Acquiescence example to not hijack the other thread
1730 tracts established from east to west
1970 plan, NW corner is on the line, NE corner is south by 50'.
now surveying the tract to the north, do you hold the retraced 1730 line or the acquiesced line based on the 1970 plan?
occupation is to the 1970 plan from the south, woodland to the north.
enjoy and have a great weekend.
In a survey such as this I have a strict precedence in what I hold.
The first thing I hold is a check for 50% of my estimate as a retainer.
:good:
"HATCHED AREA DENOTES AREA OF QUESTIONABLE OWNERSHIP. THE BOUNDARY RESOLUTION PER THIS SURVEY IS A STRICT INTERPRETATION OF THE DEEDS BASED ON A BREAKDOWN OF SECTION 3 PER THE BLM MANUAL 0F INSTRUCTIONS AND DOES NOT RESOLVE THE FACT THAT UNCERTAINTY IN THE POSITION OF THE ORIGINAL BOUNDARIES COULD CONTINUE TO EXIST."
Geez why bother to hire a Surveyor?
[sarcasm]"HATCHED AREA DENOTES AREA OF QUESTIONABLE OWNERSHIP. THE BOUNDARY RESOLUTION PER THIS SURVEY IS A STRICT INTERPRETATION OF THE DEEDS BASED ON A BREAKDOWN OF SECTION 3 PER THE BLM MANUAL 0F INSTRUCTIONS AND DOES NOT RESOLVE THE FACT THAT UNCERTAINTY IN THE POSITION OF THE ORIGINAL BOUNDARIES COULD CONTINUE TO EXIST."[/sarcasm]
[sarcasm]Why don't you just paint, "CAUTION I AM NOT A LAND SURVEYOR" on your forehead?[/sarcasm]
Are the BLM instruction codified in California? I agree with you though, sounds like a statement to get out of having to make a decision.
The statement was meant to be sarcastic.
i showed the triangle as a separate parcel owned by the fellow who owned the subdivision back in 1970. had the opposite been created; had there been an overlap, my client could have acquiesced to the plan as a less expensive and less disruptive means to resolve a mistake made in the past.
