Is there a surveyor here,
Yep, that's what I was getting at. The junior irons might have been set by Mickey Mouse himself, but if the junior owner adopted them and the senior let the junior believe the irons were ok, they are ok. Junior senior rights and monuments are irrelevant under these circumstances.
All we have to do now is figure out to lay out and mark perfectly straight lines...... uh, er.......I mean curved lines. 😉
Jimmy Dufus
I dropped the transit but I did not drop the deputy!
JBS_
I don't see subdivision plat in the op. It occurred to me that it was more a series of lots created over time, not necessarily by the surveyor.
YOU CANNOT SELL WHAT YOU DO NOT OWN!
I'm sorry, did I say that out loud?
Didn't mean to yell, but it can be frustrating when such a simple concept can get so convoluted.
Remember Jimmy Dufus? Probably not; I wrote about him recently.
I hired him to stake the lot corners on the north line of a subdivision I was finishing up.
My client sold all those lots. He was real pleased when he found out that Jimmy had ripped off his neighbor to the north by ignorantly setting corners way over the line.
Ah, well, that's surveying.
Here's the thing, my "bogus" buddy.
My client didn't sell anything over the line; he couldn't.
If his purchasers are successful in the future in ripping off the northerly adjoiner by whatever means, that's their action, not his.
Can you dig it?
Don
California Business and Professions Code
"Is that why the California Business and Professions Code makes the distinction?"
I'm sort of curious about this and not all that familiar with California law. But, what does the Business and Professions Code have to do with boundary law. Yes I know they govern professional licenses and set up any rules they want to regulate licenses but does that override your appellate court rulings. Can the “board” make rules that overrule the landowners rights and domain over their boundaries? Do professional board rules over rule the courts and landowners rights? Is a boundary location determined by board rules or boundary law? Maybe your courts are just bought off by powerful interests (not all that common all across the US these days).
From JBStahl's post:
"Boundary law, on the other hand, focuses on the actions of the landowners taken to establish the location of boundaries on the ground. Those actions result in physical representations intended to mark the boundary followed by their acceptance and satisfaction. Once the actions of the landowners have fulfilled one of the boundary law principles, the boundary is established. It is the retracing surveyor's duty to gather the evidence necessary to determine where the boundary has been established."
It appears to me that the California professional board has usurped the landowners rights to establish their boundaries. Just one more constitutional right taken by the state to pander to powerful interests. Sorta like Texas, the professional board is in control of property boundaries and makes the rules. If you're a landowner, when a surveyor shows up just bend over! I suppose to protect the public the “board” requires the surveyor to wear a condom, eh?
Sounds like things have gone as wacky as I believe about California.
YOU CANNOT SELL WHAT YOU DO NOT OWN! (BOGUS)
If you believe it, go for it.
And never ever bend the senior line and leave it to you crew chief to do it, cuz he can and won't know the difference.
California Business and Professions Code
B&P 8726:
8726. A person, including any person employed by the state or by a
city, county, or city and county within the state, practices land
surveying within the meaning of this chapter who, either in a public
or private capacity, does or offers to do any one or more of the
following:
(c) Locates, relocates, establishes, reestablishes, or retraces
any property line or boundary of any parcel of land, right-of-way,
easement, or alignment of those lines or boundaries.
http://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/laws/pls_act_unannotated.pdf
California is a large and diverse State. I have seen Southern California street corners with 5+ lead/plug and tag "monuments." Then we have places in NorCal where there are few monuments and fewer records for miles around. It's great that our Supreme Court lives in an urban fantasy land where everything is perfect and no record is infallible.
fattiretom
I see where you are coming from but I disagree. The intent of the parties was to have a straight line there and that straight line is fixed on the original monuments for that line. It has always been a straight line right up through the filed subdivision plat. The other monuments where set after the intentions of the parties were clearly stated and accepted on the plat and in deed showing that as a straight line.
Monuments set a couple of feet out would be erroneous for the back line but that does not mean they aren't useful. If they generally lined up I might hold them for the side to side orientation.
Tom
Keith
> [Sarcasm on] You have done it now! You mean to say there is a difference between property lines and boundary lines?! Wha, wha, what?! Is that why the California Business and Professions Code makes the distinction? [Sarcasm off].
>
Please don't misunderstand. I have, after reading literally hundreds (if not thousands) of cases during my studies, never found one single case which differentiates between a "property line" and a "boundary." There is no dictionary distinction, encyclopedic distinction, or court case that I have found where the court makes any distinction. There is only one boundary by legal definition and that is the furthest extent of two contiguous estates. If you choose to call that the "property line" or the "boundary," makes no difference. The courts are asked, time and time again to determine the location of the boundary. They time and time again reach to the same legal principles that have been in effect for centuries, even centuries before our great country was even discovered, to instruct us how the proper determinations are to be made.
With all the specific instructions the courts give to surveyors regarding how to gather evidence, how to interpret evidence, and how to appropriately apply the rule of law designed for the determination of boundaries, why is it that surveyors continue to be sucked into discussions such as the one raised in this very thread? Boundary determination has nothing to do with precision of measurements. We are never told of a monument that was "too far" or "close enough." Yet, here we are steeped in conversation about whether a "junior" corner can bend a "senior" line. If the courts don't expect perfection when we measure a distance, what makes us think that they will require perfection when running a line? We should, instead, be discussing what evidence is necessary to determine which of these monuments control the boundary and why or why not.
Yes, in a perfect world the monuments would form a perfect line at perfect distances. I have never seen it, because we don't live in a perfect world and the courts don't require perfection. It's the surveyors who seem to require perfection. Rather than follow the rules that govern the retracing surveyor, it's much easier to apply the math (perfection) and set our perfect monuments in their perfect position (as we see it). All is fine until the next generation of surveyors with the next generation of technology arrives to discover our imperfections and feel it is their duty (contrary to the law) to disclose these wretched errors to the world. Well, general population has already been convinced that no two surveyors can measure to the same point; it seems that we're still needing to prove it to ourselves.
Retracement surveyors are repeatedly warned by the courts that it is not our duty to fix the errors of the past. Our sole responsibility is to retrace the boundary based upon the best available evidence recovered and through the application of the law as laid down by the courts. Once surveyors are willing to realize that "best available evidence" includes the title record, the survey records, the monuments, the lines of occupation and the actions of the landowners over time, we will begin to understand the reason why sometimes the monuments control; sometimes not. Sometimes the deed description controls; sometimes not. Sometimes the occupation controls; sometimes not. We may even begin to understand the reason for the rules that we so dogmatically wish to apply. Any rule applied for the wrong reason under the wrong circumstance will likely result in the wrong answer.
> Thank you for the distinction. I have been told by fellow California surveyors property lines and boundary lines are interchangeable terms (alluding to the fact the Legislature didn’t know the distinction).
>
I would agree with the fellow surveyors that the terms are entirely interchangeable. Of the two terms, "property line" and the "boundary", I prefer using the term boundary simply because it is legally defined and means what we all think it means. The term "property line" is used quite extensively by layman (including legislators) and members of our profession. I've got no problem with that. There is a move afoot to treat them as two distinctly different terms, one being within the purview of the surveyor, one not. I completely disagree with that distinction.
> Next question, aren’t monuments and corners the same thing? (kidding).
>
All kidding aside... There are many who would argue there are monuments which should be "accepted" and monuments which should be "rejected" based upon our technologically-advanced measurements alone.
I disagree.
JBS
JBStahl
Fabulous post and a keeper!
You know that your discussion is diametrically opposed to the teaching of Bouman and Robillard in their opinions in Clarks!
Thus the bogus theory of theirs that ONLY the protracted subdivision lines in the PLSS sections have to be run on the ground and all other evidence is ignored.
I have heard the argument since the 70's about this cockamamie concept that only the true location of these subdivision lines are at the position as shown by the protracted lines and all other lines are defined as property lines. Naturally, these protracted subdivision lines are run on the ground using Chapter 3 guidelines for original surveys.
Many in BLM will remember all these arguments and now are in print in Clarks.
And still bogus!
For anybody who might be interested in researching this bogus theory, study the Florida case; Rivers v Lozeau
Keith
JBS_
> I don't see subdivision plat in the op. It occurred to me that it was more a series of lots created over time, not necessarily by the surveyor.
I understood the "subdivided lots" to mean a subdivision by plat rather than a sequence of parcels created over time.
Either way it doesn't change the hypothetical. The presumption here is that it is intended as a common boundary with monuments intended to mark the senior line.
What we are left not knowing is what happened AFTER the surveyor packed up his transit and cashed the check. Did the landowners rely upon the monuments, or not? The presumption is that they did, otherwise, what was the point in paying for them to be set? It is clear that they were intended to mark the corners. It is also clear that the landowner (at least one) paid good money to have the corners marked. It's also clear that the presumption of law is that the monuments were placed in good faith using due diligence and care. The owner hired a professional to do the work, right?
What we don't have is any evidence that the surveyor violated the good faith by intentionally misrepresenting the corner positions or that of the adjoining owners intended to defraud the neighbor by attempting to steal property. We also have no evidence that the adjoining owner did or didn't have any knowledge of the corner positions or rely upon them for any purpose. We also have no evidence about the passage of time.
We simply have no evidence necessary to determine if the monuments control the boundary locations or not. The fact that they aren't in perfect alignment means nothing other than the monuments were close enough to recover when using the brg/dist to pin down the search area. Once the retracing surveyor has recovered and documented their positions, that's when the real evidence gathering begins. That's where this hypothetical leaves off. Without the evidence or a rule of law to support the surveyor's decision, we're merely guessing whether or not the monuments control. The presumption of law is certainly in their favor.
JBS
Disregard - I already put my two cents in before.
> All we have to do now is figure out to lay out and mark perfectly straight lines...... uh, er.......I mean curved lines. 😉
It's when folks try to put in absolutes such as "perfectly" (with emphasis) that the discussion looses traction. That is a ploy to give leeway for inaccurate measurements. Which, if used as a means of further the discussion, would be a fine point - as no measurement is perfect. If used to arrive at the old "measurement is a technical aspect of surveying that doesn't matter" discussion - I won't be joining you for that one.
The original post indicates a couple of feet each side of the line (or a range of around four feet in a 1000 foot line). That is not measurement error that is laziness or incompetence. Either the surveyor that did the work needed to actually know how to measure or he should have hired 'technicians' to do that properly for him.
adamsurveyor
> If it is as simple as just measuring between original senior corners to locate all subsequent corner monuments of subsequent land divisions, then it does not take a Land Surveyor to make any decisions on the legitimacy of the junior corners.
That's interesting. I was thinking if all it takes is a metal detector to find any object within range, you could just call those guys on discovery channel that find the civil war bullets and such around old fields.
No need for licensed surveyors at either end - measurement or analysis. I'll bet some states would be glad to hear that as they can start saving money by discontinuing the licensing of surveyors.
adamsurveyor
There is and always will be a need for professional licensed land surveyors doing professional work in making professional judgements on legal land boundaries.
And there will be a need for instrument people to run the line on the ground to gather information for the professional land surveyor to make professional judgement decisions.
Land surveying is not looking through a scope.
Keith
fattiretom
Since you have not answered my question on 16th corners; would you accept my junior 1/16th corner monument if you found it to be 2 links off the senior line?
This would be a BLM resurvey, if it would make a difference?
Keith
YOU CANNOT SELL WHAT YOU DO NOT OWN!
How do you know that Jimmy Dufus set the monuments over the line? How do you know that your client didn't dig up the monuments and move them to where he wanted them? Or how about the utility company that came through down the property line laying fiber-optic cable didn't dig up the monument by accident, then drive it back in the ground so they wouldn't get in trouble?
I guess I get a little confused how title doesn't affect boundary location and is a different animal, but a moved monument is some sort of proof of the will of the owners. Doesn't the deed kind of describe the land being transferred, or what am I missing? Frankly, I am not sure that every monument I find which is not on the line it is purported to be on, is in fact moving the line. maybe the monument is moving and the line is where it is. If the actions of the owners sets the boundaries, how do you know that finding a monument in the ground is the actual will and action of the owners and the deed of transfer is immaterial?
I guess I get frustrated with all the guys that have some sort of 'black-and-white' answer to grey questions.
One thing I do kind of agree with is that you can't sell what you don't own.
YOU CANNOT SELL WHAT YOU DO NOT OWN!
> How do you know that Jimmy Dufus set the monuments over the line? How do you know that your client didn't dig up the monuments and move them to where he wanted them? Or how about the utility company that came through down the property line laying fiber-optic cable didn't dig up the monument by accident, then drive it back in the ground so they wouldn't get in trouble?
>
> I guess I get a little confused how title doesn't affect boundary location and is a different animal, but a moved monument is some sort of proof of the will of the owners. Doesn't the deed kind of describe the land being transferred, or what am I missing? Frankly, I am not sure that every monument I find which is not on the line it is purported to be on, is in fact moving the line. maybe the monument is moving and the line is where it is. If the actions of the owners sets the boundaries, how do you know that finding a monument in the ground is the actual will and action of the owners and the deed of transfer is immaterial?
>
> I guess I get frustrated with all the guys that have some sort of 'black-and-white' answer to grey questions.
>
> One thing I do kind of agree with is that you can't sell what you don't own.
There are no black and white answers to grey questions. If the question is too grey to apply the black and white boundary location principles and law, you do not have enough evidence. Re-read JB's posts.
We do not have enough evidence to apply the black and white laws to this still grey hypothetical question. It seems that many surveyors are not experienced enough at gathering evidence (yes, I am still learning and I'm pretty sure even John would admit that he is still learning). That includes knowing what evidence to gather and how to properly gather relevent evidence. That is why I love this forum and these discussions - it forces me to learn more.
Frustration is a good first step, it at least shows you are trying. Those that routinely dismiss that which they do not understand have much further to go that those of us that are frustrated and confused, but still trying. Hang in there buddy, it is a fun ride.
YOU CANNOT SELL WHAT YOU DO NOT OWN!
Brian,
30 years ago I was pretty sure I would have all the answers as soon as I got licensed. I was wrong then, but now I'm pretty sure I'll have it all figured out in a couple of years when I retire. Maybe I'll log on then and explain it to y'all. 😉
P.S., maybe if P&R is back on then, I can go ahead and straighten everyone out in that category too.
