WOW, too early for me, haven't had my oatmeal yet, but I agree, but you forgot that next year someone will wipeout the 1/4 corner brass cap and an excellent measurer will reset it by proportion 50 feet differently and then proceed to tell the land owners their property is now in the road and they need to fix it with more quit claim deeds.
And the answer is....
copyright protected.
The problem and solution are included in the CLSA Exam Guide availalbe to CLSA members for test preparation purposes.
However, the exam guide is copyright protected, so I am not going to reprint it here.
Sorry.
However I will provide a big hint in that the answer includes reference to Brown 4th edition, Sections 12.41 & 12.42.
But you never heard that from me.
And the answer is....
I took a break from my oatmeal but couldn't find the 4th edition, but 3rd & 5th editions have the following to say regarding gaps:
"However, when a gap exists between parcels, the courts have varied in their decision."
"If the gap is small, the courts generally give the adjoiner line control; however, if the gap is large, the iron pins generally control on the theory that the gap belongs to the owner of the original parcel from which the two were carved. To avoid liability, whenever a surveyor finds a gap between artificial monuments and an adjoiner, as illustrated above, he discloses the facts on a plat presented to his client or his client's attorney".
After making sure the brass caps were the ones used for the subdivision or at least were the ones or a perpetuation of the ones in existence at the time of the subdivision I would place a monument on the section line and in my plat narrative say "Since there is no evidence the subdivider intended to keep a small triangle with less than a 4 ft. base, and in order to avoid have a parcel of land in abeyance for a long time it is my professional opinion that lot ? extends to the section line."
Evelyn
And the answer is....
Evelyn,
there are many who would agree with you.
However, just be careful if you choose to take the CA state specific portion of the LS exam. You might find there is a difference of opinion there.
A Mr. Dave Woolley has been making trying to make quite the case for the answer the exam uses in the CLSA forum, in that basically a surveyor cannot resolve these type of issues simply by showing that as an opinion on a Record of Survey. I'm of the belief that is what the creator's of this exam problem also had in mind.
This example problem was on the 2005 exam. But it is not the first and only time this particular problem has been in the CA survey exam. I remember it or a very similar problem when I took the exam many moons ago. One in which I relied on the teachings of Brown to guide me in my decision making.
I remember studying this problem when I prepared for the California state exam. As far as I know, the Board never released the answers used for grading. The answers given to me in several exam prep courses ( I won't reveal the instructors) are paraphrased by me below:
East line of lot 1 = 39.98' after prorating to the incorrectly set monument at the NE corner of lot 1, then chopping off the 10.32' of USAF land from lot 1 only. The answer cited Brown's 4th Ed. Section 12.41 & 12.42.
West line of lot 7 = 52.89' after prorating to the incorrectly set monument at the NW corner of lot 7. This left a gap that was not conveyed north of lot 7. The gap was to be remedied by quitclaim from the owner. The answer cited Brown's 4th Ed. Section 12.41 & 12.42.
One difficult conceptual leap here was that the entire deficiency in the east line of the block M was cut only from lot 1.
It looks to me like the exam intended to show the existence of gaps in title and show that closing gaps is not within the practice of a Land Surveyor. The gap shown on the problem is large enough to be "significant" as discussed in Brown's.
I'm not expressing my agreement with the answers, but this is how they were given to me according to my notes.
Oops, you're right, Paul. I botched the math in my earlier response. It is 39.98'. I should have taken Evelyn's advice and eaten my oatmeal first. 6 am math isn't my forte'.
JBS
Thanks Paul Goebel. That is an interesting concept, and it should get some exam points.
I have no issue with the proportional measure concept on the East line, and since the Subdivider never had title to land North of the Section line no title could pass...
But although the proportional measure concept on the West line is also valid, no gap could possibly exist... The Subdivider clearly expressed conveyance to the Section line.
I did not grind the numbers, but it is simple math and I am usually kinda good with that.
Subdivision boundary issues are often confusing... If the lots were marked on the ground then they hold, but the boundary lots are subject to Junior/Senior rights... The boundary is only the opinion of the surveyor.
PS: I don't have a copy of Brown's 4th handy, am I saying something that Curt Brown would disagree with? I doubt it, but I did make an error once 😉
And the answer is....
Actually I'm already licensed in California, I worked in the Lake Tahoe area in the 1990s. That was before law school, but I was a pretty liberal thinker then, but knew how to figure out what the test examiner wanted for an answer.
Today, I would argue that you might just be negligent and liable for the amount of money your client wasted on a lawyer and quit claim deeds. I'm not a member of the California Bar so I have not researched gaps under California Law. And I think if the subdivider was the state or the federal government it would have to be handled entirely differently.
So, did I hit the right quotations out of the 5th edition? If so,I'd argue that even Brown makes allowances for small gaps, (if I missed it then Brown is being inconsistent) and the argument then switches to what is small and what is large. Even that doesn't matter, because it's really the value of the land. 3 ft is much more valuable in the city compared to 3 ft. in the country. And what if I measure with more precision next year and I find a tenth of a ft gap? More quit claim deeds?
In the real surveying world it is rare for there to be a black & white answer. There are only well reasoned and documented professional decisions for the next surveyor to accept. We do a great disservice to our upcoming professional (and the public) to let them think anything else.
Evelyn
And the answer is....
>
> In the real surveying world it is rare for there to be a black & white answer. There are only well reasoned and documented professional decisions for the next surveyor to accept. We do a great disservice to our upcoming professional (and the public) to let them think anything else.
>
> Evelyn
:good:
And the answer is....Evelyn
> ... And what if I measure with more precision next year and I find a tenth of a ft gap? ...
>
That's when you switch to 3" pipes Evelyn;-)
And the answer is....
:good:
John: In all fairness I don't think anybody here has disclosed the answers to the exam.
Maybe someone can step forward and shed some light on it.
Traditionally, the exam is written and reviewed (at length) by committee, and after the exam date and initial grading another committee again reviews the exam results (at length)... but it has been more than 20 years since I was very involved, and things could have changed.
It is conceivable that near maximum points can be awarded for "wrong answers" based on a clear understanding of the concepts and law... It is more of a reading comprehension, show your work, and clearly express your interpretation kinda thing.
It would be really great if we could all see the grading and points award scheme, but I doubt we will see it here.
So, if anyone cares, I found my 4th edition. 12.42 contains Principle 29. Where the original subdivider failed to subdivide all the the land as shown by found original monuments, the surveyors should not extend the lot lines beyond the limits of the original monuments. Title to the unsubdivided land probably remains in the original subdivider. There is a map of the found conditions but not the original subdivision map. So we don't know the intent of the original subdivider, did the subdivider intent to go to the existing line to the west or not?
In 12.8 the author gives us Principle 5. The intentions of the parties to a subdivision are paramount to all other considerations. The author then discusses how neither surveyors or attorneys can ever know the true intent of the original owner(s). But, I would argue that in the problem given, the map clearly shows the north subdivision line and the section line to be one and the same. Thus, there is a clear intent for there to be no gap.
In other words, common sense prevails.
Evelyn
In other words, common sense prevails. Often a very hard concept for some and then there are those running scared who need a hard and fast rule. Sometime for the good of the public, a surveyor must stick his neck out, but do so wisely and do no harm when doing so.
jud
🙂
REPOST
I have an issue with "found original, undisturbed", did the surveyor stand there and watch that monument for the past 70 years?
Yup, the answers are so logically simple according to the law that most will have nothing to do with it. The world is supposed to be mathematically perfect and we ain't quitting until it's been made so through quit claim deeds and litigation!
Great response JB!!
How about this for a spin of the bottle?
Accept the northwest corner of Lot 7 as an angle point in the section line.
I only offer that as I see the 2009 BLM manual now allows for the acceptance of a junior monument (cc) to control a senior line. Although the larger error on the east side of the subdivision tends to indicate the subdividing surveyor wasn't so careful in his retracement of the section line, it is still a solution to be considered. Particularly if all concerned have relied upon it as being a monument intended to reference said section line.
Man..I couldn't get past whether an incorporated city limits, or its filed for record city plats, could extend pass a section line. Definitely a PLSS question.
Paul lot lengths .. Moe
> 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'.
Whatever answer one does come up with the entire neighborhood has to be considered. This question cannot be answered in an 8 hour test period.