Cam Turgison, hmmm. Could be. I contributed quite a bit, but it was an intriguing interplay.
Warren Smith, post: 398311, member: 9900 wrote: Of interest is that the California legislature saw fit in 1873 to enact a statute (Code of Civil Procedure section 2077.2) which states that:
"When permanent and visible or ascertained boundaries or monuments are inconsistent with the measurement, either of lines, angles, or surfaces, the boundaries or monuments are paramount."
The context within which this subsection exists is in a section on interpretation of written instruments of conveyance of real property.
In 2013, the legislature enacted another statute (Civil Code section 841 (a)) which reads:
"Adjoining landowners shall share equally in the responsibility for maintaining the boundaries and monuments between them."
Your mileage may vary.
I'm glad you pointed out section 2077, thank you, that section has pretty much been my bible in surveying decisions.
I'm glad you pointed out section 2077, thank you, that section has pretty much been my bible in surveying decisions.
You are right! Another factor is the year 1873. This was made 150 years ago based on surveying technology at that time. That law took into account that errors were due to inaccurate surveying techniques at that time.
It's akin to using wooden wheels on ferarri cars.
aw jeez...guess we spoke too soon...
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2077 is a restatement of existing common law and has been reaffirmed many times since.
Oregon's Revised Statutes states it this way:
[INDENT]93.310 Rules for construing description of real property. The following are the rules for construing the descriptive part of a conveyance of real property, when the construction is doubtful, and there are no other sufficient circumstances to determine it:
(1) Where there are certain definite and ascertained particulars in the description, the addition of others, which are indefinite, unknown or false, does not frustrate the conveyance, but it is to be construed by such particulars, if they constitute a sufficient description to ascertain its application.
(2) When permanent and visible or ascertained boundaries or monuments are inconsistent with the measurement, either of lines, angles or surfaces, the boundaries or monuments are paramount.
(3) Between different measurements which are inconsistent with each other, that of angles is paramount to that of surfaces, and that of lines paramount to both.
[/INDENT]
FrancisH, post: 399233, member: 10211 wrote: You are right! Another factor is the year 1873. This was made 150 years ago based on surveying technology at that time. That law took into account that errors were due to inaccurate surveying techniques at that time.
It's akin to using wooden wheels on ferarri cars.
it is what it is
I am sure we will hear about it when it changes
Warren said above "your mileage may vary" ... it Will vary depending on location and history.
I live in a near pure Bounds area, but others are in Precise Measurement areas... and everything in-between
measuring is fun, you can clear your head of all the white noise and get it really really good.
I get bored with it sometimes
FrancisH, post: 399233, member: 10211 wrote: You are right! Another factor is the year 1873. This was made 150 years ago based on surveying technology at that time. That law took into account that errors were due to inaccurate surveying techniques at that time.
It's akin to using wooden wheels on ferarri cars.
Well, Tuesday I was out surveying a property; a portion of both deeds common to the property line stated that the east 330' of the SW1/4 was the common line, additionally, they both include a metes and bounds that says beginning on the south line of the section 330' from the SE corner of said SW1/4, thence west along the south line 150' to a fence, thence northeast along the fence to a point on the 330' line.
On the ground instead of 480' from the SE corner the fence intersects 865 feet west of the SE corner, do I hold the 150' call or do I hold the fence intersection?
Those old laws and rulings help me make an informed decision as I'm standing there, even today, even with GPS.
I don't have to ponder it, don't have to bring it back to the office and look at it, I know how to act because of those old silly laws written so long ago.
I wonder if you also follow these old laws
Don't quack like a duck in my nearby little town or you may be arrested.
Peter Ehlert, post: 399251, member: 60 wrote: it is what it is
I am sure we will hear about it when it changesWarren said above "your mileage may vary" ... it Will vary depending on location and history.
I live in a near pure Bounds area, but others are in Precise Measurement areas... and everything in-betweenmeasuring is fun, you can clear your head of all the white noise and get it really really good.
I get bored with it sometimes
Well said
FrancisH, post: 399322, member: 10211 wrote: I wonder if you also follow these old laws
Sir if you could explain your own bylaws I might bite at the joke.
FrancisH, post: 399322, member: 10211 wrote: I wonder if you also follow these old laws
Ok, I get it, murder is no problem to commit, cause the laws against it are really old, theft is ok cause the laws are really old,,,,,,,,,,
can you give me the time limit on a law? that would really help me out, then I can just disregard the ones that predate the time limit
riductio ad absurdum 😉
Ok, I get it, murder is no problem to commit, cause the laws against it are really old, theft is ok cause the laws are really old,,,,,,,,,,
can you give me the time limit on a law? that would really help me out, then I can just disregard the ones that predate the time limit
riductio ad absurdum
We are not talking about criminal laws here, we are talking of not applying common sense to present day surveying logic by sticking to an 1870s law that was written at a time due to inadequate surveying technology as well as surveyors to carry out a survey correctly.
So instead of correcting something using present day technology US surveyors keep on using an outdated law to justify their professional inadequacy in carrying out their job.
FrancisH, post: 399402, member: 10211 wrote: So instead of correcting something using present day technology US surveyors keep on using an outdated law to justify their professional inadequacy in carrying out their job.
So; you're saying we should move the 4 corners monument, just because we can better measure today?
An outdated law? The little tidbit law jokes that you posted do not affect any persons right to real property. This 1800's law does. If we were to go back and start surveying today every parcel like the way that you mention there are parts of the country that would be in complete upheaval and revolt. Surveyors and land owners would be killed by their neighbors. This matter has been spoken on by our courts over and over and over. All the way up until today.
People who could afford "updated" surveys would quite literally steal the property rights of their neighbors simply because they could afford a survey. This would be awful. I have come behind a recent survey to find that his pins measure perfectly with his plat and the old record, the trouble was that he missed original monuments that happened to measure very well and match the record too (within 0.5' thanks n a 1200' block). The new surveyor had encroached 6 feet onto a 130 foot wide lot with his new "precise" measurements.
Ancient fence lines with stones planted at the intersections are wonderful to find. Then to find a new iron rod with a cap 120 feet away because it matches the record bearing and distance is a tragedy, especially when the deeds lacks closing 250 feet. I live, and work, in a metes and bounds area (Kentucky) and there are areas that nearly all of the deeds were written by attorneys walking in the woods with their clients in 1930. There are deeds written as land grants and some of them were surveyed so poorly that the deed lines will cross over themselves many times, and some of these were "surveyed".
If we toss out the idea of holding original monuments, because it is an old law, do we also toss out the laws relating to junior/senior rights because it is old? If so how would we begin to determine lines? If there is only say 1175 feet in a block that is supposed to measure 1200 feet, do we start moving roads to make the 1200 feet work because we threw out the idea of junior/senior rights because it is old?
Or do we keep the 1175 foot block and let whoever can't afford a survey get shorted the 25 feet because they are poor(er) than their neighbors?
Or does one owner get to own 25 feet of a roadway and assume responsibility for its maintenance and all of the accidents that take place on "his" new property?
Now we are really screwing things up with our new perfect measurements! And supporting the insurance and litigation industries, all because we can measure better today than in years past.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
These are not outlandish situations in my post. These kind of numbers and errors exist throughout Kentucky. It would prove to be quite a challenge. There are great surveyors to follow behind that came up through the 1800's but not all them were and I promise that "fixing" their measurements would turn things over on their head.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Francis H is extremely narrow minded, I've appreciated his comments in the respect that they triggered me to review a few things regarding his jurisdiction of practice, I still have to ask, when Scotty beams us all up and provides us with the tech to measure to the 10 thousandth, will the property owners be required to obtain yet another survey, seems to me that this is the mentality, or practice that debunks our fields legitimacy, regardless of nation of practice.
FrancisH and his vocal disdain for our process of boundary location perpetuation (and land tenure in general) is nothing more than an indication of his ignorance. His insipid rhetoric is an indication of his personality, and I tend to avoid insipid idiots if I can.
Judging his demeanor from his posts, I bet his dog doesn't even like him.....if he hasn't already eaten the poor thing.