Paul:
Why wouldn't Garfunkel's testimony apply to all the lots? He says he and Smith "chopped out each lot line and painted the blazes in the trees," that he walked the lines with each lot purchaser, that "they all built their perimeter improvements right down the lines that Garfunkel had shown them," that "the vast majority [of the stobs]...were either buried or replaced with fence posts."
Steve yes your example on CLSA and mentioned here is usually the case. Lucas's example was ridiculously easy in my opinion. In the real head scratchers I have had I would have loved it if the original subdivider just happened to live on the same block. The usual case for me is the original subdivider would be dead.
So Then Is Garfunkel Obligated To Correct The False Map?
I have just completed a survey where the filed map surveyor made errors on the maps that were reflected in a deed. That surveyor also set interior corners wrong from everything. That surveyor corrected, got new signatures and refiled the map. The client having not sold any of the three parcels had me set the corners per the corrected map.
I would advise my client that Mr. Garfunkel the seller and possiblr surveyor sold him more land than he owns. Garfunkel is obligated to make the new owner whole. Be that tp do whatever it takes to convey the land as described, correct the map and deeds and reimburse money.
It is up to the Court to decide if Garfunkel commited fraud.
Paul in PA
>"Lucas's example was ridiculously easy"
and still there isn't overwhelming agreement. Sad.
So Then Is Garfunkel Obligated To Correct The False Map?
Let's recap a bit...
The law resolves the problems...
Surveyors ignore the law and create problems that have been already resolved...
Surveyors suggest remedies to shuffle paper to resolve the surveyor-created problem...
Nothing changes on the ground...
Owners are still satisfied with their boundaries...
Surveyors are happier because the math works better now...
Why weren't we satisfied with what the law had already accomplished?
JBS
Yeah I realize I should not have worded it that way once I re-read that, but for me I just did not find the article to be that compelling.
I just got done with a job in Napa County that was in the same light as Lucas but a very old subdivision and lots that would badly misclose, and occupation that was all over the place. I would LOVE to have discussed this with the original landowner.
I essentially did in fact, hold to occupation in conjunction with the oldest survey evidence I could find (which disagreed with the local surveyor by several feet). Doing one now in Corte Madera with the same results.
When I get to heaven I want all the old surveyors and landowners on these jobs lined up and I want explanations.
I agree that a retracement/resurvey of the Garfunkel Subdivision is ridiculously easy!
Keith
So Then Is Garfunkel Obligated To Correct The False Map?
What "False Map" needs to be "corrected?" Yes, the map reflects wrong dimensions. What map doesn't? Maps don't control boundaries. The survey on the ground and the actions of the landowners are what control boundaries. What happens on the ground will NEVER be precisely reflected on the map. You don't change the map every time there is a mistake. Granted, there are times when the map needs to be corrected. I'm working on one right now. That doesn't mean, however, that there is automatic damage attached because the actions on the ground don't precisely match the map.
> I have just completed a survey where the filed map surveyor made errors on the maps that were reflected in a deed. That surveyor also set interior corners wrong from everything. That surveyor corrected, got new signatures and refiled the map. The client having not sold any of the three parcels had me set the corners per the corrected map.
Let's not get confused, here, Paul. A landowner who still owns the property before any sales have been made has the authority to "fix" or "correct" or "change" anything they want. Once any parcel is sold, however, their ability to "fix" anything goes right out the window.
> I would advise my client that Mr. Garfunkel the seller and possiblr surveyor sold him more land than he owns. Garfunkel is obligated to make the new owner whole. Be that tp do whatever it takes to convey the land as described, correct the map and deeds and reimburse money.
The only way there are damages is if the representations made to each owner when they walked the boundaries with the grantor were false. In this case, the representations were correct. The only problem is the representation on the map. Each owner purchased what was represented to them. They have a deed that conveyed the property. They have boundaries fixed on the ground. They bought what they thought they bought. How are they not "whole?" They all got what they agreed upon. The only dissatisfied person in this mix is the surveyor.
JBS
JB
I agree with this statement of yours, among others of course, but this one sticks out;
"The only dissatisfied person in this mix is the surveyor."
I would add that the dissatisfied surveyors are those presently that do not understand surveying 101!
Gee whiz.
Keith
> What I have been waiting for some to point out is how similar this is to working in PLSSia. Each lot is similar to our quarter sections. I work in an area full of such misshaped quarter sections.
That's right, Holy. The reason it's similar to the PLSS is because the PLSS was founded on common law principles established centuries before the PLSS was envisioned. The common law principles apply to all boundaries. Surveyors just need to know and understand the common law before they'll ever be able to recognize a boundary. Without it, there can be no recognition.
If this logic were to be applied to the PLSS, we'd be "correcting" every GLO plat in the record every time new technology gets invented. That's the same problem being posed here.
JBS
> >"Lucas's example was ridiculously easy"
>
> and still there isn't overwhelming agreement. Sad.
agreed, and more than a little bit scary...
It Appears Garfunkel Was Aware That The Map Was Wrong
He walked the line with 8 Lot purchasers. As I read it Garfunkel sold Lot 9 to the current owner without walking the line with him. Garfunkel had the opportunity prior to sale to correct the map and/or deed for Lot 9. He did not, and therefore made a fraudulent conveyance.
As long as the Filed Map exists uncorrected, the Black Lines exist different from the Red Lines. Lot owner's may indeed own and have title to the fences, but the Lot Owner is required to defend his title. When a Lot Owner says I own Lot 8 per the Filed Map he is not defending his rights as required.
If after Lot 9 is staked per the Map the Lot 9 owner immediately tears down all encroaching fences is he obligated to replace them with damages or is Garfunkel on the hook for failing to amend the Lot 9 description?
If Lot 9 is now undersized and requires variances is not Garfunkel obligated to cover the variance expenses since the decrease in Lot 9 size was not under the current owner's control?
The same problem occurs in PLSSania when a lot corner is 33' from a section corner and continues to pass by an aliquot description. The surveyor has failed the lot owner. What is gained or lost from adverse possession or acquiessence can in fact be lost or regained in the future.
You gentleman assume way too much from what you read and Mr. Lucas is well aware of it from his continued use of this example.
Paul in PA
It Appears Garfunkel Was Aware That The Map Was Wrong
> If after Lot 9 is staked per the Map the Lot 9 owner immediately tears down all encroaching fences is he obligated to replace them with damages or is Garfunkel on the hook for failing to amend the Lot 9 description?
LOL - if a surveyor stakes lot 9 per the 'filed' Map, I would certainly hope the lot owner would put the surveyor on the hook for having to replace neighboring fences were they to be torn down. You might want to familiarize yourself with a dissertation by a fellow named Cooley...
It Appears Garfunkel Was Aware That The Map Was Wrong
It is my guess that Lucas keeps showing this example to demonstrate to all that some surveyors simply can't understand the concept of legal land boundaries.
And it sure shows in these threads.
Keith
Twentieth part shortage?
The acreage has the possibility of being more than 5% less than implied by the rectangular dimensions. An argument might be made in Louisiana that the shortage is signficant. In Louisiana (and I am not sure about other states, but I would surmise things are similar) if a tract is more than a twentieth part deficient in acreage, the vendee can go against the vendor for remedy.
This is not an natural hierarchy issue, but mere an implied acreage deficiency.
Vendee should have had land surveyed before he bought it, but this does not let vendor off hook for acreage shortage--at least in Louisiana.
Twentieth part shortage?
I guess that would be a tort concerning property exchange.
But as far the survey question, Y'know you don't want to go against the status quo.
Twentieth part shortage?
The fact that your survey returns an area that varies by a little or a lot may give the buyer grounds for legal action but the lot lines surveyed follow the noted landmarks witnessed to mark lines originally run. As has been mentioned, they are legally established. The quality of the survey is a mute point. Agreement is not an option here because the lot line is bound to the existing marks of the original line run on the ground. You wouldn't need an agreement any more here than you would on a line marked by an original government stone at each end.
Twentieth part shortage?
I agree linebender!
Do land surveyors actually have to get a written agreement from both sides of the line?
What about the case where the two sides do not agree....the land surveyor quits and goes home?
Keith
Twentieth part shortage?
The time for an agreement is when owners want to. The place is where there is no evidence of where the line is legally established.
I read the article and thought ho-hum, would that they are all that easy.
I see Lucas's point and certainly agree given the fact set Lucas made up. I guess he's trying to make an obvious point that obviously isn't so obvious to some Engineers.
The more typical scenario in midtown Sacramento is you have a 1905 subdivision, no original monuments, no centerline control, curbs of various theories and ages and fences of various states of repair, construction type, some were built by competent builders, others were built by Russian Imperial Stout addicts. No one knows anything. It's amazing how fuggerated a supposedly rectangular block can get.
It seems like Steve and I talked about the old subdivisions and some history is the builders laid out their lots when they needed it. In other words they didn't get staked all at once, the Plat was just a pretty picture so they could sell lots. When someone wanted to build their house the builder would lay out the 50 x 100 lot somehow, maybe from fences, maybe somehow from the streets, we aren't sure. If the lot was 2 lots away from the nearest occupied lot then you had to measure 100' down the street then lay out your lot.
