> I agree, the court can find there is only one boundary. However, how does the surveyor put that into the chain of title?
Are you now placing things in the chain of title? If so how? Why do you think it is your job to place things in the chain of title? Isn’t that something that only the landowners can do?
>No big deal if future landowners are agreeable to abide by an old oral agreement. However, the fence is contestable. Witnesses to the agreement will pass. Memories will fade and change. In CA the surveyor's authority to take oaths is specifically for memorializing original monument evidence that has been obliterated. A surveyor is not an adjudicator who affirms an earlier oral agreement to a fence supercedes written title that can be positively located according to the terms contained therein.
What part of any boundary line ISN’T contestable? Nobody has ever claimed that evidence (witnesses, memories, etc) doesn’t fade and/or change. That is why a surveyor should do his job correctly, ie, gather all the relevant evidence, analyze it in accordance with the law, and perpetuate the discovered relevant evidence in the form of a record of survey (or other methods as available).
A valid agreement (a valid boundary location doctrine) doesn’t supersede anything, it is the legal and valid establishment of the one and only boundary line. And in my reading of CA case law, the mere fact that the “record” line is assertainable by a survey, doesn’t preclude the “new” line establishment, so why even consider that, it DOESN”T EXIST?
Consider this:
"Although without final authority, the surveyor when employed on a resurvey must act as judge and jury, collecting the evidence, hearing the testimony, interpreting the law and then making a decision consistent therewith. Questions relative to faulty surveys, obliterated monuments, contradictory testimony, disputed boundaries, riparian rights, inconsistent deed descriptions, erroneous plats, and legal decisions may be involved." (Clark on Surveying and Boundaries, second edition, introduction ix.) Chandler v. Hibberd, 165 Cal.App.2d 39 (1958), 332 P.2d 133.
>It is not unreasonable to assumee in the case presented, that the terminal ends of the line were originally monumented in accordance with the terms of the written instrument. The fence was placed in ignorance of those monuments because of the lack of surveyor involvement.
>The court ruled that it was unnecessary that the owners (and their architect) made any effort to locate the true line, which was in reality very much locatable. Rather the court held that the agreement affixed the line simply because the true line was unknown to the parties of the agreement.
Do you disagree with what the courts have said?
>You as a surveyor may recognize what you believe the court would rule in this case, and then claim the fence as being the establishment of the line. However, it is contestable and subject to the witness testimony in a court of law should any future owners litigate this. Your opinion as a surveyor does not affirm the old oral agreement in the chain of title. It is simply an opinion in the eyes of the court. It is only the court or actions by landowners who can place the fence location in the chain of title by modifying the terms of the written title. The surveyor can only offer an opinion and guidance.
Why not try this as a surveyor? (1) Secure the contract to survey the line. (2) Gather all the relevant evidence (including parol evidence). (3) Analyze the evidence in accordance with the law. (4) Form a well-reasoned professional opinion. (5) Present your opinion to the landowners. It is very important how you would do this. DO NOT just show up and set the markers and walk away. You should (before you set or flag up existing monuments) meet with the landowners, and verbally (using) pictures as necessary, fully explain your process, the evidence gathered, and the law you applied in arriving at your opinion. (5) Let the fully informed landowners decide whether or not they accept your well-reasoned opinion that is supported by the evidence and the law.
Wouldn't that be much more preferable than forcing the landowners to go thru the expensive judicial system?
>(5) Let the fully informed landowners decide whether or not they accept your well-reasoned opinion that is supported by the evidence and the law. Wouldn't that be much more preferable than forcing the landowners to go thru the expensive judicial system?
And when the landowners are done listening to your best professional advice and still disagree, they go to court. Which is probably what would have happened in this case even if a surveyor, rather than an architect, had been involved.
>
> Why not try this as a surveyor? (1) Secure the contract to survey the line. (2) Gather all the relevant evidence (including parol evidence). (3) Analyze the evidence in accordance with the law. (4) Form a well-reasoned professional opinion. (5) Present your opinion to the landowners. It is very important how you would do this. DO NOT just show up and set the markers and walk away. You should (before you set or flag up existing monuments) meet with the landowners, and verbally (using) pictures as necessary, fully explain your process, the evidence gathered, and the law you applied in arriving at your opinion. (5) Let the fully informed landowners decide whether or not they accept your well-reasoned opinion that is supported by the evidence and the law.
> Wouldn't that be much more preferable than forcing the landowners to go thru the expensive judicial system?
:good: :good:
Well said
> You have to face it, judges are not surveyors or doctors or airplane pilots. For land cases, they should rely on expert testimonies from members of accredited surveyors organization.
It certainly is true that most judges have little sophistication about surveying matters. As a result, they do rely upon surveying testimony to resolve questions. However, typically that testimony is limited to matters of fact. The attorneys prefer to keep questions of law as their territory. So, as a result, advice from a surveyor upon a subject such as the broader public policy implications of some particular application of a principle of law such as the validity of verbal boundary agreements, would be unlikely to be enthusiastically received, or so I would think.
The state legislature is always free to enact legislation requiring all boundary agreements to be in writing and of record to be binding on subsequent purchasers of a tract or parcel of land.
> From the replies that I have read so far, there are surveyors that rely on court rulings when they survey property boundaries. I read one post where the surveyor believes that existing fences are more credible than what is described in a boundary description because the court says so.
The standards of surveying practice in the US do typically expect professional surveyors to be guided by both statute law and the applicable decisions of courts. The reason for paying close attention to case law is that in many old land descriptions, often from the 19th century, it is not at all uncommon to find significant discrepancies, ambiguities, and conflicts between adjoining landowners when the description is applied to the ground, literally as written.
It is the task of the surveyor to act as a court of the lowest jurisdiction to attempt to give an opinion about the proper resolution of the flaws in the description and to do so in a manner that ultimately a court of law would be likely to agree with if the opinion were to be tested there.
> But if you rely on past court rulings as basis for your action in boundary surveys then you are not doing your job. You are in effect becoming a lawyer & not a surveyor. If you rely for example on the ruling from this case for example that you know has flaws then your survey becomes flawed.
It certainly is possible to misapply the decisions of various courts. However, that doesn't mean that surveyors in the US are not expected to survey in full awareness of the decisions of courts that apply to the questions they are dealing with.
It is also true that questions will sometimes be found that a surveyor is best advised to report as merely a matter than may have to be settled between the adjoining landowners and/or some third parties, possibly by litigation.
Lot Line Adjustment.
> >(5) Let the fully informed landowners decide whether or not they accept your well-reasoned opinion that is supported by the evidence and the law. Wouldn't that be much more preferable than forcing the landowners to go thru the expensive judicial system?
>
> And when the landowners are done listening to your best professional advice and still disagree, they go to court. Which is probably what would have happened in this case even if a surveyor, rather than an architect, had been involved.
Yeah, and if one of the parties is an elderly widow, as was apparently so in the Kliban case, that means that she is going to fight to the death for the fence as the boundary. At least that would be what I'd give 90% odds of happening.
Utah as well
> Good discussion on agreement doctrines. I wonder if JBS was involved in this? Incredible that a tree planting causes a supreme court ruling.
> Agreement doctrines
What's even more incredible is that the neighbor was given permission to remove the tree. Rather than simply paying the $200 tree-removal service, they believed the tree owner should have to pay for the removal. So, they went to court on principle.
I wasn't involved in the case, but have studied it in detail so as to better understand what evidence is necessary to prove the location of a boundary. I am in the business of locating boundaries, so I consider such a case as having importance to the work I'm expected to perform.
The first step in any boundary determination is to gather the evidence. What evidence is important? How do you properly gather the evidence? What rules govern the evidence you gather? Cases such as Imus are an excellent resource (better than any textbook on surveying) to the practicing boundary surveyor.
I prepared a 21-page handout and a PowerPoint presentation for the Utah Council of Land Surveyors Fall Forum, outlining the foundational process the courts relied upon to reach their ultimate decision.
What I found most interesting is that all three courts, the trial court, the appellate court and the supreme court, agreed that the fence established the location of the boundary. They only differed on the reason. The lower courts ruled in favor of estoppel, while the supreme court ruled in favor of the oral agreement. The most interesting outcome of the panel discussion was the simple fact that surveyors are expected to gather the evidence. When we fail in that duty, the owners are left with no recourse other than to get a determination from the court.
What I find most interesting about the CA cases is the struggle their court has after they've improperly combined three separate doctrines of Oral Agreement, Implied Agreement and Estoppel into a single doctrine they now refer to as the "Agreement Doctrine." There are all sorts of complications they now face. They're still trying to uphold landowner agreements when they can, but in the face of their treatment of the law, they've made it a difficult process.
Regardless of the process, the surveyor's role is still clear. They must gather the evidence prior to the conflict and must document the evidence in the most appropriate fashion possible so future conflicts can be avoided.
JBS
> >
> > Why not try this as a surveyor? (1) Secure the contract to survey the line. (2) Gather all the relevant evidence (including parol evidence). (3) Analyze the evidence in accordance with the law. (4) Form a well-reasoned professional opinion. (5) Present your opinion to the landowners. It is very important how you would do this. DO NOT just show up and set the markers and walk away. You should (before you set or flag up existing monuments) meet with the landowners, and verbally (using) pictures as necessary, fully explain your process, the evidence gathered, and the law you applied in arriving at your opinion. (5) Let the fully informed landowners decide whether or not they accept your well-reasoned opinion that is supported by the evidence and the law.
> > Wouldn't that be much more preferable than forcing the landowners to go thru the expensive judicial system?
>
>
> :good: :good:
>
> Well said
dittos
to do less would put you in the "deed staker" category.
The public expects (and deserves) our help in fixing their problems.
a simple Boundary Line Agreement can be executed and recorded putting it in the chain of title.
maybe a local governing body will object (and we should advise on that issue also)
> Not to be pedantic, but there was no "lost" property. Nobody stole or lost or gained property. The landowners legally established the one and only boundary. But then again, you knew that.
The legal fiction would be that no property was lost, but the reality is apparently that a strip of land land was cut off of one identifiable lot and transferred to the owner of the adjoining identifiable lot.
Had the boundary actually not been determinable by a surveyor with certainty, then there would be some merit to saying that there was no loss or gain. Apparently that wasn't the case in Kliban, nor would it typically be in any well-surveyed residential subdivision.
> > If the neighbors wanted to be neighborly I don't know why they couldn't execute a boundary line agreement then have the survey.
>
> What I got from reading Kliban was that the neighbors didn't want to actually pay for a surveyor to locate the line between them. Possibly the architect convinced them that he was just as good with his stringline as some overpriced surveyor (who presumably could easily have found the actual boundary).
>
> As a matter of public policy, how smart is it to encourage actions that cost much more in the long run than boundary surveys actually do and potentially occupy the courts with penny-ante disputes that otherwise would not have arisen?
I am thinking that there were numerous neighbourly agreements made prior to the fence construction.
as to the artichoke involvement... we all choose our own experts to advise us, and follow what they say. Maybe a holistic healer would be a better choice? 😉
Yep,
First she says there was a survey done to place the fence.
When he asked Kliban about the discrepancy, she said that they had a survey done to establish the location of the fence and would get him a copy of the survey. Despite his repeated requests, Kliban did not produce a survey.
Then in the trial it states:
Both stated that they did not know where the property line was located but that they wanted to build the fence on the boundary between the two properties
Either there was a survey done and the boundary was known or there was no survey and the locations of the boundary was unknown, allowing the boundary line agreement. Either way it appears someone was being untruthful.
> Are you now placing things in the chain of title? If so how? Why do you think it is your job to place things in the chain of title? Isn’t that something that only the landowners can do?
>
My actions do not modify the chain of title, at least not in CA. My point is exactly that. My goal is to educate the client and adjoiner as to situation and best remedy which will leave the client, the adjoiner and all successive interests with clear title.
Now, providing that the boundary line is established by deed alone, in that its location is not ascertainable from the information shown on any map or survey, then perhaps I can state on my record of survey that I am establishing the location of the boundary by evidence found outside the language contained within the deed itself and state the applicable doctrine for which my opinion is derived.
Does this memorializing of my discovery of a past oral agreement and term acceptance by interested parties do anything more than to provide a written opinion of the location? No. It may well convince future users of the validity of the oral agreement.
But then again, it can have the affect of proving cloud of title. For my survey, for which I must file according to the laws of the State of California, must also show all evidence, such as relationship to surrounding surveys and title documents. For this, I now provide notice to all that the boundary location is not in agreement with the terms of the written title.
Perhaps this would not be such a problem if there was difficulty in locating the boundary according to the written title alone. Uncertainty truly exists in the boundary location in that instance and actions by the owners surely can agree to resolve that uncertainty.
If the owners choose, they could reform their deeds to conform to an agreed upon line in order to clear up ambiguities in the written title.
However, in CA at least, parties cannot reform their deeds to establish a new position for a boundary, when the true boundary is locatable and no ambiguities exist in the written title.
In other words, in the case Dave presented, ONLY the courts can affirm the agreed upon line as ONLY the courts can apply the Doctrine to provide constructive notice that the written title is to be interpreted in a fashion that deviates from its original intent. If the written title was ambiguous as to location, then surely all would understand the need to clear title by agreement and the subsequent reformation of deeds could be performed by the landowner.
However, when it becomes clear that the written title is locatable, then landowners or the successors cannot agree to a different location.
Here is an example. Smith and Jones decide to put up a fence. They agree it is the boundary. Years later (more than 5 in CA), Smith decides to sell. He shows a potential buyer, Johnson, the fence and says it is the boundary. Johnson looks at the deed and smartly says "the deed doesn't call the fence, it calls for the boundary to be located at XX feet from the south boundary. How do I know the fence is the line?" Smith can say "Because Jones and I said so" all they want. But in Johnson's eyes, there is a cloud on the title. Smith has not proved that the fence was placed according to the title. Smith is not saying there is a written agreement in effect to resolve ambiguity in title. Johnson does not know what controls, the deed or the owner's testimony. There is conflict. Johnson is rightly confused as to where the true boundary is. Title is clouded in Johnson's eyes.
Again, only the court can affirm Smith and Jones agreement by action to quiet title. In CA, Smith and Jones recourse (or their successors) would be to perform a lot line adjustment procedure, being as the true boundary really is locatable, not because they were too cheap or ignorant to hire a surveyor. They could not resolve this issue by reformation of the deeds. That would be violation of California's Subdivision Map Act, being as the true line is ascertainable by a true and correct survey.
>
> What part of any boundary line ISN’T contestable? Nobody has ever claimed that evidence (witnesses, memories, etc) doesn’t fade and/or change. That is why a surveyor should do his job correctly, ie, gather all the relevant evidence, analyze it in accordance with the law, and perpetuate the discovered relevant evidence in the form of a record of survey (or other methods as available).
All true. But the record of survey is still simply an opinion. An opinion that actually provides notice that the ownership location is contrary to the terms contained within the written instrument. The record of survey does not provide clarification to location in the chain of title.
> A valid agreement (a valid boundary location doctrine) doesn’t supersede anything, it is the legal and valid establishment of the one and only boundary line. And in my reading of CA case law, the mere fact that the “record” line is assertainable by a survey, doesn’t preclude the “new” line establishment, so why even consider that, it DOESN”T EXIST?
I never said don't consider it exists. Quite the contrary. If the likelyhood that occupation or oral agreement has ripened into fee title, then appropriate means should be undertaken to conform the written title to the actual title. In the case Dave presented, this is trickier than simply reforming the deeds or memorializing evidence on a record of survey.
> Consider this:
> "Although without final authority, the surveyor when employed on a resurvey must act as judge and jury, collecting the evidence, hearing the testimony, interpreting the law and then making a decision consistent therewith. Questions relative to faulty surveys, obliterated monuments, contradictory testimony, disputed boundaries, riparian rights, inconsistent deed descriptions, erroneous plats, and legal decisions may be involved." (Clark on Surveying and Boundaries, second edition, introduction ix.) Chandler v. Hibberd, 165 Cal.App.2d 39 (1958), 332 P.2d 133.
>
Absolutely agree. Lot of non-bogus information in that book. Definetly worth the read for any praciticing surveyor.
> >It is not unreasonable to assumee in the case presented, that the terminal ends of the line were originally monumented in accordance with the terms of the written instrument. The fence was placed in ignorance of those monuments because of the lack of surveyor involvement.
> >The court ruled that it was unnecessary that the owners (and their architect) made any effort to locate the true line, which was in reality very much locatable. Rather the court held that the agreement affixed the line simply because the true line was unknown to the parties of the agreement.
>
> Do you disagree with what the courts have said?
>
No, I think the court properly applied the doctrine. They recognized the agreement and that past decisions have provided that uncertainty is not equivelant to whether or not it can be located by a true and accurate survey. However, that is the power of the court. For landowners to quiet title to such an issue, is an entirely different matter without the court's assistance. Simply reforming the deed is not necessarily as available an option due to restrictions imposed by the Subdivision Map Act in California.
> >You as a surveyor may recognize what you believe the court would rule in this case, and then claim the fence as being the establishment of the line. However, it is contestable and subject to the witness testimony in a court of law should any future owners litigate this. Your opinion as a surveyor does not affirm the old oral agreement in the chain of title. It is simply an opinion in the eyes of the court. It is only the court or actions by landowners who can place the fence location in the chain of title by modifying the terms of the written title. The surveyor can only offer an opinion and guidance.
>
> Why not try this as a surveyor? (1) Secure the contract to survey the line. (2) Gather all the relevant evidence (including parol evidence). (3) Analyze the evidence in accordance with the law. (4) Form a well-reasoned professional opinion. (5) Present your opinion to the landowners. It is very important how you would do this. DO NOT just show up and set the markers and walk away. You should (before you set or flag up existing monuments) meet with the landowners, and verbally (using) pictures as necessary, fully explain your process, the evidence gathered, and the law you applied in arriving at your opinion. (5) Let the fully informed landowners decide whether or not they accept your well-reasoned opinion that is supported by the evidence and the law.
> Wouldn't that be much more preferable than forcing the landowners to go thru the expensive judicial system?
I wholeheartedly agree. Keep the courts out. How best to achieve that is another question. The case Dave presented is not as easily handled by landowners in California as possibly it is in other jurisdictions. Landowners can't agree to a boundary location if a true and accurate survey can locate the boundary without going through a lot line adjustment or parcel map process, or by showing the written title is ambiguous and needs to be reformed. In some cases, the lot line adjustment process or parcel map may not be available due to zoning compliance issues. As such, if the existing written title is unambiguous, then any successive agreement to another location cannot be performed other than by lot line adjustment or parcel map. Unless, of course, except by action to quiet title through the courts, which have the power to interpret "uncertainty" as to location in a much more broad discretion than the authorities provided the local agencies charged with enforcing the CA Subdivision Map Act.
Of course, for those practicing outside of California, your mileage may vary.
Just to clarify, this is not a landmark decision.
It is not even published.
Utah as well
This is an Appellate level decision. The California Supreme Court decertified it for publication.
The Supreme Court was not involved.
The copy I have doesn't give the subsequent history so it appears that the Supreme Court was not asked to hear the case because there is no denial of review from them.
Utah as well
The Agreed Boundary doctrine has been in its present form since at least the 1908 decision of Young v. Blakeman, 153 Cal. 477 at 481:
"For these and other reasons the rule has been established that when such owners, being uncertain of the true position of the boundary so described, agree upon its true location, mark it upon the ground, or build up to it, occupy on each side up to the place thus fixed and acquiesce in such location for a period equal to the statute of limitations, or under such circumstances that substantial loss would be caused by a change of its position, such line becomes, in law, the true line called for by the respective descriptions, regardless of the accuracy of the agreed location, as it may appear by subsequent measurements."
and at 482:
"The object of the rule is to secure repose, to prevent strife and disputes concerning boundaries, and make titles permanent and stable."
I have found at least one case which deals with Estoppel as a separate doctrine, Grants Pass Land & Water Company v. Brown, 168 Cal. 456 (1914).
Practical Location sometimes shows up as between grantor and grantee only. Sometimes Agreed Boundary cases will use the phrase "practical location" with small caps so I assume they are being descriptive as opposed to combining doctrines but maybe I am reading too much into that detail.
The agreement was originally viewed as fictional but some cases later viewed it in contract hence the need for uncertainty to make a valid boundary contract.
> dittos
> to do less would put you in the "deed staker" category.
Doing less would also put one in the "fence line staker" category.
More accurately said, doing less would put you in the "technician" category.
> The public expects (and deserves) our help in fixing their problems.
> a simple Boundary Line Agreement can be executed and recorded putting it in the chain of title.
> maybe a local governing body will object (and we should advise on that issue also)
I still have a hard time with the seemingly unrelenting opinion of some that the obsolute distances stated in a description are the "written title". Once again, as the courts have repeatedly said, the boundary location doctrines HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH TITLE. Once the requirements of one of the doctrines are fullfilled, THAT LOCATION IS THE LOCATION SPECIFIED IN THE WRITTEN DESCRIPTION. THERE IS NO CONVEYANCE, NO LOSS, NO GAIN, NOR ANY LAND STOLEN, merely the location has been FINALLY located and placed on the ground, simply put, the boundary has finally been created, and it is our duty to FIND it.
Utah as well
> The Agreed Boundary doctrine has been in its present form since at least the 1908 decision of Young v. Blakeman, 153 Cal. 477
> at 482:
>
> "The object of the rule is to secure repose, to prevent strife and disputes concerning boundaries, and make titles permanent and stable."
That last statement of the basis of the rule is what would argue against its use in the Kliban case, since encouraging the recognition of verbal boundary agreements only seeds boundary disputes, resting as they do upon testimony not unlike that cited in Kliban. In other words, using a principle that is intended to create repose, but which accomplishes the contrary thing doesn't serve equity.
What is worth noting about the Utah case is that apparently even today the line could not be determined with any certainty by surveyors. That is a nice distinction to make. In areas where the quality of the surveying is poor, the law is right to provide other means of securing certainty in boundaries. In areas where the quality of the surveying is good, those other means shouldn't be needed and should be discouraged.
Utah as well
> > The Agreed Boundary doctrine has been in its present form since at least the 1908 decision of Young v. Blakeman, 153 Cal. 477
> > at 482:
> >
> > "The object of the rule is to secure repose, to prevent strife and disputes concerning boundaries, and make titles permanent and stable."
>
>
> That last statement of the basis of the rule is what would argue against its use in the Kliban case, since encouraging the recognition of verbal boundary agreements only seeds boundary disputes, resting as they do upon testimony not unlike that cited in Kliban. In other words, using a principle that is intended to create repose, but which accomplishes the contrary thing doesn't serve equity.
>
> What is worth noting about the Utah case is that apparently even today the line could not be determined with any certainty by surveyors. That is a nice distinction to make. In areas where the quality of the surveying is poor, the law is right to provide other means of securing certainty in boundaries. In areas where the quality of the surveying is good, those other means shouldn't be needed and should be discouraged.
I tend to agree to a point. By statute in CA, if adjoining owners want to establish a boundary in a location they determine on the ground, they first have to make effort to locate the true boundary, they cannot simply agree to a location that is in conflict with a location ascertainable by a true and accurate survey. It is only when there is ambiguity in the written instrument as to location that they can agree to a line in order to decide what their title documents intent is. At least that is the case if the owners want to provide for clean, marketable title.
The courts have taken greater liberty in applying "uncertainty" than provided to the local authorities. An owner could be found in violation of the subdivision map act if he/she tried to reform their deed to comply with an agreed location, unless he/she could show that the written instrument was of signficant uncertainty as to location.
Utah as well
they cannot simply agree to a location that is in conflict with a location ascertainable by a true and accurate survey
But in the CA case two surveyors surveyed a location in conflict with the agreed boundary and it prevailed.
Utah as well
> I tend to agree to a point. By statute in CA, if adjoining owners want to establish a boundary in a location they determine on the ground, they first have to make effort to locate the true boundary, they cannot simply agree to a location that is in conflict with a location ascertainable by a true and accurate survey. It is only when there is ambiguity in the written instrument as to location that they can agree to a line in order to decide what their title documents intent is. At least that is the case if the owners want to provide for clean, marketable title.
>
> The courts have taken greater liberty in applying "uncertainty" than provided to the local authorities. An owner could be found in violation of the subdivision map act if he/she tried to reform their deed to comply with an agreed location, unless he/she could show that the written instrument was of signficant uncertainty as to location.
For us out-of-staters, please provide the citations for the following statements:
1) By statute in CA, if adjoining owners want to establish a boundary in a location they determine on the ground, they first have to make effort to locate the true boundary, they cannot simply agree to a location that is in conflict with a location ascertainable by a true and accurate survey.
2) It is only when there is ambiguity in the written instrument as to location that they can agree to a line in order to decide what their title documents intent is. At least that is the case if the owners want to provide for clean, marketable title.
3) The courts have taken greater liberty in applying "uncertainty" than provided to the local authorities.
4) An owner could be found in violation of the subdivision map act if he/she tried to reform their deed to comply with an agreed location, unless he/she could show that the written instrument was of signficant uncertainty as to location.
Thanks.