Twentieth part shortage?
moot not mute.
It seems to me that there IS overwhelming agreement. Essentially, all but PA. And yes, Jeff went a little overboard with putting all of the pieces in place. I guess he was trying to make a point.
Stephen
Twentieth part shortage?
How about when there's a gross blunder and no reliance?
Looks to me like he made a good point.
Obviously, some don't see the light!
Keith
I really don't think too many, including me, disagree with where the lines ought to be--the red lines are what I'd use.
I intended to push the point a little farther regarding the other comments because I believe that the owner ought to be alerted to the discrepancies, and so on.
I don't think it is matter of us "seeing the light." The point I was making is that a boundary discrepancy can get out of hand if interpreted incorrectly, and the more the condition deviates from the norm the more likely it seems the problem could arise. The light that one might see is the one he sees when one suddenly realizes that the owners of the skyscraper they built on the land can't get final financing because the surveyor, in the new owner's opinion took it upon himself to simply use the red lines and not alert anyone. A delay in closing could cost interest rate or loan point increases. These issues are in addition to the simple, and very good concept Jeff Lucas posted. That is what made it such an interesting read.
Keith - OK, so the owners of the lots that Garfunkel sold are bound by the exceedingly incompetent work that Smith did, I get that. Is there room in your love of original monuments to consider that if the lots were not improved and nobody had relied on the stobs that the position of certain lot corners could be questioned because of a "gross blunder"?
That's what a lot of the discussion on CLSA centered on. In the old days when somebody wanted to sell a piece of their property, they'd go around with the surveyor and mark it off and the surveyor would go back to his hovel with his notes and try to describe and/or map what he did in the field. Nowadays, the surveyor takes a piece of property, divides it up in accordance with planning reg's, hearing processes, tentative positions that are approved and tries to place his monuments at the intended postions. When he blows an angle, he hasn't implemented the intent of the subdivider, the approval body, or even himself. He has blundered, sometimes minor, sometimes gross.
It is the same in subdivisions of sections or creation of private subdivision lots. If a good faith effort is made to mark a 1/16 corner or a 1/4-acre lot corner, it's probably going to hold up. If the person marking it makes a gross error and that error is not relied upon, why is it a bad thing to "correct" it?
What I want to know is...
when are the Courts going to figure out the illegal subdivision that happened 37 years ago (1973) may have been illegal but that was 37 years ago and it can't be undone readily? Perhaps the two neighbors will find out they are suddenly 1/2 undivided interest partners. Most things have a Statute of Limitations except for murder and the absolute horror of illegal subdivisions LOL.
I'm sorry this is California specific and doesn't have much to do with Lucas. Therefore I posted it on the California forum in the recent permutation of the SMA thread. Trivia-before 1893 there was no Subdivision Map Act in California. Maps recorded prior to 1893 did not by themselves create lots; a Deed had to pass before the lot was created. Recording a map was sort of like recording a description with no Deed. Under Common Law, no lot existed until a Deed passed. After 1893 the owner signed the map which therefore created the Lots.
Obviously Lucas doesn't listen to Messiah...
[flash width=640 height=385] http://www.youtube.com/v/7NCO6UzZ2R8?fs=1&hl=en_US [/flash]
Steve,
I guess that "gross error" is all in the minds of some, but a few feet in this example certainly in not gross error in my mind.
I have accepted monuments that are out of position by a lot more and never questioned the fact that maybe gross error should come into the thought process.
It really is incredible to me how some actually believe there are two lines on the ground and will show two lines on their survey. That is gross thought process!!
How many of us would love to have had the information, evidence shown in this example, in a real life problem that we had to resolve?
The original survey is not that bad and I have seen lots worse!
Seems like the new measuring devices that are available now make some think that it has been that way from the git go. Well back in the days of chaining and making very little compensation, errors happen.
Simply a fact of life and land surveyors can resolve the problem and hopefully not create the problem.
This Garfunkel Subdivision does not need any corrections. An attempt at going back and doing it right would totally confuse all and create many problems that are not there.
Keith
we need to make ...the crooked straight... it's in the Bible.
I don't remember if Lucas told us what the terrain in the fictional Garfunkel Subdivision is like, but if it wasn't like the Grand Canyon or Yosemite, if Smith wasn't able to pace those 150' lots any better than 134' and 169', that's gross error in my book. But, since his sloppy stobs were relied upon that doesn't matter anymore, as far as who owns what. In California, though, the surveyor that discovers the slop and considers it to be a material discrepancy is required to file a big expensive Record of Survey map and record it. There's no reason that I can see to record a corrective description, though. The Lots are still the Lots, they just aren't the size they were supposed to be. And there aren't two lines either, just record v. measured dimensions.
Now let's say Garfunkel still owns Lots 9 & 10 and they're undeveloped. A buyer comes along for Lot 10, gets a survey done and finds out the stobs make his lot smaller than what he thought he was buying according to the map. At that point, he could go to Garfunkel and say Hey Garfunkel what are you trying to pull? I want 150' or at least something close to it or no deal. Garfunkel could then say Oh whoops, I guess we weren't very careful were we? And then the surveyor could help them to monument and put on record however it's done in that area a more reasonable line between Lots 9 & 10.
The Board put a project similar to this on the laundry list of bad stuff Alan Wolff did before they jerked his license.
He did a Parcel Map and showed one of the parcels as being so many acres but his sloppy survey really made it less. The damage came when someone relied on the map which said X.XXX acres which was splittable but the real Parcel was only Y.YYY acres which now is not splittable under the zoning code.
But apparently the Garfinkle surveyor is presumed to have gone on to the big survey in the sky so there's no option of some lot owner suing him for damages because his supposed 150' lot is only 134'.
Twentieth part shortage?
DK
I kind of like 'Mute' Point for this thread.
😉
R.
Twentieth part shortage?
I guess if the point is unintelligible then it could be said to be "mute."
Keith cmon we can agree as surveyors in such short lot distances, and being recently performed, that these errors are pathetic, and the individual should not be surveying. The example is still cut and dry in my book, but I cannot imagine this ever really happening - from the original landowner sitting there ready to spill the beans, and from a 1970s surveyor being so horrible at measuring.
Twentieth part shortage?
Unitelligible is not exactly the same as mute, but I agree with RH that maybe it's time to hit the mute button for this thread. Besides, now that Keith is here, I want to talk about straddling the tripod legs;-)
Don
I saw a person cross examined by an attorney about gross error regarding a surveyed line. They surveyor said the line was short by 30 feet over a distance of about 1000 feet as I recall. The attorney asked him if it was gross error, and he said no. Then he started counting, from 31 and was planning to go all the way to 1,000 to determine the break point that he would have called it gross error.
Gross error is often subjective. Is a meander line 1500 feet from the edge of a lake gross error? Is a meander line that crosses a lake and goes out int he lake 1000 feet gross error? Is a violation of Minimum Standards gross error these days?
Based upon what Lucas wrote, i still like the red lines, but I'd CMA and help client do the same thing.
I bet the client will be apathetic about it if he's friends with the neighbor and it will be impossible to get a BLA if he is not.
Bryan
I don't see these errors as pathetic! I have seen a lot worse and can talk about the 70's as that is when I was in the field.
But, I never had the thought that I should/could fix the errors or that there were actually two lines.
I have posted before a copy of my survey plat where I accepted a center 1/4 corner that was out of position by a chain or so. There was a string of subdivision lots based on it and I could have put them all in trespass....if I followed the bogus rationale of some.
Hmmmm, maybe the Oregon Appeals Court case was looking at my survey for advice?
Keith
I dunno boys...
This seems pretty cut-n-dried to me, ONE set of lines, TWO sets of dimensions (and probably THREE sets when it's surveyed by another guy).
It kinda reminds me of a Mineral Survey that I retraced back in the early 80s. It was surveyed by a real dodo that was somewhat notorious for VERY POOR measurements (even in his own time...1870s).
Basically he was to survey these four Lode Claims (2 were 200'x2000' and 2 were 200'x1000'). These four claims shared a common sideline that was 3000' in length (according to the Notices of location and the Approved Mineral Survey Plat).
We get out there and find the three Southeasterly-most corners (the claims ran Northwesterly from there) without any problem (only a couple of hundred feet from USMM No.1).
It's a LONG story, but in the end, we ended up finding all but one of the remaining six corners to the Northwest (all with Bearing Trees if I recall correctly).
Well, bottom line, the 3000' was more like 2000' and change. He had “lost/dropped” about 800' in the first 2000' and another couple of hundred in the last 1000'.
Obviously he only ran the common sideline(s), and stubbed out the other corners 200' each side thereof (of course that ISN'T what his Field Notes said).
Gross error??? Well yeah (DUH), but that doesn't change the limits, boundaries, or anything else at this point!
BTW...his bearing(s) sucked too!
Loyal
