imaudigger, post: 404460, member: 7286 wrote: Edward are you meaning to say that professional surveyors have to actually study and understand subjects such as boundary and ownership legal principles in order to pass the exam and be licensed?
I know, radical right? Almost like I wasted that 4 years getting a bachelor's degree and 30 years of experience. Who know that a few Google searches would have sufficed?
Barry G, post: 404423, member: 12296 wrote: Hello Tom. Then who officially owns the Public street, Public parkway and Public sidewalks, adjacent to my home, after the County accepts the dedication of this property, to maintain? Its not the individual adjacent property owner. Someone has to own this property, identified in property map, deed and grant. I own 6" before the public sidewalk. That is why I say the Public owns it, its public land, maintained by the Government in tax dollars.
Look up Safwenberg v. Marquez, it is about in the middle.. Trying to cut and paste on an iPad is an exercise in frustration. It insists on highlighting the whole case even though I only want two paragraphs.
Different topic...The City of Sacramento changed its ordinance in 2010 to a duty of care ordinance in place of the prior transfer of liability ordinance. Their language is almost identical to Ventura County's. It appears they can establish a duty of care, what they can't do is transfer their own liability. It seems like splitting hairs but there you have it.
half bubble, post: 404459, member: 175 wrote: Sixteen tons, whaddaya get? Another day older and deeper in debt.
You're in Ventura County, the place where in the 1970s some attorneys took a liking to the old courthouse and got a new courthouse built with public monies so they could buy the old one for pennies and use it as a private office building. No surprise they have found a loophole to make lot owners pay for the damage caused by street trees planted by the county. In their mind, the mere fact of your presence implies silent judicial notice of your consent to whatever they want to do.
Cheaper to fix your sidewalk than take on my cousins in the courthouse gang. Much cheaper. They will see that you, as a "pro se" or "pro per", do not have the secret decoder ring to comprehend the ownerships and interests and scopes of agreement, much less the unwritten rights and the implications, just as you have demonstrated here with the advice of many experts, and they will take your house to pay the County's legal defense expenses. Don't do it.
Drink a glass of water and start calling sidewalk repair contractors.
Well yeah, taking on the sharks in pro se in their own lagoon in a complex case against a government agency is crazy. They'll probably have him all tied up in knots on procedural issues in under 5 minutes.
He is proposing to question witnesses on issues of law; that's going nowhere fast.
I am stunned by how much effort has been expended on this. I highly respect all of you who have tried, but you are trying to reason with a rock. A very dense rock.
SPMPLS, post: 404467, member: 11785 wrote: I am stunned by how much effort has been expended on this. I highly respect all of you who have tried, but you are trying to reason with a rock. A very dense rock.
One of my perpetual peeves is someone that asks my opinion and then wants to argue my point. In everyday life it is an irritation. I can only imagine the repercussions of such insolence in a legal setting.
paden cash, post: 404470, member: 20 wrote: One of my perpetual peeves is someone that asks my opinion and then wants to argue my point. In everyday life it is an irritation. I can only imagine the repercussions of such insolence in a legal setting.
It will not be pretty.
A fantasy revolving about a day in Court can be dashed by the realization that arguments need to be cogent and concise. Pre-trial maneuvering is designed to vette such predilections. It will proceed - once the gauntlet is thrown - in the event it is managed in a suitable manner.
If this has been a rehearsal, it does not bode well.
Nothing to do with this case, but I have an old buddy (he hasn't been the same since he returned from Viet Nam in 1970) that likes to tweak at the toes of "government" and argue ethereal things. I'm sure some of you are familiar with his style of rants; things like income taxes are illegal and if you 'patent' your property you don't have to pay ad valorem, silly stuff.
He was given a traffic citation once and he went to traffic court to "argue". His main point was since American currency wasn't backed by gold anymore, it was worthless and he therefor had no way with which to pay his traffic fine. The judge actually listened (with glazed-over eyes) and then made it easy on him....he gave him forty hours of community service to work off his fine since our currency was 'worthless'.
He picked up trash along the roadside for a couple of weekends. He was pissed.
paden cash, post: 404474, member: 20 wrote: Nothing to do with this case, but I have an old buddy (he hasn't been the same since he returned from Viet Nam in 1970) that likes to tweak at the toes of "government" and argue ethereal things. I'm sure some of you are familiar with his style of rants; things like income taxes are illegal and if you 'patent' your property you don't have to pay ad valorem, silly stuff.
He was given a traffic citation once and he went to traffic court to "argue". His main point was since American currency wasn't backed by gold anymore, it was worthless and he therefor had no way with which to pay his traffic fine. The judge actually listened (with glazed-over eyes) and then made it easy on him....he gave him forty hours of community service to work off his fine since our currency was 'worthless'.
He picked up trash along the roadside for a couple of weekends. He was pissed.
Yeah he is wrong about that...you need an allodial title to get off of the tax rolls duh.
SPMPLS, post: 404467, member: 11785 wrote: I am stunned by how much effort has been expended on this. I highly respect all of you who have tried, but you are trying to reason with a rock. A very dense rock.
Without this thread I would've never learned about the Sidewalk Accident Decisions Doctrine.
Dave Karoly, post: 404463, member: 94 wrote: He is proposing to question witnesses on issues of law; that's going nowhere fast.
Yes, that struck me as very odd also.
half bubble, post: 404459, member: 175 wrote: Sixteen tons, whaddaya get? Another day older and deeper in debt.
You're in Ventura County, the place where in the 1970s some attorneys took a liking to the old courthouse and got a new courthouse built with public monies so they could buy the old one for pennies and use it as a private office building. No surprise they have found a loophole to make lot owners pay for the damage caused by street trees planted by the county. In their mind, the mere fact of your presence implies silent judicial notice of your consent to whatever they want to do.
Cheaper to fix your sidewalk than take on my cousins in the courthouse gang. Much cheaper. They will see that you, as a "pro se" or "pro per", do not have the secret decoder ring to comprehend the ownerships and interests and scopes of agreement, much less the unwritten rights and the implications, just as you have demonstrated here with the advice of many experts, and they will take your house to pay the County's legal defense expenses. Don't do it.
Drink a glass of water and start calling sidewalk repair contractors.
You are correct in your assessment. Cost wise, its not worth it. Its based on morality, does the law matter, the truth matter, right and wrong? Answer money>morality, political correctness>truth.
Edward Reading, post: 404449, member: 132 wrote: Barry, you have had many well respected California Land Surveyors present you with this information. Do you truly believe that they are all wrong about this basic tenant of land ownership and that you, a lay-person are the only one that has the correct information? I find that to be astounding. If this is a point of law that you are going to argue in your case, you will be very disappointed.
I believe what a respected person in SF informs me. He trains Land Surveyors for 40 years, claims that Im right in my assessment. I truly believe that I will win in Los Angeles, not in Ventura County, since the Judge will protect the County from liability.
Would you mind telling us who this respected person who "trains" Land Surveyors for 40 years is?
imaudigger, post: 404460, member: 7286 wrote: Edward are you meaning to say that professional surveyors have to actually study and understand subjects such as boundary and ownership legal principles in order to pass the exam and be licensed?
That is a good question. I have studied this law for 2 years, regarding boundary and ownership rights, books in the law library. They explain, by meters and bounds, that property map dimensions define property lines, not implied property lines, to the middle of the street. The underlying fee is based on the intent of the land surveyor who prepared the housing tract map. If he believes the owners of private property own to the middle of the street, that is where the property line should start, not 6" before the public sidewalks. On this site, property lines on housing maps have no meaning or purpose, a property line does not define property. I cant own something that is not on my property map, deed or grant, period. IMHO, they learn CC 831, written in 1872, for towns only, not housing tracts, not created till 1945. They learn that the adjacent property owners, everywhere, own out to the middle of the street, with no exception. Unless otherwise proven, the second part of 831 is omitted, has no meaning or purpose. The intent of the Subdeveloper and Landsurveyor, who prepared the housing tract map has no purpose, dimension don't define property lines. The law does not matter, dedications dont matter, SHC dont matter, Court rulings don't matter, abandon the public roads don't matter, nothing matters. We own to the middle of the street, period, intent and law dont matter. Municipalities have a right to take their liability, on their own property, once out of repair, pass it on to the adjacent property owner, to repair, due to their own negligence.
Dave Karoly, post: 404462, member: 94 wrote: Look up Safwenberg v. Marquez, it is about in the middle.. Trying to cut and paste on an iPad is an exercise in frustration. It insists on highlighting the whole case even though I only want two paragraphs.
Different topic...The City of Sacramento changed its ordinance in 2010 to a duty of care ordinance in place of the prior transfer of liability ordinance. Their language is almost identical to Ventura County's. It appears they can establish a duty of care, what they can't do is transfer their own liability. It seems like splitting hairs but there you have it.
"We conclude, therefore, that Marquez and Sanchez each own a fee interest in one-half of the portions of abandoned Ash Street which abuts their respective properties. fn. 6". The key word on this lawsuit is abandoned. When an Municipality abandons a street, the underlying fee goes to the adjacent property owner. If the street is no abandoned, the Municipality owns the underlying fee title. This once again proves my point.
The City of Sacramento is a Charter City, not a General law County. They have different rules. A General Law County must follow State Law. A Charter City does not have to follow State law, its a Charter, it decides its own rules. There is a big difference. This is for towns, not housing tracts, I believe. Show me one case in Sacramento, in a housing tract, where this transfer is legal, based on a Judge ruling. Please read Ordinance 4355. Does it pass liability on parkway trees and sidewalks to adjacent property owners? Is it legal to do so? Please read 5600-5630, then read Ordinance 4355. Do you see the additions in 4355, that are not there in SHC 5600-5630? Is it legal to add things with no State authority? Where does SHC 5600-5630 address the issues of parkway tree roots and damages, taking out parkway trees, charging adjacent property owners? 5600-5630 does not address the government owned parkway trees and roots. Its assumes, in 1911, that the adjacent property owners owns the underlying fee in a home, or the business owner. Look at the Maps in Towns and Cities in 1911, or 1872. Do they show, by property lines, out to the middle of the street or do they show before the public sidewalk. Show me a copy of a property map in 1911, by dimensions, that shows before the public sidewalk. This, I would love to see. Show me a Map in 1872 of a housing tract, or 1911, or 1930's. I would love to see one, they dont exist.
SPMPLS, post: 404467, member: 11785 wrote: I am stunned by how much effort has been expended on this. I highly respect all of you who have tried, but you are trying to reason with a rock. A very dense rock.
Your entitled to your opinion, not the facts. We can have an honest discussion on this matter without throwing in insults. I dont insult the people on this cite, you should not either, closes down a discussion.
As has been said, you asked for advice, then you insist you already know better. For some that might be equally as insulting as whatever remarks have been made to you regarding your obstinacy.
Many of us continue to post in the face of that because we continue to learn from each other, and it leaves a trail of breadcrumbs for the future surveyors.
Barry G, post: 404429, member: 12296 wrote: the public has an easement, not over private property, over public property.
Entities can't have an easement in their favor over property they own. Doesn't work that way in CA. There is no need for an easement, if they already own the property.
Barry G - you keep saying that the county owns the roadway. But you have not provided legal proof that in fact the county does own the right-of-way area, only given your personal belief. You are hanging the whole argument on your understanding (or misunderstanding...) of ownership. Does Ownership really matter in your case? No, not in the least, and you'll get shot down over that argument.
In reality the tree you are barking up is related to liability and cost of maintenance of sidewalks and trees, and if local ordinance can legally transfer the liability and cost to adjacent property owners. Concentrate on that and you may have a valid argument...
This is the last time that I will entertain this conversation.
Regardless of state of practice, deeds transfer property from one owner to another. The statute of frauds mandates it.
In your instance a dedication is merely a grant of a right of use of that portion of the property that is being used as a street. No deed was ever transferred to the city or municipality.
Even if it were taken by eminent domain there would still be a deed from the developer to the municipality. The deeds that transferred were to the Lot owners. The strips and gores doctrine specify that the original owner of the development never intended to retain ownership of any parts of the subdivision other than those lots that have not been sold. So in turn the lots would extend to the center of the street.
Lastly it is never the surveyors intent that ever matters in a land transfer. Whether it be in a subdivision or a rural boundary. Only the developer/grantor's intent matter.
I do not care who is your surveyor that trains other surveyors. This is a basic principle of boundary law is how land is transferred.
Look up and read the statute of frauds and the strips and gores doctrine.
