> > Well, someone who mistakenly agrees to a line isn't really bound to that agreement as a matter of equity until there has been mutual reliance, is he? Or is California law somewhat different?
>
> Good question. I think you are right. I am not sure if my client has a clue about the deal. Actually they do not seem to care either way. What is it about these guys? Are these blue collar dudes with money that easy going? You have a lot of these types in Austin perchance?
They all treat boundaries semi-rationally until you get near a body of water like a lake. Then it all flies out the window. I've got two landowners right now who have a 10.25 ACRE gap between their lands as described in their respective deeds. They probably will divide that 10.25 acres into two 5.125 acre parts, exchange deeds, and go on down the road, figuratively speaking. Otherwise it will be Mexican standoff, with both sides having claims that would have to be litigated to be perfected.
more importantly, we seem to have turned a new phrase...
plutaesque twist
You have an unrecorded sub'd where the owners have established their boundaries.
OBEY SS 321 of California statutes.
Five years is the only time requirement you have to deal with so, create a map of the existing situation and have the owner sign an affidavit stating that they want the existing property lines to remain as their properrty lines.
After the five year time lapse, the law says the adjoiner has no basis for an objection.
Richard Schaut
> more importantly, we seem to have turned a new phrase...
>
> plutaesque twist
I would never question Bryan Taylor's judgment, but somehow "plutaesque" doesn't exactly trip off the tongue the way that other variations do. :>
SS321 HAS NOT BEARING WHATSOEVER ON THE MATTER. CALIFORNIA HAS A SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND CLEARLY THIS SUBDIVISION WOULD HAVE BEEN CONTROLED BY THAT LAW.
USE A PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCETHE EVIDENCE TO FORM YOUR OPINION,FILE A RECORD OF SURVEY, WORK WITH THE OWNERS TO CREATE AN AGREEMENT AS TO THEIR BOUNDARIES.
CA ss 321
321. In every action for the recovery of real property, or the
possession thereof, the person establishing a legal title to the
property is presumed to have been possessed thereof within the time
required by law, and the occupation of the property by any other
person is deemed to have been under and in subordination to the legal
title, unless it appear that the property has been held and
possessed adversely to such legal title, for five years before the
commencement of the action.
The problem is simply an inaccurate unrecorded plat and the owners have established their own boundaries, which is within their rights.
Certainly a correct map of the actual legal possession boundaries is necessary to protect the owners rights and it must be put on record.
Ignorance of the law, willful or otherwise, is no excuse.
Richard Schaut
Ignorance of a plat is much worse. Just my humble opinion.
Don't fix what isn't broken. Just saying.
The NE/4 or Lot 1 is still a valid description.
In your scenario, why would anyone even hire a surveyor? If the boundaries are evident and notorious, why bother? After the fence line survey, the owners could move their occupation and change their boundaries yet again (we don’t need no stinking surveyors).
Such ridiculous statements by Schaut should not be ignored, lest some unsuspecting young surveyor actually believe such gibberish.
Please show me the statute in California law that requires and/or permits land surveyors to adjudicate property rights. I repsect Mr Schaut's opinion as a professional surveyor, but unless he is a JUDGE or is admitted to the bar in California, then his legal opinion is a LAY opinion and has to be taken for what that is worth.
This is just no foundation for the assumption that folks do not know the AP law.
My lay opinion on this matter is that reliance SS 321 will not serve anyone's interest and futher it is not something a surveyor can do anything about. This is not to say that there are not PROPER REMEDIES where a surveyor is able to assist the owners in implementation of such remedies.
Also, I would not suggest ignoring an unrecorded map, but again evidence of intent to occupy according the map needs to exist.
Agree totally.
When Sir Richard states, "Ignorance of the law, willful or otherwise, is no excuse.", he's placing himself within a contradiction.
There is more "law" than just statute law and regulations.
There is a well established form of law that originates from the justice system, more commonly known everywhere as "Case Law".
Mr. Schaut desires to hang his hat on only a single form of law (statute), while ignoring case law. To do so is rather risky procedure.
Does one actually believe that quoting only statutes before a judge will prevail in court? Remember a judge decides on evidence presented by both sides in a case. The judge takes case law as valid precedent. Ya think all surveyors should too?
> You have a block that was created by an unrecorded subdivision map..
I'm assuming that these were deed cut parcels prior to the 1972 date that stopped that practice. So it's not really a subdivision map.
>There are no monuments of record.
Since none exist in the deeds, then use caution on what you accept.
> You survey the block and tie-in buildings and cut cross curb extensions you find and in front of your parcel (of course) you find these facts:
> First, ignoring the deed calls and analyzing the way things have actually been surveyed out
> • There is a 2.7-foot monumented excess if you were to line up the cut crosses from the east and compare with those from the west. Your parcel comes out 2.7 feet wider than the 150 feet of record it is supposed to.
I would toss the crosses and do this based on recorded monuments, if there are any, that define the right of ways then start using 'apparent' occupation and acquiesced lines. If you can get hold of any old permit plans that were used to obtain a building permit or even the architectural plans. Some visits to the different owners may uncover quite a few gems as far as old plans go.
> On your parcel, your tiltup building is in the middle of the parcel and is not affected by the weirdness.
Your parcel may not be affected by the weirdness, but your boundary will impact the location of all the others so your survey will expand beyond your parcel limits.
Bryan..let me add
The crosses may very well have been set by the deed author of the original description that the parties started with, but deed descriptions do get changed many times prior to being recorded and the author/surveyor of the original submitted description is not kept in the loop...so keep that in mind when trying to reconcile unrecorded crosses with site improvements and deed language.
I was disappointed (as usual) when going to the local agency to look at old plans and was told that they trashed anything before 1980.
I think the crosses were set during construction of the buildings over time, so I take those for what they are worth.
Bryan
> I was disappointed (as usual) when going to the local agency to look at old plans and was told that they trashed anything before 1980.
I have never heard of address jacket files being tossed, that's where you would find the building permit sketches. Cities do toss full plan Architectural Plan Sets, but they seem to hold on to the permit sketches.
Bryan
> > I was disappointed (as usual) when going to the local agency to look at old plans and was told that they trashed anything before 1980.
>
> I have never heard of address jacket files being tossed, that's where you would find the building permit sketches. Cities do toss full plan Architectural Plan Sets, but they seem to hold on to the permit sketches
The person at this city was not very good to deal with. We had to personally go there and give her a $20 deposit in order for her to get the file from somewhere offiste. She would not do this task until we did that, and then said she needed 10 days. I found out later the file was worthless since it was only stuff since 1980.
I hate to even ask about permit sketches. I get the vibe she would not have a clue and would not do anything to help with that.
It is one of those cities with that nice layer of bureaucracy that stifles you.
Arguing with Richard Schaut is a pointless waste of time.
The reason for hiring Surveyors is to get a professional opinion of the boundary location.
There is no logic in the statement that implies that boundaries have to be hidden and mysterious in order to justify the existence of our profession. If the boundary is obvious and notorious then so be it.
If a Section corner is sticking up a foot and a half and is obvious to all do we say we can't use it because it is too easy and doesn't justify our profession? Of course not. Some are easy and some are difficult.
The constant refrain of "if it's obvious then there is no need for surveyors" frankly makes no sense to anyone but us.
Dave
I think the situation Gene's talking about is when there is a boundary accepted by the affected landowners, why would they need or want our opinion? The thing is, we are asked to opine about boundary issues when there is no dispute and the affected landowners might have no idea there's any reason to question their beliefs about the boundary. In that kind of situation like an ALTA Survey or a survey necessary to develop one of the affected parcels where we find that the beliefs of the parties don't conform to the documents by which they took title, we can take steps to conform the record, with co-operation by all interested parties, to their beliefs and actions a la Schaut, or, in California at least, one of the parties can dig in their heels and claim that the property described in their title documents is what they bought and have paid taxes on and therefore that is what they own. If that property can be located without ambiguity on the ground, the California courts have upheld that position. That's a vast over-simplification, not taking into account some factors that can over-ride the description.
I also agree with Gene that although it is pointless to argue with Schaut with any hope of dialogue, it is important to point out that his statements are largely gibberish.
Bryan..let me add
Did you try the Assessor's Office or the Fire Dept. Sometimes they have copies of approved building plans for commercial/industrial buildings. If the permit application identifies the designer, they may have archived sets of the building plans (if still in business)
3 piles for research. Record evidence, field evidence, non-relevant.
Expand survey to close to record mons. Develope that by standard procedures. How do the non-record cut crosses fit that? If good, now you have it. Many times I have surveyed to original GLO mon positions, put in the many plats per standard procedues, and found my subject parcel with adjoiners right there with plenty of cut crosses about, a few of which will fit, most of which do not.
I need the within the deed, record location based upon record mons found before I add the unrecorded evidence from outside the deed. Indeed, you should not be outside the deed unless you proclaim it has a latent ambiguity.
You need the record based block along with occupation evidence to determine where the excess in the block may be, either all in one lot or proportioned.
So easy to say, traverse 2 miles around 160 acres to find a 10,000 sf lot. But record mons on surveys and plats N E W S of my unrecored plat must be a part of such surveys.
Don't use local non-record evidence to control the survey with no record mons about the neighborhood showing. If you can split curbs and fit well with cut-crosses, all unrecorded, street plans burned, monument accordingly, but do show relations to area record mons.
I tend to know the record solution before I schedule the first field day. How else do I know where to look for the most relevant mons to start. It is required to be shown even if I use local evidence that is contrary to record.
