Gaps ? Overlaps? Anyone??

Indeterminate ??

I look at the question and have no idea what my client is alledged to own?

Then I look at the maps and have no idea what or where Parcel "B" is?

Paul in PA

Paul..

GAH! This problem is part 2 ...damn! I'll repost...Thanks for catching it Paul

REPOST

However, Making Assumptions Per The First Post

The boundary line of Rocky Air Force Base is the South line of Southeast Quarter of Section 5, T1N, R1E, MDM.

The subdividing surveyor had no authority to put angle points in the section line.

Therefore the two northernmost tagged iron pipes are closing reference points.

The East line of Lot 1 is 48.58'.

The West line of Lot 7 is 54.21'.

No title issues on the Section line.

Paul in PA

It appears to me that the author of the question in the second part is looking for you to say there is a gap (on the left) and thus a title problem that could be solved by getting a quit claim deed. Apparently California does not have case law that states that it is a presumption that a party intends to sell all he owns (or the author doesn't know about the case law). If this was in Oregon I would use the NW monument as a closing corner and extend the line to the section line. But then there would be no additional 20 points for explaining how to solve the title issue.

On the east side it appears that you should know that the missing monuments are proportioned back in using the position of the existing monument. The north lot looses everything over the section line. The loss is not proportioned among all the lots.

I am going to have to look up California law on this subject some day. Does anyone from California know?

Evelyn

paul

Here is my quickie dickie answer. I agree on Lot 7, disagree on Lot 1

> It appears to me that the author of the question in the second part is looking for you to say there is a gap (on the left) and thus a title problem that could be solved by getting a quit claim deed.

No gap or overlap exists. The parent map for lots 1 and 7 is specific, their north line is the section line. That is fixed.

4a answer is no title issues exist.

The rest of 4 Can be answered without loss of points since the question is posed as "If any title issues exist..." so

Paul ?

If we are arguing about 0.01' then Lot 3 would also have to be 47.77'.

Not seeing the choices of answers hurts.

As an engineer I learned to always round 5 to the even integer to the left. So 47.775' becomes 47.78' Besides that a Section line is at least 0.02' wide.

I see no evidence to accept the monuments at 50.18' as controlling proportioning of the 301.78' - 10.32' = 291.46'.

Paul in PA

But Paul ?

Didn't you post that the east line of lot 1 was 48.58'? Thats a tad more than 0.01'

and...

I see no evidence to accept the monuments at 50.18' as controlling proportioning of the 301.78' - 10.32' = 291.46'.

The test states "Make NO assumptions" so with that in mind, one cannot assume that the two non record iron pipes have not been relied upon.

Most Likely Relied Upon By The Lot 5 Owner

And possibly Lot 6. The surveyor that set them most likely measured 301.08' overall before wrongly proportioning into another Section. However that could totally be Lot 4's problem. I proportioned from the monument to the Section line.

As I said without seeing the A, B, C, D answers offered one cannot discern the direction the test maker was leading one.

Paul in PA

> Apparently California does not have case law that states that it is a presumption that a party intends to sell all he owns (or the author doesn't know about the case law). If this was in Oregon I would use the NW monument as a closing corner and extend the line to the section line.

Evelyn, do you know of any Oregon case law that supports the presumption? I'd like to have the references if you do. I think it's a much more sensible approach than leaving a gappy mess.

Most Likely Relied Upon By The Lot 5 Owner..Paul

> As I said without seeing the A, B, C, D answers offered one cannot discern the direction the test maker was leading one.
>
> Paul in PA

The question was not a multiple choice answer Paul.

We Should Verify The Section Corners

Since we cannot assume the Section pipes and caps are correct. The GLO may not have recovered the original monuments when setting those pins and caps. They have been known to enforce geometry over original monuments when it comes to government lands. The 1938 surveyor may have had the section line right with everything else off.

Besides that isn't T1N, R1E, MDM one of those fraudulent CA Townships?

Paul in PA

It's too late for my brain to remember tonight, I'll try to post it tomorrow. Someone else may remember the name. JB referenced it in his presentation at the PLSO

Paul lot lengths

Paul, I mostly agree with your solution. I would hold the original pins to prorate with which would result (doing this real quickly) with the east line of Lot 1 being 40.04' and the west line of Lot 7 being 56.86'.

There is no reason to create a gap or overlap. The Section line is the line to use for the north lines of the two lots. By calling it out on the original plat it supplants even the original pins. Treat it as a quasi-natural call.

The more important issue is that there is no basis of bearings on the plat. How can we be sure that the section line was curved as it should have been. If it wasn’t then there are more gaps and overlaps to worry about.;-)

The case I was referring to is:

Nelson v. Vandemarr, 281Or. 65, 573 P.2d 1232 (1978)

Since there is no indication that the original owners intended to stop the subdivision short of the section line, and since we have adopted a policy against construing conveyances so as to create "strips of land the title to which would otherwise remain in abeyance for long periods of time," Hurd v. Byrnes, 264 Or. 591, 598, 506 P.2d 686, 690 (1973), it follows that the subdivision should be construed as extending to the south section line

Evelyn

This portion of Nelson was cited in Stott v. Stevens, 873 P.2d 380, 127 Or.App. 440 (1994)

> I noticed on the CLSA forum that one of the posters remarked on one specific 2005 Calif State Exam question. The poster disagreed on what the test answer was ( I guess he got it wrong..maybe)..anyway, I looked the test up and thought it would be a pretty good post.
>
> <>

Does anyone know the "correct" answers?

I don't believe they were officially published but someone that challenged the exam results may remember what it took to maximize points.

> “The other evidence, as found by the trial court, favors the defendants' position. It appears that the original owners of the subdivision owned the entire western half of the western half of section 2. Thus, for plaintiffs' theory of the boundary to be correct, the original owners must have intended to retain a 20-foot by 1,320-foot strip of land along the southern edge of the subdivision. There is nothing in the record to show that they did or why they would wish to do so.
> Since there is no indication that the original owners intended to stop the subdivision short of the section line, and since we have adopted a policy against construing conveyances so as to create "strips of land the title to which would otherwise remain in abeyance for long periods of time," Hurd v. Byrnes, 264 Or 591, 598, 506 P2d 686 (1973), it follows that the subdivision should be construed as extending to the south section line.” Nelson v. Vandemarr, 281 Or. 65, 573 P.2d 1232 (Or. 01/24/1978)

I'm not certain of the existence of a similar doctrine yet ruled upon in CA, that doesn't mean, however, that the rule of law found in other jurisdictions wouldn't be found to apply in a similar situation as a case of first impression. After all, the principle is born out of the fundamental idea that the "intent" of the owner is paramount, being subject only to prior rights and occupation. Both of those factors exist in every jurisdiction, one is applicable in this exam. The expressed intent of the owner is found in the subdivision plat which clearly extends and/or limits the lots to the section line (barring any presumptions regarding the boundary establishment doctrines which have been effectively removed from the exam).

2a) The rule of apportionment is applied between two found original monuments (according to the survey texts). The apportionment formula would be applied along the entire length of the east block line (310.78/6 = 50.30' each). The test writer would then likely expect that the line would be foreshortened to terminate at the section line resulting in a loss of 10.32' leaving Lot 1 with 40.28' (but then, we also have to bury 0.02' in the 6 lots, so we'll have to flip a coin to get the distance right (they do require 0.01' in the answer).

If we were surveying Lots 5 & 6, we'd of course be required to pincushion the two 1" pipes by placing a 5/8" re-bar inside the first pipe and a punch mark on the rim of the second pipe. After all, we can't let any of that "legal" stuff get in the way. They don't "technically" disavow the use of legal "presumptions" and instead seem to supplant the errant impression that "assumptions" are somehow acceptable in the profession. Good thing we don't have to go there as professional judgment just seems to muddy the water and allows the test-taking process to exist in its fantasy world.

2b) Again applying the rule of apportionment (158.67/3 = 52.89'), we must look to the expression of the intent borne out by the plat which closes Lot 7 on the section line and add 3.97' yielding a total for Lot 7 of 56.86 feet.

2c) The north 25' of Lot 8 requires a trigonometric calculation which offsets the south line perpendicularly 25' from the north line. It's too early in the morning to play number games, so I'll leave that calculation to a mathematician. Once you've got the diagonal, just add it to 52.89' and measure from the found monument at the northwest corner of Lot 7.

3) The test writer seems to be wanting something that they aren't communicating very clearly. "Rights" in property derive from the constitution including concepts such as the right of occupation, enjoyment, minerals, timber, access, etc. Rights are an appurtenance normally evidenced by easements, leases, etc. We aren't given any evidence of any exchange of property rights between the client and the air force base, so the answer should be simple... none. However, because the north property seems to be a federal interest, we're most likely expected to drift our shallow mindset to the "title" issue which is too commonly "assumed" (I know, we're told not to "assume") to prevent the lot owner from claiming any "adverse possession" of the federal interest (adverse possession is a title doctrine which affects ownership of property, not property rights). I expect the answer they're fishing for is that you can't adversely possess against a sovereign. The question just fails to ask it very well and boundary determination process has already resolved the boundary location little (if anything) to do with rights or title.

4a) The test-writer seems to confuse the issues of "title" law with issues of "boundary" law. We have no evidence that the owners of Section 8 have any "title" problem at all. I'm sure they can prove they have a complete chain of deeds from patent (unless they are in unpatented public domain land). The owners outside of section 8 clearly own to the section line as expressed on the subdivision plat. Trespass by the surveyor who placed a survey monument 10+ feet over the line, doesn't create a "title" problem. A surveyor falling short of the section line at the northwest corner of Lot 7 doesn't "frustrate the intent of the owner" either. There is no conveyance document which created a boundary along the pipe and we are given no evidence of occupation or agreement which might raise the bar a bit (and perhaps test a surveyor's true knowledge about the law).

Instead, the test-writer implies that the existence of a surveyor's pipe (conflicting evidence indicating a boundary location issue) has somehow arisen to a "title" issue. If we are to go along with that implication (which is entirely unsupported in legal principles), we are now confronted by a "title" problem instead of a boundary location issue which we successfully addressed in the answers to question 2. We've managed to successfully interfere with the settled issue of ownership by crow-barring a surveyor's ineptitude into a problem which will now require attorneys, title companies, and owners to convey title back and forth to repair the damage. Kill flies with cannons, and that's the mess that gets created.

In order to placate the test-maker's improper understanding of the distinction of boundary law and title law, I'd have to answer 4a by alerting the owners of the "overlap" of lot 1 (contrary to the clearly expressed evidence depicted on the subdivision map) by cross-hatching the overlap and requiring the owner to release the overlap by quitclaim deed beyond the section line. Of course, all the paper flurry will result in no appreciable change in quality of title or location of the lot boundary (the section line), but it will achieve a better score on the exam.

4b) The "most appropriate action" would be to not create any "title" issues in the first place. Being as they think there are title issues, the only remedy left is an exchange of quitclaim deeds given the fact that the attorney has spent untold amounts of time an money gathering all the necessary parties. We've successfully kicked all the sleeping dogs that we can find (they've been sleeping since 1938) and left fear-struck owners, title companies and mortgage companies in our wake. Now that we've got them all out of bed, we can get them to sign a flurry of paperwork, send them back to bed, and all will be well in the surveyor's world.

4c) I love that they've included the ultimate coup-de-grace. Now that we've failed to realize the simple problems that boundary laws have resolved and we've successfully converted those problems into title problems, we can require that any owners left standing are properly embroiled in a quiet title action to resolve the remnant of title issues we've invented. Being as we've lost track of the true title holder of the "gap" (which the textbooks would proclaim is owned by the heirs of the original subdivider) and we've thoroughly ruminated the problem about in the hollowed-out corner of our craniums, we'll have to bring a quiet title action against the entire world of "unknown" claimants so our owner and the airforce can finally own all of their property all the way to their boundary (again). (Note to self: Owner A and B already own to their "boundary" by definition).

This test is a prime example of the errors, pitfalls, and traps that the surveying profession, the title companies and the attorneys have caused by their simple misunderstanding of the fundamental differences between "title" law, "conveyance" law and "boundary" law. They've succeeded in taking a boundary location issue which falls in the realm of the surveyor, misunderstood and misapplied the simple resolution provided by the law in Problem 2, and turned it into a title nightmare with repercussions affecting not only the owners, their lenders, their title companies and their attorneys, but every "unknown" claimant we can conceive. This test is a prime example of the "great public calamity" which will result from the visitation of the surveyor.

JBS