the judge sort it all out. I don't know what force or value one's "just an opinion" supposedly has in his opinion if the survey is never brought before a judge.
J Tanner, post: 350162, member: 7358 wrote: Mr. Robillard will probably pass the torch to his grandson Tony Nettleman, Assistant Professor at Texan A & M, Corpus Christi. Tony has helped Walt on a couple of publications in the past. Check out his blog at : http://tonynettleman.blogspot.com/
I'd say you are probable right. http://cnettleman.net/published-books I saw him at the TAPS convention this year. Very interesting speaker.
Norman Oklahoma, post: 350050, member: 9981 wrote: Not sure how Mr. Robillard's health is holding out, but I know that he is in his mid 80's and I wonder just how many revisions of Brown and Clark he has left in him. And when he does retire, just who he will pass the torch to, if anyone.
I know we're getting in to an old thread, but I think Robillard would be 90 (in 2015).
Tom Adams, post: 350414, member: 7285 wrote: I know we're getting in to an old thread, but I think Robillard would be 90 (in 2015).
My Father, The Reverend Charles Ulrich Karoly+, PE (Calif RCE10508 deceased), would've been 90 on November 27, 2015.
(The + is Episcopalian signification of an ordained Priest (normally only after the written signature), + before the name is a Bishop, e.g. The Right Reverend Bill Smith would sign +Bill Smith)
Tom Adams, post: 350414, member: 7285 wrote: I know we're getting in to an old thread, but I think Robillard would be 90 (in 2015).
Could be. I'm basing my estimate on the flyleaf of my copy of Boundary Control, which lists his birth year as 1930.
Dave Karoly, post: 350415, member: 94 wrote: My Father, The Reverend Charles Ulrich Karoly+, PE (Calif RCE10508 deceased), would've been 90 on November 27, 2015.
(The + is Episcopalian signification of an ordained Priest (normally only after the written signature), + before the name is a Bishop, e.g. The Right Reverend Bill Smith would sign +Bill Smith)
Q: How many Episcopalians does it take to change a lightbulb? (in ascending order)
A: Two. One to mix the martinis, and one to call the electrician.
A: Ten. One to change the bulb, and nine to say how much they liked the old one better.
A: Twelve. One to do the work and eleven to serve on the committee.
James Fleming, post: 350420, member: 136 wrote: Q: How many Episcopalians does it take to change a lightbulb? (in ascending order)
A: Two. One to mix the martinis, and one to call the electrician.
A: Ten. One to change the bulb, and nine to say how much they liked the old one better.
A: Twelve. One to do the work and eleven to serve on the committee.
First you have to have a Committee to "discern" where the Holy Ghost is leading you on this light bulb change.
I believe the Book of Common Prayer has a prayer specifically for light bulb changes and there is a generic prayer service that can be adapted to the Installation of the new light bulb. If the Bishop is in attendance then he is the officiant, otherwise the Rector or Vicar does it.
There is really no sense in doing a light bulb change without first doing a Parish Profile first because you need to figure out what type of light bulb best suits your congregation.
Norman Oklahoma, post: 350416, member: 9981 wrote: Could be. I'm basing my estimate on the flyleaf of my copy of Boundary Control, which lists his birth year as 1930.
You're right. I thought it was 1925.
Dave Karoly, post: 350415, member: 94 wrote: My Father, The Reverend Charles Ulrich Karoly+, PE (Calif RCE10508 deceased), would've been 90 on November 27, 2015.
(The + is Episcopalian signification of an ordained Priest (normally only after the written signature), + before the name is a Bishop, e.g. The Right Reverend Bill Smith would sign +Bill Smith)
My dad (PE/LS) would have been 90 on Nov. 18, 2015. I had thought I remembered thinking that Robillard was also born in 1925, but was incorrect.l