I found a gap

There are gaps all over that section! The westerly portion was divided by a none-to-careful surveyor in the mid-50s as I recall (Earl somebody or other). Several properties were sold and occupied according to that section breakdown. Then in the early or mid-70s, along comes Johnny MeasureMaster (I'm being sarcastic, but he actually was very good at making accurate measurements in difficult terrain with pre-EDM equipment). John disagrees with Earl and declares the 20 year old section breakdown and all the established property lines to be wrong.

That didn't really cause much of a stir at the time, because John was actually surveying parcels further to the East within the section than those with established boundaries per Earl's survey. But the years went by and then Fred comes along and shows a land subdivision on RS 18/92 in the NW part of the section. He recognizes that Earl's survey controls the boundaries there as that's what the landowners had occupied to for 30 or so years, but because John, who had a good local reputation because of the quality of his work (and perhaps because he took his turn as County Surveyor for a while) had shown a new & improved section breakdown on his RS and declared all of Earl's lines to be wrong, Fred's not sure what to call the various lines. Not wanting to disagree with John, he ends up calling John's lines the true aliquot lines and Earl's lines property lines established by long-time occupation and recognition.

To my knowledge, Fred was the first to recognize the potential for problems that might ensue between the lines long recognized and settled along Earl's lines and the "correct" aliquot lines so helpfully identified by John. A few years later (early 90s), the owner of the parcel just to the South of Fred's RS hires Fred to divide his property. Fred eventually files PM 45/19, but not without difficulty.

The parent parcel that was divided according to RS 18/92 was described as an aliquot part, but the resultant parcels (tax parcels 60 & 62) were conveyed as Parcel 1 as shown on RS 18/92 and Parcel 2 as shown on RS 18/92. Fast forward back to when Fred was drafting PM 45/19 and that parent parcel is still described along aliquot lines. Do you see the problem coming?

John's survey didn't reach down to affect the portions of the W 1/2 of the section S'ly of the 1/16 corner (nominally at the SW corner of 18/92/1), and no other surveys had identified separate established property lines and "correct" aliquot lines as did Fred's RS 18/92, so there was no issues with holding the one southerly line for the PM. But on the North side, there was (and still is, at least as of 2007) Earl's 1/16 monument and about 35' South of that, there is John's new & improved 1/16 monument.

Fred still doesn't know what to do with this as far as identifying the lines, but since it worked last time, he recognizes Earl's line as the long ago established and ever since recognized property line (even called it a line of occupation, although I was unable to find a distinct indication of specific occupation through the heavy brush that existed there in 2007), and shows John's line as the "true" 1/16 line. These lines are 35' apart at the W line of the section but diverge pretty significantly as they go East.

The title officer was very uncomfortable with that and refused to issue a Parcel Map Title Guarantee on the PM holding Earl's line. The County Surveyor (Who may have been John at that time), refused to file the map without the PM Guarantee. As it turned out, Fred's client and the gal that owned Parcel 1 of RS 18/92 were once close but had a falling out, so there was no way, no how that she would sign a QCD even though she had no intention of ever laying claim to the area between Earl's & John's lines. Fred's client knew that, so he didn't even try (there must be a pretty messy story there), but instead directed Fred to just divide up whatever the title company was willing to insure so he can sell the parcels and get the heck out of California. So Fred does as his client wishes and removes the reference to Earl's lines.

Along comes Evan in 2007. Hired by Rick James (not the one of Superfreak fame, but a humble contractor wanting to build his retirement home in the mountains) to figure out what the problem is and help with a resolution, I start looking into the problem. Do the research & field survey and discover what many of the local landowners already know and have somehow learned to live with peacefully. There are gaps and overlaps all over the place (Thank you Mr. Sanders). As you pointed out, the N line of the section was litigated and much (but not all) of it was settled at that time. Meanwhile, there are gaps internal to Section 9 made (at least in part) at the insistence of the title company, and which, at least as of 2007, lay there apparently unclaimed by anyone.

RJ and his neighbor to the North, the present owner and son of the gal who owned it at the time of PM 45/19 met me in the field after having me place intervisible lath along Earl's line, John's line, and a line that split the difference. The gap at the East end of these parcels is 85' wide. The neighbor to the North was easy to deal with, and related some of the story about his mom and Fred's client for the PM. He and Rick quickly come to agreement to split the difference in a BLA and have it reflected on my RS. So I prepare the map, it goes through check and I submit the signed mylar in a timely manner.

Some years later, I discover that the map never made it to the Recorder's office. I recall that the map checker had contacted me to inform me that RJ and neighbor never filed the BLA, but wasn't told and didn't realize that meant the CS would not file the map. I contacted RJ and was told that his attorney (a local guy who I thought knew better) had advised him that there was no need to file a BLA, that he already owned the ridiculously created no-man's-land. Trouble is that RJ's deed says he owns Parcel 2 of PM 45/19, which did not include that strip in the divided lands. Without question, RJ does not own any part of that strip according to his record title even though it should have been included in the subdivision recorded on PM 45/19.

There was also the added complication that the neighbor to the north had some concern that any "change" to his line, whether by adjustment to move it or by agreement to settle it would affect his property tax assessment. Since he had inherited the land, the transfer hadn't triggered a re-assessment so his taxes were based on the value of the land when his mom had acquired it and the minimal annual increases on that valuation allowed by law since. He may have backed out of the agreement over that fear and may have equivocated over agreeing to Earl's line over losing any potential rights he may have in the gap. Either way, it never got done. As a result, I found that my map wasn't filed because the CS didn't want to file a map with the wrong line identified as the boundary. I had a note that it was for the purpose of reflecting the BLA, having left a blank for the recording number.

[Dang. Too long again. But it's some interesting background, so I'll break it into 2 posts.]

[The rest of the story - so far]

Once I found that the map wasn't filed, I called the CS and say "just add a note that the client never followed through with the agreement and that the record lines of ownership remain at the other lines properly identified as to location and source on my map. "Can't do it" says CS. It could create confusion and I'm supposed to have an opportunity to add a responding note, blah, blah, blah. Just add the note, I don't need to respond, says I. The CS is a bit of a worrier over such things, so there the map sits in his files until I resubmit or come in to add an acceptable note. One of these days....

In the meantime, the unlicensed guy from the nearby town of Cool, with a sign prominently displayed on Hwy 193 just North of town, and operating under the license of his elderly dad who retired to a community nearly a 600 mile drive southeast of Cool (and doing so with the Board's knowledge) performs a survey and files RS 30/99 on tax parcel 19 for the purpose of identifying the gap or overlap affecting said parcel along the section line. But he completely misses the gap between his client's parcel and Parcel 2 of RS 18/92 that exists as a result of the same surveys and same title actions that created the overlap/gap (I'm going by memory and don't have the record maps at my disposal at the moment) along the section line.

I asked the map checker how that got through. "I know you wouldn't have missed something so obvious in the records and that if I had missed something like that, whether obvious or not, you would have brought it to my attention. How is it this map got through without identifying the problems along it's West line?"

"I know" he says, "But you're reasonable. If I had to bring something like this to your attention, you'd look into it and fix it without any hassle. Some guys around here, I can argue with the all day long and they never fix the problems, so I don't even try with them." Huh? I didn't know whether to take that as a compliment or be pissed that obstinacy guarantees that you get your map filed with no fuss and no comment.

Anyway, similar situation along the easterly boundary of RS 18/92. Gap of 20' or so at North section line, widening somewhat by the time you're at the SE corner of RS 18/92. Assessor had no idea what to do with the gaps, so they simply made them disappear on the APMs, but they are there and they are the only real gaps I've ever seen in 35 years of surveying. The result of the Disappearing Land Act by the Assessor is that there are several angle points shown that don't really exist between some of the parcels. They normally show dimensions on the parcels when there are record maps that indicate the dimensions, but not knowing what to do with the gaps, and recognizing that things just wouldn't scale out properly, they made the dimensions disappear as well. Presto, no title problems to see here. Move along please.

Vicinity of RJ's NE corner is at 35-54-31 N, 120-52-26 for anyone interested in what the ground looks like there. There's a horse corral that's on tax parcel 17. The point they recognize as their SW corner is somewhat East (I don't recall just how much) of the SE corner recognized by the owner of tax parcel 62 and North of the North line of tax parcel 40.

Frustrating to see how it all happened. Interesting to learn about and try to help solve (at least part of it). Frustrating to not have the other parties involved fail to follow through with curing the part of the problem within their control.

It's like the Bermuda Triangle of Surveying.

Fred did the R/S of the rectangular gap between the two north-south centerlines in the north half of the section. I assume he got projects in that Section because he did some work at the camp. He is one of my predecessors at my current job. He is deceased now.

The Department surveyed the camp and set line monuments in 1978. I've never seen the name of the surveyor before. In that era Jim Conkright did all the Surveys I've seen except that one. The monuments, shown on an unrecorded map in our files, uses the old breakdown so there is a gap between us and the Sanders maps in the east half of the section. The camp is the east half of the southwest quarter.

It could be worse...

How about when the BLM Patents "gaps" that don't exist?

:excruciating:
Loyal

eapls2708, post: 365242, member: 589 wrote: [The rest of the story - so far]

Once I found that the map wasn't filed, I called the CS and say "just add a note that the client never followed through with the agreement and that the record lines of ownership remain at the other lines properly identified as to location and source on my map. "Can't do it" says CS. It could create confusion and I'm supposed to have an opportunity to add a responding note, blah, blah, blah. Just add the note, I don't need to respond, says I. The CS is a bit of a worrier over such things, so there the map sits in his files until I resubmit or come in to add an acceptable note. One of these days....

In the meantime, the unlicensed guy from the nearby town of Cool, with a sign prominently displayed on Hwy 193 just North of town, and operating under the license of his elderly dad who retired to a community nearly a 600 mile drive southeast of Cool (and doing so with the Board's knowledge) performs a survey and files RS 30/99 on tax parcel 19 for the purpose of identifying the gap or overlap affecting said parcel along the section line. But he completely misses the gap between his client's parcel and Parcel 2 of RS 18/92 that exists as a result of the same surveys and same title actions that created the overlap/gap (I'm going by memory and don't have the record maps at my disposal at the moment) along the section line.

I asked the map checker how that got through. "I know you wouldn't have missed something so obvious in the records and that if I had missed something like that, whether obvious or not, you would have brought it to my attention. How is it this map got through without identifying the problems along it's West line?"

"I know" he says, "But you're reasonable. If I had to bring something like this to your attention, you'd look into it and fix it without any hassle. Some guys around here, I can argue with the all day long and they never fix the problems, so I don't even try with them." Huh? I didn't know whether to take that as a compliment or be pissed that obstinacy guarantees that you get your map filed with no fuss and no comment.

Anyway, similar situation along the easterly boundary of RS 18/92. Gap of 20' or so at North section line, widening somewhat by the time you're at the SE corner of RS 18/92. Assessor had no idea what to do with the gaps, so they simply made them disappear on the APMs, but they are there and they are the only real gaps I've ever seen in 35 years of surveying. The result of the Disappearing Land Act by the Assessor is that there are several angle points shown that don't really exist between some of the parcels. They normally show dimensions on the parcels when there are record maps that indicate the dimensions, but not knowing what to do with the gaps, and recognizing that things just wouldn't scale out properly, they made the dimensions disappear as well. Presto, no title problems to see here. Move along please.

Vicinity of RJ's NE corner is at 35-54-31 N, 120-52-26 for anyone interested in what the ground looks like there. There's a horse corral that's on tax parcel 17. The point they recognize as their SW corner is somewhat East (I don't recall just how much) of the SE corner recognized by the owner of tax parcel 62 and North of the North line of tax parcel 40.

Frustrating to see how it all happened. Interesting to learn about and try to help solve (at least part of it). Frustrating to not have the other parties involved fail to follow through with curing the part of the problem within their control.

Here is the Appellate Case.

Cooper owned Parcel 21 on the attached A.P. Map and Guy owned Parcel 69. Cooper's Parcel 21 has Richard Jones capped iron pipes at the 5 corners. Cooper contended their south line should be produced northeasterly across Parcel 69 to the Sanders north-south centerline of Section 9. Cooper and Guy had already lost 62' on the north due to losing a lawsuit to the owner in Section 4. Cooper prevailed in the trial court and Guy prevailed on appeal. The Appellate Court said Cooper's Deed calls for the Jones pipes on the east so it is limited to those on the east. There is some things in the Opinion that makes you yell at your computer screen BS but the Appellate Court made the best of a bad situation, the Courts don't have the luxury that some Surveyors take advantage of, deal with a bad situation by shifting it to the Lawyers and the Courts washing their hands of having to make a decision.

Note: the recitation of Cooper's description in footnote 3 has errors in it. The actual Richard Jones written description in Cooper's deed closes.