BajaOR, post: 368786, member: 9139 wrote: RE: Official Maps, in my experience they aren't just a compilation of subdivision maps and deeds but often include re-survey efforts to "square things up" and resolve issues. Even if deeds don't call to the official map you really need to take it into account. California codes apparently authorize such a re-survey in preparation of an Official Map:
"The engineer or surveyor, under the direction and with the approval of the city council or board of supervisors, may compile the map from maps on file, or may resurvey or renumber the blocks, or renumber or reletter the lots in the blocks, or change the names of streets." - See more at: http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/government-code/gov-sect-66499-53.html#sthash.cDZA2vSU.dpuf
I found a Sacramento case, early 20th century, where the Surveyor expert explained that the City Engineer had resurveyed about 30 years after the original survey and "fixed" a lot of problems, that is why the lot line in question does not match the P.I. stones which are resets. Ironically the block is now occupied by the Sacramento County Courthouse.
The argument was over the stake not called in the title deeds. The Court accepts them as called for. There are no field notes by which you can say they were directly called for, it's by implication. A lot of Surveyors still think the Appellant's contention is correct.
BajaOR, post: 368786, member: 9139 wrote: RE: Official Maps, in my experience they aren't just a compilation of subdivision maps and deeds but often include re-survey efforts to "square things up" and resolve issues. Even if deeds don't call to the official map you really need to take it into account. California codes apparently authorize such a re-survey in preparation of an Official Map:
"The engineer or surveyor, under the direction and with the approval of the city council or board of supervisors, may compile the map from maps on file, or may resurvey or renumber the blocks, or renumber or reletter the lots in the blocks, or change the names of streets." - See more at: http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/government-code/gov-sect-66499-53.html#sthash.cDZA2vSU.dpuf
I assume the provisions as codified are a mashup of laws enacted at different times. This part of the code looks as it might be from the 19th century, for example:
"(a)ÛâWhenever any city, town or subdivision of land is platted or divided into lots or blocks, and whenever any addition to any city, town or subdivision is laid out into lots or blocks for the purpose of sale or transfer, the city engineer or the county surveyor, under the direction and with the approval of the city council or board of supervisors, may make an official map of the city, town or subdivision, giving to each block on the map a number, and to each lot or subdivision in the block a separate number or letter, and giving names to the streets, avenues, lanes, courts, commons or parks, as may be delineated on the official map."
Dave Karoly, post: 368795, member: 94 wrote: The argument was over the stake not called in the title deeds. The Court accepts them as called for. There are no field notes by which you can say they were directly called for, it's by implication. A lot of Surveyors still think the Appellant's contention is correct.
Except didn't the court say that the title deeds referred to "the official map" of the town? I understood that stake was shown on the official map. One party just wanted to ignore that official map from 1862 and rely only upon the 1850 original map as if the deeds from Taylor had not mentioned "the official map".
Dave Karoly, post: 368794, member: 94 wrote: I found a Sacramento case, early 20th century, where the Surveyor expert explained that the City Engineer had resurveyed about 30 years after the original survey and "fixed" a lot of problems, that is why the lot line in question does not match the P.I. stones which are resets. Ironically the block is now occupied by the Sacramento County Courthouse.
Do California cities operate under charters that give them certain powers regarding streets and other public places that are either vested in or delegated to the City Engineer or City Surveyor?
Kent McMillan, post: 368806, member: 3 wrote: Do California cities operate under charters that give them certain powers regarding streets and other public places that are either vested in or delegated to the City Engineer or City Surveyor?
Sacramento is a Charter City, said charter having been adopted by State legislative Resolution. Powers regarding streets and other public places are vested in the municipal legislative body, with certain delegable functions pursuant to local ordinances. Cities in California are municipal corporations, whereas Counties are political subdivisions of the State, subject to provisions of the Government Code.
Warren Smith, post: 368813, member: 9900 wrote: Sacramento is a Charter City, said charter having been adopted by State legislative Resolution. Powers regarding streets and other public places are vested in the municipal legislative body, with certain delegable functions pursuant to local ordinances. Cities in California are municipal corporations, whereas Counties are political subdivisions of the State, subject to provisions of the Government Code.
So, in the case of a Charter City, one would refer to the language of the charter to see which powers regarding streets and other public places were vested in the City, i.e. what authority might be delegated by ordinance to an officier of the city such as the City Engineer.
Kent McMillan, post: 368818, member: 3 wrote: So, in the case of a Charter City, one would refer to the language of the charter to see which powers regarding streets and other public places were vested in the City, i.e. what authority might be delegated by ordinance to an officier of the city such as the City Engineer.
Right - there are some stated restrictions, but all those not listed are delegable. Those of an administrative or technical nature - such as surveying alignments and acceptance of dedications are typically delegated.
The O'Farrel case happened in what is now West Sacramento in Yolo County. As far as I know it was unincorporated until 1987. That is why there was mention of the County Surveyor being involved.
The town of Washington changed to Broderick at some point in history.
Dave Karoly, post: 368857, member: 94 wrote: The town of Washington changed to Broderick at some point in history.
Here are some of the more interesting bits of the history of Washington/Broderick, California.
http://history.rays-place.com/ca/yolo-washington.htm
From the link:
"The plat recorded by Mrs. McDowell in some mysterious way became lost, but fortunately she possessed a copy. In September, 1862, another plat was made of the town and again, in February, 1869, an amended plat of the town was recorded. In each of these plats the location and names of the streets were changed, but the last filed has ever since been recognized as the official plat and the streets named therein have become permanently fixed."
and:
"In 1848. Kit and J. B. Chiles with J. C. Davis settled upon some land just north of McDowell's possession and there immediately ensued much controversy between them as to the exact location of the dividing line. Mr. McDowell died from wounds in 1849. There is no mention in the early records of how he received those wounds, but in view of the bitter strife which continued between his widow and said adverse claimants of possession to the land in controversy, the inference is obvious."
Kent McMillan, post: 368861, member: 3 wrote: Here are some of the more interesting bits of the history of Washington/Broderick, California.
http://history.rays-place.com/ca/yolo-washington.htm
From the link:
"The plat recorded by Mrs. McDowell in some mysterious way became lost, but fortunately she possessed a copy. In September, 1862, another plat was made of the town and again, in February, 1869, an amended plat of the town was recorded. In each of these plats the location and names of the streets were changed, but the last filed has ever since been recognized as the official plat and the streets named therein have become permanently fixed."
BTW the "Taylor" who figured in the case mentioned above was almost certainly the husband that Mrs. McDowell took following the demise of Mr. McDowell in some possibly land-related combat, possibly set in a saloon. So if Mrs. McDowell had the original town plat, presumably Taylor was aware of it and chose to mention the "official map" instead in the deeds he gave to Lots 29 and 30. A history of the Town of Washington in Yolo County claims that in 1913 (when the history was written) the 1869 map, not the 1862 map was the official and recognized map of Washington. It sounds like the Case of Dueling Plats at Dawn in California.
knerr v mauldin Jim... Dave perhaps they called it an agreed boundary, but I take exception to that. Seems more like a boundary by practical location.... where does Dykes v Arnold fit in this discussion or Rivera v Lozeau? not really on point i suppose but may be of interest.
DANEMINCE@YAHOO.COM, post: 368926, member: 296 wrote: knerr v mauldin Jim... Dave perhaps they called it an agreed boundary, but I take exception to that. Seems more like a boundary by practical location.... where does Dykes v Arnold fit in this discussion or Rivera v Lozeau? not really on point i suppose but may be of interest.
Dane...are you referring to Knerr?
It's been a while, I have the case. My recollection is the trial court selected one of two surveys. The appellate court took it on as a fact review where they look to see if there is substantial evidence to support the judgement. They resolve conflicts in favor of the judgement. If there is substantial evidence to support the judgement and the opposite conclusion then they affirm. When the trial court selects one of two surveys then the appellate court will almost certainly affirm.
I don't think they discuss the agreed boundary doctrine.
It was a bad case for CLSA to get involved in because it was a fact case and they tried to get a reverse on a de novo review of the surveys as a matter of law. The appellate courts at this point are treating surveys as a question of fact (harder to overturn). A similar thing happened in the recent Sonoma County case where they only published the attorney fee part which is aggravating..grrrrrrr.
Dave no, I am talking about your blazed line and its acceptance and the parties living up to that location. There is no evidence of dispute or confusion and probably no evidence of an agreement. With just eh minimal evidence presented here it seems to me that the elements are present for the practical boundary location doctrine to apply.
There are a couple of PLSS concepts that I believe are very useful in surveying private lands. The dependent resurvey and bona fide rights. The interesting feature of a dependent resurvey is that it cannot alter bona fide rights. Private surveyors would do well not to disturb bona fide rights and every retracing survey has the potential to impair bona fide rights if it is not properly considered.
DANEMINCE@YAHOO.COM, post: 369004, member: 296 wrote: Dave no, I am talking about your blazed line and its acceptance and the parties living up to that location. There is no evidence of dispute or confusion and probably no evidence of an agreement. With just eh minimal evidence presented here it seems to me that the elements are present for the practical boundary location doctrine to apply.
Yes, Aborigine would appear to fit the Practical Location Doctrine announced in French v. Brinkman. In Aborigine the Court said there is an implied agreement because of the acts of the property owner's over time recognizing the blazed line as the boundary.
Since it was established by the original parties at the time of the boundary was created by the first Deed, I think it qualifies as an original boundary too.
DANEMINCE@YAHOO.COM, post: 369005, member: 296 wrote: There are a couple of PLSS concepts that I believe are very useful in surveying private lands. The dependent resurvey and bona fide rights. The interesting feature of a dependent resurvey is that it cannot alter bona fide rights. Private surveyors would do well not to disturb bona fide rights and every retracing survey has the potential to impair bona fide rights if it is not properly considered.
It still seems to me that a reasonable test of some faulty survey of a boundary is simply whether the cost of correcting the mistake exceeds the likely benefit.
Obviously, if valuable improvements have been made up to a line, that is one situation, but if all that is there is a line of survey markers in some significantly incorrect location, then that's another. The mere fact that survey markers have existed in place with both landowners being aware of them, but without either of the adjoining landowners realizing that they should have been, say, 50 ft. South of where they were placed, doesn't seem to me to have any cost associated with correcting that situation.
Where timber has been cut following some line that turns out to have been incorrectly located, I suppose that if one of the parties wanted to pursue a trespass claim to recover value of timber taken, that would be a significant cost and complication.
First no surveyor just set corners unless employed to do so. Kent makes a fine point here about lines of monuments that no one uses. The first surveyor doctrine is a bogus notion. I agree with Evan, that there does not appear to any validation of this doctrine in case law.
From my perspective the first surveyor notion gains its power from detrimental reliance upon the survey in combination with time.
i do not think any one is proposing accepting a survey just because it is there. I am fairly confident that the OP has a highly developed concept of when to accept or reject a prior survey. Most of us would agree that minor variation is not a sufficient justification for rejection.
Thanks Evan for the post, a really great thread.
I agree that this has been one heck of an exceptional thread here dealing with a topic that everyone thought waa understood plainly but has its exclusions and grey areas.
Thank you Evan for posting
I wonder what other survey principles can be deconstructed.
eapls2708, post: 368350, member: 589 wrote: They hear the other surveyor start going into an explanation of the when, who, and how of the placement of the accepted evidence and that other surveyor starts sounding to them like an adult character in a Peanuts episode.
This is really the most brilliant way of explaining the issue.
