REPOST
> I have an issue with "found original, undisturbed", did the surveyor stand there and watch that monument for the past 70 years?
:good:
I'd be interested in seeing someone defend that notion under cross examination by a good litigator.
Ralph
If we're in the real world I'd totally agree with you. One of my first thoughts was maybe the subdivision corners were in the ground before the brass caps and the brass caps were set incorrectly. The subdivider might have had the original post or stone and whomever perpetuated the corner got the bearing to a BT wrong, or the original surveyor had the bearing wrong, or the BT wasn't an original BT. I'm glad I don't have to take the test again, my brain automatically jumps to all the what ifs.
Evelyn
Paul lot lengths .. Moe..back to Paul
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.
So true Paul!
That's what I hate about these test questions. My mind starts looking for so much more; where are the fences, how do all the adjoiners fit to what you propose to do.
However, they were clever setting this up. Not only do they have a section line as a boundary to the north, but its government ownership, federal government, and to top it off a military base. That eliminates questions of occupation and possession on the north line.
They show original corners on the four block corners and an original along the west line of the block. There are secondary monuments along the east line. Now you have to decide to accept or reject the monument along the east block line for proration. It sounds like the testers want you to reject it. I tend to accept a monument (SE of Lot 4) unless I have a good reason not to, even when it's not an original. But, I don't work in California and here there wouldn't be a record on a Lot resurvey.
But putting on my PLSS hat I will do what the testers want and use the NE and NW block corners to prorate with and truncate or extend the lines to the section line. Of course that reduces the size of Lot 1 and increases the size of Lot 7.
It also sounds like the test solution is to go after the gap with a quiet title action. That does not compute as far as I’m concerned.
> ..... I'm glad I don't have to take the test again, my brain automatically jumps to all the what ifs.
>
> Evelyn
I'd bet you would do good if you had to take the CA test again. Primarily because they have an appeals process and I bet you would present a very persuasive arguement as to why your answers had merit.
off into the weeds
The purpose of the test is to identify the minimally qualified candidate. If you look at the problem from the viewpoint of years and years of study of case law and boundary surveying experience, it is likley that one would conclude that this is a nightmare scenario. The problem for test purposes is much simpler than what one would do in real life. Identify which corner controls which parcels, know which rules to apply to the evidence, understand that there are exceptions to the rule that monuments control.
I do agree that there are many elements to the layout of the problem that could easily send the test taker down the rabbit.
Adverse possession against the federal government verses the federal government reacquiring land subject to.
is there a common grantor?
Were the glo pipes set as part of the original survey or were they set when the Air Force acquired the property?
off into the weeds
Identify which corner controls which parcels, know which rules to apply to the evidence, understand that there are exceptions to the rule that monuments control.
I guess I think this level belongs with the fundamental surveying exam or a technician exam. Even the minimally qualified professional surveyor should be able to discuss the controversy surrounding gaps and know that Brown gives principles that seem to contradict themselves. If the grader allows for use of other surveying principles that's fine. I got the impression that there might be only one right answer holding the original monuments. I believe when it comes to gaps the intent principle is the primary rule and the original monument principle the exception.
Evelyn
