"I just meant where that particular block 'moves' over from where it was supposed to be, on the side that it moved closer to its neighboring block, it will then take away from the size of the roadway."
That is completely immaterial. Our job is to find the "where is it" of the boundary question. Nothing is "taken away" from the roadway - it is what is has ALWAYS BEEN. We really need to quit looking at things the way they "should have been" and start looking at the facts of the way things were originally established - usually is the way things currently are. I completely understand this erroneous way of thinking, as it is the way "that has been taught" for evidently over 150 years. Sooner or later, either we as a profession, need to master this concept or the need for us may eventually be taken away.
"Although it would lead to problems if the town/city ever needed to make improvements (sidewalk, etc) and then there was not enough room."
No, there is no "problem". It is what it is. Just like in cases where the roadway was originally staked at its platted width, if the municipality, state, county or whomever "needs" more, they have legal ways of acquiring the needed additional width. It is NOT our job to determine if the current roadways are "enough" or not. It is our job to protect the "public"; this not only includes the public rights of way, but the rights of the individuals holding the private property - one is NOT more important than the other in the performance of our duties and responsibilities.
Please don't misunderstand my meaning - I'm not saying that you don't understand the principles at hand, but I believe we really need to carefully consider how we say things.
Well, I generally agree with the consensus of this discussion, (where they landed, is where they are...)
However...
To truly be a "professional", I feel it is excellent practice, to address both issues, (the theoretically correct location, as per city surveyor, and "where it all landed" as per the surveyor that laid it all out).
If we only use one option, and don't address them both, we are leaving the door open for trouble.
I'd like to see this job completed, in accord with general occupation, BUT, the 4-5 foot shift addressed, with a written report, that addresses, why you chose occupation, over technical. This effectively quashes the technical interpretation, leaving footsteps, loud and clear, to follow Justice Cooly's dictum.
That's how I think I'd handle mr technical. City Surveyors actions.
Brian Allen, post: 354615, member: 1333 wrote: "I just meant where that particular block 'moves' over from where it was supposed to be, on the side that it moved closer to its neighboring block, it will then take away from the size of the roadway."
That is completely immaterial. Our job is to find the "where is it" of the boundary question. Nothing is "taken away" from the roadway - it is what is has ALWAYS BEEN. We really need to quit looking at things the way they "should have been" and start looking at the facts of the way things were originally established - usually is the way things currently are. I completely understand this erroneous way of thinking, as it is the way "that has been taught" for evidently over 150 years. Sooner or later, either we as a profession, need to master this concept or the need for us may eventually be taken away.
"Although it would lead to problems if the town/city ever needed to make improvements (sidewalk, etc) and then there was not enough room."
No, there is no "problem". It is what it is. Just like in cases where the roadway was originally staked at its platted width, if the municipality, state, county or whomever "needs" more, they have legal ways of acquiring the needed additional width. It is NOT our job to determine if the current roadways are "enough" or not. It is our job to protect the "public"; this not only includes the public rights of way, but the rights of the individuals holding the private property - one is NOT more important than the other in the performance of our duties and responsibilities.
Please don't misunderstand my meaning - I'm not saying that you don't understand the principles at hand, but I believe we really need to carefully consider how we say things.
I for one would absolutely show the surveys of these lots as laid out due to the fences and probably earlier surveys of the lots showing them as such. I guess I was just playing a tad bit of Devils advocate.
Nate The Surveyor, post: 354618, member: 291 wrote: Well, I generally agree with the consensus of this discussion, (where they landed, is where they are...)
However...
To truly be a "professional", I feel it is excellent practice, to address both issues, (the theoretically correct location, as per city surveyor, and "where it all landed" as per the surveyor that laid it all out).
If we only use one option, and don't address them both, we are leaving the door open for trouble.
I'd like to see this job completed, in accord with general occupation, BUT, the 4-5 foot shift addressed, with a written report, that addresses, why you chose occupation, over technical. This effectively quashes the technical interpretation, leaving footsteps, loud and clear, to follow Justice Cooly's dictum.
That's how I think I'd handle mr technical. City Surveyors actions.
I agree
Dave Karoly, post: 354482, member: 94 wrote: Kaiser v. Dalto, 140 Cal. 167 (1903)
If they'd have waited about 3 years they wouldn't have had to bother with the case at all.
There's a small subdivision (maybe 20 lots, all in one tier) in Isleton (rural Sacramento Valley town) that was created (I think) in the mid-1940s. The description of the exterior boundary appears on the face of the plat, and it contains a few courses between the point of commencement and the POB. One of the calls leading up to the POB is a RR ROW, then there's a 46-course, then maybe 1 or 2 more (I'm going from memory, I last touched this in the the mid-80s) to the POB. The point of commencement wasn't obvious in the field, but a short stretch of rails was still in place where the RR crossed a county road (the rest of the rails had been removed to provide iron for the war effort). However, the houses and other improvements within the subdivision were all over the place. It looked like someone had laid out some of the lots nearest the POB but left out that 46-foot course, but when lots at the other end of the plat were improved they measured from the far end. The ones in between were a hodgepodge of locations.
The client didn't want to go to the expense of resolving the matter, so we never got everything figured out, but it was a mess, and the title company washed it's hands of any liability. One of these days I'll get back down there to see what's on the ground today.
Jim Frame, post: 354628, member: 10 wrote: If they'd have waited about 3 years they wouldn't have had to bother with the case at all.
There's a small subdivision (maybe 20 lots, all in one tier) in Isleton (rural Sacramento Valley town) that was created (I think) in the mid-1940s. The description of the exterior boundary appears on the face of the plat, and it contains a few courses between the point of commencement and the POB. One of the calls leading up to the POB is a RR ROW, then there's a 46-course, then maybe 1 or 2 more (I'm going from memory, I last touched this in the the mid-80s) to the POB. The point of commencement wasn't obvious in the field, but a short stretch of rails was still in place where the RR crossed a county road (the rest of the rails had been removed to provide iron for the war effort). However, the houses and other improvements within the subdivision were all over the place. It looked like someone had laid out some of the lots nearest the POB but left out that 46-foot course, but when lots at the other end of the plat were improved they measured from the far end. The ones in between were a hodgepodge of locations.
The client didn't want to go to the expense of resolving the matter, so we never got everything figured out, but it was a mess, and the title company washed it's hands of any liability. One of these days I'll get back down there to see what's on the ground today.
If in Google Maps you go to the block Bullard v Kemp was located in you will see it's all high rise buildings now, the "problem" has been erased by progress.
A former co-worker's story happened in Illinois circa mid 1970s. Somehow the Engineering Firm he worked for had staked a whole subdivision off 1/2 the lot widths. I understood it to be a straight street with lots of uniform width. They had gotten all the new lot owners to agree to exchange deeds to fix it (the houses were built) except he said one guy right in the middle refused. I don't know why they didn't just call them original boundaries. He said he came to California before it got resolved.
