Not exactly.
The case is over a line 400' south of the aliquot line. The disputed line was already established. After that the BLM moved the aliquot line. You are correct, the aliquot line is not in dispute in this case.
The 400' line was established as between grantor and grantee at the time of the Deed and should have been left where it was already located on the ground.
It is a very poor system where a boundary remote from another boundary gets pulled back and forth because the first boundary is found to be in a different location. This does not make for peace in the community which is the purpose of establishing boundaries despite inaccuracies which offend our sensibilities as Engineers.
clearcut
"This is a legal matter in itself, a FS employee surveying Federal Land under a State License! But, that's another story."
Federal lands near Palatka, Fl, may be part of the Ocala National Forest. That's probably why a Forest Service surveyor was involved.
Edit ... actually, it says to in the Rivers case, third sentence:
The U.S. Forestry Service owns the land to the north.
Differences
[sarcasm]oh no, you mean that CA law does not apply in FL?[/sarcasm]
Funny how varied the law can become in different jurisdictions. It all started from the same seed... followed by it's own form of twisted evolution.
Then you get a new staff and they do it all differently. (MA Land Court changed their interpretations following a staff change around 2006)
The one thing I have seen here is that surveying does change from state to state. My interpretations will be different from yours because I was born and raised in a bizarre state where the shorefront owners own to Low Water (not sure which low water, the Supreme Judicial Court had the opportunity to determine this and chose not to make the determination). Where half of our properties are registered and decreed in an overly cumbersome torrens land registration system, but the other half are not. Where we have judges who are experts in land but plaintiffs with weak arguments have the opportunity to submit their case to criminal judges (judges are not criminals, their expertise is with criminal trials).
so don't say that those guys in Florida have it wrong. they have it right for Florida and not for California. after all, it is not our place to make the law. it is our place to take the statutory and case law and make our interpretations.
clearcut
I have been under the impression that once Federal Lands have passed into private ownership, it is State law that controls even if the Federal Government later purchases the land back, a transfer of title that would need to be done under State law. If that is the case, unlicensed government surveyors are practicing without a license whenever they go onto previously privately owned Government lands to survey anything and are subject to sanctions by the State Boards for practicing without a license. That is the only way to protect private adjoining owners from the acts of unaccountable and unlicensed Government Surveyors. Does anyone have information to correct or support that impression?
jud
clearcut
Federal officials are usually exempted from State practice laws although any Court will still hold the Federal Government to State boundary law.
I have even heard a rumor that all boundaries are determined according to state law according to the Federal Courts.
clearcut
It's my understanding that the BLM only surveys where the Federal Government has an interest estate. This of course includes millions of acres of private lands in the western states.
The Pseudo Ranger
Yes, there is Forest Service land, but they do not have survey authority.
Here is my diagram of the Rivers case:
The information is from the published opinion assuming it is accurate as to the facts (not guaranteed by any means).
Pseudo
What is the legality of a federal employee with a State license surveying Federal land?
Does your license authorize this?
And why wasn't this little tidbit of information brought to the court's attention?
Keith
Pseudo
I once surveyed "federal" property under my state license. It was a house in a neighborhood that was formerly used for military officers, but the nearby base decided they didn't need it anymore, and wanted to sell it. The owner of record was listed as "The United States Federal Goverment".
To my knowledge, every state, and a few of the larger National Forests, have a NFS surveyor assigned to them, and one of their duties is to survey and maintain the forest boundaries. Are you saying this is illegal?
It appears that Lozeau's successor and Rivers for $10 managed to undo the damage caused by the court and the 1984 independent dependent resurvey that apparently caused Rivers to loose a building and part of a drive. Now it appears the decision may shifted the problem to the south line of Rivers if the GIS lines can be believed.The domino's are waiting to fall and the visitation of the resurveyor has become a calamity.
I bet it was a lot more than $10.00. "$10 and other valuable consideration" is boilerplate language on just about every deed I see in Florida. I've heard it is done this way so that people can not see what you really paid for the house in the public records ... but now with property appraisers online, and Zillow and Trulia, it seems like a moot point.
Probably right
> Not exactly.
>
> .... The disputed line was already established. After that the BLM moved the aliquot line. You are correct, the aliquot line is not in dispute in this case.
>
> The 400' line was established as between grantor and grantee at the time of the Deed and should have been left where it was already located on the ground.
> ...
Being as the BLM work was a dependant resurvey, I would hope you have a complete and thorough understanding of their decision to reject the private survey.
Have you actually spoken with the surveyors involved? Have you conclusive proof to substantiate your claim?
I would hope you have performed the due diligence I would expect of someone who discredits the work of any surveyor. I would certainly call you and review ALL pertinent evidence before I went worldwide telling everyone that Dave K screwed up a survey. (Even with proof, I would still likely pose the issue as a question rather than a fact).
They either put the boundary where the retracement evidence called for, or they got it wrong. I hate to see any surveyor discredit the work of another without conclusive proof.
This case is not about the aliquot line so I'm not sure what your beef is?
The court is determining the location of the line 400' south of the aliquot line. Yes I made some editorial comments on the system of allowing a remote boundary to control another boundary which is contrary to the vast weight of case law. Most courts favor monuments nearer to the boundary in question because they are less liable to error. This is a discussion forum.
Edit-I misunderstood your comment above. When I said the BLM moved the aliquot line I meant that for purposes of discussion, not as a criticism of what they did. The case is over a line remote from the aliquot line.
I see a fence on the south of the photo that appears to at the "old" location.
Pseudo
Well if it is legal to use your State License to survey Federal Land, then I guess it is legal?
clearcut
This is common here at least, that is, the USDA-FS surveying its boundaries by either their state licensed employee or a contractor. As I understand it though, the BLM could change the answer if called on to do a dependent resurvey because the FS doesn't have the survey authority (unless deligated).
Dave, I value your opinions and appreciate much of your postings.
However, when you say a dependant resurvey "moves" a line, I find fault with that. A dependant resurvey should only locate the line. To claim the federal retracement moved a line is completely equivelant to saying their dependant resurvey was in error. I would hate to see someone go worldwide with comments that one of my surveys was in error. Especially if that person had not contacted me to discuss the specifics of the situation.
Keith
Suppose this is land patented out and later reacquired by the FS.
In that case does the BLM still have the survey authority?
It may be unpatented public domain, I'm not sure.
