roger_LS, post: 431218, member: 11550 wrote: Jim-
Dave here has got a much easier and cost effective solution than this complicated LLA and COC business that you have in mind. Just have your clients move the fences wherever they want and shake on it. If they want it to be idiot proof, have them scribble down an agreement on the back of a napkin, if they want it to be super idiot proof, have them write their own deeds calling for the fencing and record it. Feel free to have them change them around all they want adding any additional angles or jogs if needed. If the County takes any issue with it, just tell them, "it's the law"
I certainly wouldn't recommend property owners just build a wandering fence any old place for a boundary agreement. They can do it if they don't know where the boundary is located (and in parol too, no writing is required) but there is no guarantee a Court will uphold such an agreement later. Usually the discussions they have don't specifically use the words boundary agreement so the Court has to infer the agreement which they refuse to do more often than not.
My point is we are Land Surveyor, we locate boundaries. If the client wants to know where the boundary is located then I can tell them. The only thing required is a Record of Survey be filed. If the clients want more then that's great but it isn't absolutely necessary where the boundary can be found and shown on a Record of Survey. And in this case they want some boundaries moved which can't be done by a boundary line agreement.
Don't shoot the messenger, I don't make the law, I didn't personally write and publish all those cases.
Apparently in some states where surveys can't be filed they write the survey into the title records which can really bolox things up requiring definite action later to fix things. But here the description Parcel A is still sufficient because the boundary location is a question of fact. Parcel A's owner's title is fine, the only question being where the boundaries are located.
Dave Karoly, post: 431406, member: 94 wrote: Parcel A's owner's title is fine, the only question being where the boundaries are located.
Indeed. But I can tell you that Parcel A's owner (actually, it's Parcel No. 1 in this case) -- who isn't my client -- is pretty angry that the $10k she spent in 1990 to subdivide her property has left her with such a mess. At least she's not having to spend any more to get it cleaned up; the adjoiners are going to foot the bill for the LLA.
Jim Frame, post: 431409, member: 10 wrote: Indeed. But I can tell you that Parcel A's owner (actually, it's Parcel No. 1 in this case) -- who isn't my client -- is pretty angry that the $10k she spent in 1990 to subdivide her property has left her with such a mess. At least she's not having to spend any more to get it cleaned up; the adjoiners are going to foot the bill for the LLA.
Point of curiosity: at what point does simply rebuilding the fences on the lines as originally intended and cleaning up the record seem to be the least expensive option? Is the problem that there is no mechanism for accomplishing that short of a new parcel map (which happens to appear nearly identical to the original parcel map, just with new monument descriptions?)
The project started when the original subdivider, Cathy, decided to list her place for sale. Linda, one of the adjoiners, approached Cathy and asked if she could buy the odd sliver of seasonal creek that was attached to Cathy's parcel. The sliver wasn't of much use to Cathy's parcel -- it was an odd appendage -- but it fronted most of Linda's parcel and its abundance of mature oaks would provide a welcome shady place for Linda. Thus the plan for an LLA was born. Linda presented the idea to county planning staff and they were supportive, so Linda contacted me to provide the necessary surveying services. Since Linda was going to all the trouble of filing a planning application and dealing with title documents, her other neighbor, Pat, asked if they could move an access easement at the same time so that the road to Pat's place would have formal status. (The access easement shown on the Parcel Map covers most of the road, but part of it wanders out of the easement across Linda's parcel.)
While researching the project in order to prepare a cost proposal, I was alerted to the fact that something was fishy about the Parcel Map. A 2010 survey of some properties on the other side of the county road showed two of the monuments from that map about 6 feet away from where the Parcel Map showed them. I knew I was going to have to file a Record of Survey anyway, because Linda wanted her new parcel corners marked (in California you can't monument an LLA parcel without filing a ROS), but I built some extra time into my proposal to deal with some unusual conditions.
When I discovered that the whole subdivision had been monumented so badly out of step with the Parcel Map, I explained the situation to Linda and Pat, and they agreed to expand the scope to adjust more lot lines than originally proposed. Pat also asked me to located Cathy's fence, which she believed was on her property (it is). I figured up the additional cost and presented a contract to Pat for the expanded scope. She signed it, so now both Linda and Pat are my clients.
So in answer to your question: yes, there would have been a simpler way to deal with the bad monumentation by itself, but there were other factors involved that made an LLA the process of choice.
P.S. I guess I'm feeling my age. It was 95?ø while I was out there today, and after setting 9 capped rebars and a couple of line hub-and-tacks (at the one corner I won't be visiting because it's in a poison oak thicket), with 4 robot setups (only one of which I had to walk to) and 4 backsight prism setups, I'm kind of whooped. One of the rebars was in the hardest darn gravel road I've ever encountered, and several were in very hard ground. One was in pavement, but I cheated and drilled the first 8 inches of it, so it actually turned out to be the easiest of the bunch.
I'm so late to this party, and these LLAs and BLAs sound like such a mess waiting to happen that I am not even gonna muddy the waters any further.
[USER=94]@Dave Karoly[/USER] my apogoies for getting feisty and mis-stating your position. I sincerely appreciate the contributions you make to this forum.
Jim Frame:
Thank you for taking the time to provide a detailed description of an interesting problem. Equally, thank you for the continued posts in response to the comments.
California Surveyors (and others):
I know most of the California surveyors commenting on the situation. Their demonstrated competence helps restore my faith in the California practice. In my practice, I spend much of my time dealing with the other end of the spectrum - which probably distorts my perspective on the amount of professional incompetence and negligence in California. This thread was a well timed breathe of fresh air.
I especially want to thank Dave Karoly for his detailed contributions to this thread. The boundary location as it relates to title is something I wish every California surveyor was tested on, annually.
I have nothing to contribute besides my gratitude to those that took the time to write, thank you.
DWoolley
Jim Frame, post: 430466, member: 10 wrote: Why not claim to the fence?
Yes, I was curious as to why you stepped out advising them to claim or not claim anything at this point in the situation. Maybe I misunderstood what you are saying...I read it as occupation and monuments are not matching record boundaries and land owners have assumed for many years that what was on the ground was correct.
Ric Moore, post: 431572, member: 731 wrote: land owners have assumed for many years that what was on the ground was correct.
The adjoiner has claimed for 27 years that the line was marked and fenced in the wrong place. When Linda phoned that neighbor and told her that she was having the boundary remarked, and would move her fence when it was time to rebuild, the neighbor -- an elderly lady who's live there for around 50 years -- was very grateful and thanked Linda for being so honest.
Jim Frame, post: 431579, member: 10 wrote: The adjoiner has claimed for 27 years that the line was marked and fenced in the wrong place. When Linda phoned that neighbor and told her that she was having the boundary remarked, and would move her fence when it was time to rebuild, the neighbor -- an elderly lady who's live there for around 50 years -- was very grateful and thanked Linda for being so honest.
Ah, I see. Appreciate you taking the time to explain what I didn't understand. Take care in that heat. You may have lucked out with the land owners in this case.
