Ambiguities
A link to the actual decision:
http://law.justia.com/cases/california/cal4th/9/47.html
From the text:
"Employing what he testified was the standard method for locating a property boundary where there has been a subdivision, Seibel identified the location of the boundary separating the parties' parcels [9 Cal. 4th 52] by dividing Lot 57 into portions of equal area by means of a line drawn parallel to the outside boundary of the first parcel conveyed, that is, a line drawn parallel to the western edge of the west one-half of Lot 57. Defendants did not dispute Seibel's methodology in conducting his survey (which Seibel recorded, pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 8762) or its accuracy, and, in fact, stipulated to the admission in evidence of the survey at trial".
The problem is as far as I know there is no standard method for dividing a parcel into equal areas in California. Wattles in his book says the only rule is both halves should be equal but the boundary can have multiple segments (he mentions a San Francisco case with no reference information). The Court probably didn't look into it to hard since the defendant stipulated (a huge mistake on their part, in my opinion). By so stipulating they painted the Court into a corner, AP doesn't work because of the tax issue and then the Supremes cooked up new burden of proof rules for Implied BLAs so that got killed. Mosk's dissent is very critical of the majority's new rule.
The obvious solution before a novel location of the boundary was calculated would've been to find some version of the boundary that would've satisfied both parties. This would have been a much more useful service to the property owners and a fraction of the cost of protracted litigation that never resolved the case. But that is all woulda shoulda coulda at this point.
Here is the Record of Survey (link)...
http://www.sacmaps.com/Survey/Book_043/011-001.tif
A bunch of record maps relative to the case are at the Sacmaps URL.
35 RS 14 is particularly interesting to look at...
http://www.sacmaps.com/Survey/Book_035/014-001.tif
Where's J.B. Stahl?
. . .
Where's J.B. Stahl?
The rabbit monster in his avatar ate him.
Keith, "Where It Never Was Located" Is A False Statement
I know!
Where's J.B. Stahl?
Sorry, Retired69. I've been head-down trying to finish my 2012 commitments before I run out of 2012. At this point, it's not looking too good, either. Too much work; too little time.
My reply to Bryant would require a history lesson that is too detailed for me to post at the moment. Dave's doing an excellent job so far.
Luckily, the CA position in Bryant is pretty limited to it and a very small number of other states who've been lead down the primrose path. Also, lucky for me, Utah SC only went a short way along the path in Halliday v Cluff before they saw the "error of the way" and recanted the position in Staker v. Ainsworth.
JBS
The Presumption Has To Be That It Originally Existed Where..
Dagnabit, I meant to say "I am trying NOT to engage in a back and forth debate."
The protracted lines
are only in minds of the draftsman of the original survey plat and do not exist until they are established/monumented on the ground!
The protracted lines
And in this case there isn't even a protracted line, it is simply the division line between halves of a subdivision lot which can be anything in California.
The physical evidence will tell the story of how the original parties implemented what they intended by the deed description.
The protracted lines
Yes Dave, these protracted lines are simply the plan for the landowners to establish their boundaries on the ground and/or for land surveyors to use proper methods to put them on the ground and of course, respect the prior establishment of the lines.
Questions About Bryant v Blevins Maps
I note that the defendant did not have a surveyor, so the result court result may flow from incomplete evidence.
I note from the 1980 Waters survey, that Waters found 3 of 4 monuments at Section corners, honoring all 3 and not setting the 4th. Waters found 9 minor corners and held none per his rendition. Seven of the nine were off to the southwest an average of 11'. The direction seems to indicate some type of consistent problem in the subdivision. Analyzing them by teirs gives a strong clue. Along the North Section line 2 pins are SW 7.72' & 7.55'. Two lines to the South, 3 pins are SW 9.41', 9.16' & 8.98'. Down at the 7th row of lots, pins found for the West line of Lot 54 are SW 15.49' & 15.65'. All that evidence indicates that the missing SE Section corner was not as far East as shown. Could it be 11' to the West?
Waters was surveying Lot 54 and set 4 5/8" rebars capped with LS 3423. One each at the SE & SW corners, and one each 20' South of the NE & NW corners, honoring a 20' easement line.
Seibel was surveying the Bryant v Blevins lot in question, the West half of Lot 57 along with the East halves of 55 & 58. He found 3 of 4 monuments at Section corners, however the NW corner he found and honored was a 3/4" pipe that was 12' South of the nail that Waters honored. Seibel set the SE corner of Section 12 without reference to section corners to the East or South. Despite Waters map showing 6 lot markers in the vicinity of his survey only 8 years prior Seibel only found 1 of them. He claims to have found a 5/8" rebar capped LS 3423 at the NE corner of Lot 55. Waters claims to have set a 5/8" rebar capped LS 3423 20' South of the NE corner of Lot 55.
Seibel set the split line 11' East of the fence, a coincicdence, I think not?
So this crucial court decision could be based on GIGO.
Paul in PA
Questions About Bryant v Blevins Maps
That's what I'm saying.
What is GIGO?
I believe the southeast section corner was set from data on the original Subdivision Plat...
http://www.sacmaps.com/Subdivision/BOOK_010/041-001.TIF
Sacramento County has three different map books...Subdivisions (book of maps...BM), Parcel Maps...PM (4 lot and fewer minor subdivisions started in 1965) and Surveys...R/S.
Questions About Bryant v Blevins Maps
GIGO = (G)arbage (I)n (G)arbage (O)ut ?
just wondering.
Bryant v Blevins Maps, At Least Two Professionals Disagreed
Per Anthony Waters' map of 1980, he found evidence that 2 other professionls had a different opinion of the orientation of Section 12.
Waters found 3 capped pins set by John H Bennett RE 11572 and 2 by Gilbert A Gardner LS 2901 and they were consistent with 4 other unmarked pins Waters located.
Had the adjoiner hired a surveyor the reason for the different orientation might have been found and changed the legal results. Before anyone dismisses that please note that both Waters and Seibel (the Blevins surveyor) accepted The Bennett capped pipe as the NE Section 12 corner.
Paul in PA
Bryant v Blevins Maps, At Least Two Professionals Disagreed
I have a copy of an unrecorded Gilbert Gardner survey in my files here. Steve gave it to me several years ago. I also have his field notes. I will scan and post them later.
