clearcut
> Wow,4 years. incredible. This should be quick and inexpensive solution for clearing up title issues such as yours and encroachments, etc. The LLA process in CA is way overdue for revision to get it back to what it was intended for.
Yea..takes a while. The last one I did took 5 years, that's why I avoid doing them. The city at times is tremendously stupid.
RJ
I disagree, but you do post some of the best survey posts on this board.
RJ
My memory is fuzzy but 20 some years ago the firm I worked for had a subdivision. They put the two haves of an old 10 acre lot back together. It was something like the north 330 and the south 330 but that part of the County is notorious for having oversized Lots, in this case 15' north-south.
The Title Company issued a Subdivision Guarantee including the 15' gap through the middle of the Lot so the Final Map got filed and everyone was happy. They tried to track down the heirs of the original grantor but couldn't find any. As far as I know they didn't reform any Deed descriptions but I was young so I don't know for sure.
Suppose you are the Title Officer.. Jim
> > I kinda like these types 🙂
>
> My comment was semi-facetious, as I'm the creator of the one with the bumpy exterior. I released it into the wild years ago; I don't recall if I sent it to you directly, but I might well have. In any event, use it in good health!
Hi Jim,
That is a nice looking tree, I don't seem to see it in Carlson. Would it be too much trouble to send it to me?
Ralph
Jim ..that tree block
> My comment was semi-facetious, as I'm the creator of the one with the bumpy exterior.
Umm Jim..it was a few years ago that you commented on a tree type when I posted one of my surveys, asked if you could borrow it and naturally I said yes.. I created all of the ones shown below
Jim ..that tree block
Okay the one I like is deciduous one, my apologies Paul.
Ralph
ralph
email me and let me know what flavored version of acad you want the file in. I can translate to ver 2011
ralph
Thank You Paul!
Ralph
Np at all Ralph
I suggest you explode and retrace. I use General Cad Pro and components (blocks) translate with glitches sometimes.
RJ
Quiet Title
This seems to be the only viable way to close a gap, expensive and probably time consuming as well. Never being a party to an action like this I can only speculate what is involved.
I've been involved with a few Paul: My advise is avoid them if you can.
moe
> I've been involved with a few Paul: My advise is avoid them if you can.
I will take that advice Moe
Why is it that we surveyors insist on turning every boundary location problem into a "title" problem? Surprise. Deeds sometimes contain errors in the dimensions called out for the property (that's why they're lowest on the list of evidence priority). An error in distance (a location conflict) doesn't turn into a title problem until some surveyor refuses to report boundary locations and simply report the difference between record and measured positions of those boundaries. Instead, we insist on drawing two lines, cross-hatching the "area of uncertainty," and disclosing our lack of understanding of the law to the world.
By turning this issue into a title problem, the hornet's nest has been kicked. After a flurry of activity, all will ultimately settle back down and the parties will return to their harmony, having moved a few ink spots around on some paper.
Makes me want to go have a Coke.
JBS
RJ
> I discussed this with one LS who has been around quite a while, he is 87 and still goes to the field, handles city processing for the condos etc he is doing..in other words, he's not standing around drooling on his old KE transit, his opinion was as mine, the wall is the line and the gap simply does not exist.
>
> It's simply logical.
>
Now, that is how boundaries are determined! By surveyors. Show the boundary, then show the record vs measured values! Finish your survey and be done with it.
> Much as I would like to finish the RS and move on, I cannot at this point. Since were doing a subdivision I have to wait for the title company to make a decision. If the end depth is 147 ' or 147.5' I really don't care, I just want to job to move ahead. As it stands, we cannot do a single thing as far as progressing.
This is where the thinking strays from the law. The title is just fine. There's an owner A and an owner B. The location of the boundary between them has been surveyed and discovered. Report the conflicting evidence and depict the boundary location with record (147') and measured (147.5'). Boundary law has already resolved the "problem." Why create a misrepresentation that turns this into a title problem?
JBS
RJ
> Quiet Title
>
> This seems to be the only viable way to close a gap, expensive and probably time consuming as well. Never being a party to an action like this I can only speculate what is involved.
Once we've successfully converted the boundary location problem into a title problem, there are few remedies left other than a flurry of quitclaim deeds, mortgage substitutions and quiet title actions.
Using a title band-aide to fix a simple boundary problem just creates an unending supply of problems.
JBS
JB
> This is where the thinking strays from the law. The title is just fine.
Slow down JB. There is more to this site than just accepting the concrete wall face as the common line. This is going to be a subdivision in Los Angeles. There is an evident title problem that exists on record. The record has to be non conflicting when the final map is submitted to the City of LA or the subdivision will not finalize.
For now, this problem rests with the title company who will ultimately issue the Final Subdivision Guarantee that the City will accept and the subdivision will record.
Though I would use the wall and close the gap I cannot do that with a quasi-legal document(an RS)that will not have any weight with the powers that be, the City of Los Angeles Subdivision Department.
147' or 147.5' .. it's not the issue. It's the paperwork that is the issue.
JB
> Slow down JB. There is more to this site than just accepting the concrete wall face as the common line. This is going to be a subdivision in Los Angeles. There is an evident title problem that exists on record. The record has to be non conflicting when the final map is submitted to the City of LA or the subdivision will not finalize.
>
This is where we differ, Paul. Determining the location of the boundary (along the wall in this case) is the province of the surveyor. You've done that and no one is claiming differently (except yourself when you declare a "title" conflict exists.
> For now, this problem rests with the title company who will ultimately issue the Final Subdivision Guarantee that the City will accept and the subdivision will record.
>
The only reason this "title" problem rests with the "title company" is because the supposed "problem" has been given to them to respond. What else can they do? You give a man a hammer, every problem in his purview is a "nail."
> Though I would use the wall and close the gap I cannot do that with a quasi-legal document(an RS)that will not have any weight with the powers that be, the City of Los Angeles Subdivision Department.
>
The "quasi-judicial" survey isn't expected to repair a title problem, however, gaps aren't title problems, they're boundary location problems which are resolved by applying land boundary law, not title law.
> 147' or 147.5' .. it's not the issue. It's the paperwork that is the issue.
Correct. The law treats the discrepancy between a record and measured distance as irrelevant and entirely expected, while the survey or wants to discover it, disclose it, and hold it in front of everyone's face to declare how absurdly irresponsible this error is.
There's nothing wrong with the paperwork. Perfect chain of title on both sides. No one is contesting the ownership (title). If we simply let the boundary law work as it is designed to work, the conflicting evidence (in this case, some numbers in deeds) will be resolved and the location will be discovered. It's the retracing surveyor's duty to simply document the evidence, determine the facts, and apply the rule of law designed to appropriately resolve the conflict. It's not the surveyor's job to turn a conflict in boundary location evidence into a title problem and start passing out hammers.
JBS
JB
> There's nothing wrong with the paperwork.
JB , you just do not know what dealing with the City of LA is like..
JB
> JB , you just do not know what dealing with the City of LA is like..
Oh, ya; I'm familiar. It's a lot like dealing with surveyors, attorneys and title companies, P&Z department staff and building department staff who share the same misconceptions. Are you saying that you'd have to exchange quitclaim deeds and hold quiet title actions to make up for the fact that the actual measurement is neither 147' or 147.5'? It's really some proportionate value caused by a measurable irregularity between found center line monuments; let's say 147.16' or 147.29' measured. Is that a "title" problem, too? This discussion hasn't even gone there yet...
Conflicting distances doesn't equate to conflicting title claims.
JBS
JB
> .. Are you saying that you'd have to exchange quitclaim deeds and hold quiet title actions to make up for the fact that the actual measurement is neither 147' or 147.5'?
>
I never mentioned any of those things as being an action I would suggest be taken. I made comment on those things only.
Los Angeles County and City are difficult to work with at the best.