Agreed Line per Survey Map

User avatar
goodgps
Posts: 600
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 7:32 pm
Location: Modesto, Ca

Agreed Line per Survey Map

Postby goodgps » Wed Sep 13, 2017 2:36 pm

Greetings

A record of survey (by Surveyor 1) was prepared (for Client 1) and monuments were set much to the displeasure of a neighbor.

That neighbor (Client 2) hired his own surveyor (Surveyor 2) who upon a very thorough field survey AND diligent records research, determined the senior rights, found Old property controlling monuments and made a evident determination of the property line

An attempt to encourage Surveyor 1 to reconsider and perhaps file an amended survey, failed.
Surveyor 2 went forward to monument the line and file a survey. (difference of 3.5 feet at one end to 10.5 feet at the other)

The Client of Surveyor 1 sold the land to "Buyer" . "Buyer and Surveyor 2's Client met on site to discuss the discrepancy.
"Buyer" agreed with Surveyor 2 and his clients and wishes to have a paper filed to ensure future generations
to use the line established by Surveyor 2. (Said line also reasonably matching occupation)

My question is:
What would this document be called ? Is there a format or form ?
This isn't REALLY an agreed boundary as the line was readily found by competence and diligence.
The Neighbors just wish to have something on record so it carries with title.

HELP ?!?!

Thank you
"Good"

User avatar
Warren Smith
Posts: 599
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:41 am
Location: Stockton

Re: Agreed Line per Survey Map

Postby Warren Smith » Wed Sep 13, 2017 2:59 pm

Perhaps a Quitclaim Deed from Buyer to all lands within the boundary shown on the second record of survey. This has the benefit of weaving the RS into the public record vis-à-vis constructive notice.
Warren D. Smith, LS 4842
County Surveyor
San Joaquin County

User avatar
Dave Karoly, PLS
Posts: 658
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 6:26 pm
Location: Sacramento

Re: Agreed Line per Survey Map

Postby Dave Karoly, PLS » Wed Sep 13, 2017 5:25 pm

A boundary line agreement should do it. There no reason they can't agree to the true line since there is conflicting surveys which cause confusion.
"Gee, I wish we had one of them doomsday machines." -General "Buck" Turgidson

William Magee
Posts: 215
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 12:27 pm

Re: Agreed Line per Survey Map

Postby William Magee » Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:18 pm

Based on Goodgps's limited info it sounds like the uncertainty element might not pass the litmus test in some courts (remember the justices' comments in Martin v Van Bergen?)
Warren Smith has a good suggestion that won't violate the LLA portion of the SMA providing survey 2 is the true boundary.
Another consideration if surveyor 1 truly was negligent and survey 2 was without a doubt correct, would be for a letter from an attorney to surveyor 1 regarding his/her culpability as to the affect of his/her survey on both properties marketability of title. That with the threat of follow up litigation might or might not be warranted depending on the two survey's specifics.
Don't shoot the messenger.

User avatar
David Kendall
Posts: 211
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2014 1:45 pm
Location: Sonoma

Re: Agreed Line per Survey Map

Postby David Kendall » Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:22 pm

County of Humboldt has a Boundary Correction ordinance (see attached) to resolve ambiguity such as this simply and with little fanfare. You might want to run a check to see if your county has one as well

Chapter 5.5 - Lot Line Adjustment (PDF)_201405121710357467.pdf
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
goodgps
Posts: 600
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 7:32 pm
Location: Modesto, Ca

Re: Agreed Line per Survey Map

Postby goodgps » Thu Sep 14, 2017 7:10 am

All great Ideas. Thank you
I see there are actually three Land owners involved. The Third land owner is not affected much by either survey, however, his land is shown on the (surveyor2) map.
This Owner wants to remain out of the loop.

We want to avoid litigation with anyone. I realize this is a huge discrepancy but the answer is quite obvious between the surveys.
I have placed calls into the local County perhaps when he has time, an answer can be determined.
I do like the quit claim deeds

User avatar
DWoolley
Posts: 144
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: Orange County
Contact:

Re: Agreed Line per Survey Map

Postby DWoolley » Fri Sep 15, 2017 2:39 pm

Based on the statement in the original post:

"That neighbor (Client 2) hired his own surveyor (Surveyor 2) who upon a very thorough field survey AND diligent records research, determined the senior rights, found Old property controlling monuments and made a evident determination of the property line."

I am stymied by the idea the second surveyor was "very thorough" in performing what appears to be routine boundary establishment procedures. There is no such thing as a un-thorough boundary, therefore, there is no "very thorough" boundary establishment. Similarly, a woman cannot be "a little bit" pregnant. There is no in between in boundary establishment. The first surveyor's negligence and certainly, the fact it creates two boundaries, hardly creates the needed "uncertainty" to qualify for a boundary line agreement. In fact, executing a boundary line agreement, based on the facts given, would be a problem for several reasons and could bring about some hard liability on the surveyor that executes it.

The first surveyor should acquiesce to the second surveyor, quickly - although my experience is most of these un-thorough boundary surveyors do not have the sense God gave them to work their way out the problem. However, their problems usually get much worse as these things progress. Ultimately, based on the facts given, the surveyor one should be saddled with a good portion of the cost to remedy.

The shortest distant from point A to point B is to perform a lot line adjustment (making sure there are modified deeds of trust).

Rule that coterminous owners may, be agreement implied from acquiescence, establish and fix their mutual boundary
line is applicable only where true line is otherwise unknown or uncertain. Meacci v. Kochergen (1956, Cal App 4th
Dist) 141 Cal App 2d 207, 296 P2d 573, 1956 Cal App LEXIS 1832.

Doctrine of agreed boundary line does not apply so as to constitute wall constructed by plaintiff as agreed boundary
line between his property line and defendants' where his testimony indicates he thought boundary line to be where it
was, he never intended wall to serve as boundary, and record is devoid of any evidence of disagreement or uncertainty
between coterminous owners as to location of boundary line. Lusk v. Krejci (1960, Cal App 1st Dist) 187 Cal App 2d
553, 9 Cal Rptr 703, 1960 Cal App LEXIS 1426.

The "uncertainty" does not mean uncertain to the owners. It has to be uncertain to a qualified surveyor. In this case, it appears as though the "very thorough" person knows where the line rests.

DWoolley
Last edited by DWoolley on Fri Sep 15, 2017 3:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Scott
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 11:52 am
Location: Modesto, CA

Re: Agreed Line per Survey Map

Postby Scott » Fri Sep 15, 2017 3:22 pm

Pass/Fail

No in between.

I liked that when I heard it and have been wanting to use it somewhere, thanks Chad and Mikiej.
Scott DeLaMare
LS 8078

User avatar
Olin Edmundson
Posts: 115
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 8:37 am

Re: Agreed Line per Survey Map

Postby Olin Edmundson » Fri Sep 15, 2017 3:42 pm

DWoolley wrote:The shortest distant from point A to point B is to perform a lot line adjustment (making sure there are modified deeds of trust).
DWoolley

So with this concept a surveyor would put together a very thorough Lot Line Adjustment Map for submittal showing that the boundary was being adjusted from the true line to the true line, exchanging an area of 0 sq. ft. Is that what you envision? Then after approval, deeds would be recorded with new legal descriptions of the parcels referring to the second surveyor's very thorough Record of Survey where they would grant from themselves to themselves these new descriptions. Is that the overall concept?

I'm asking because I believe Ca surveyors could use some guidance to help clients solve these types of issues, particularly when there is actual uncertainty, but in these cases as well (though I'm not sure there is any issue here if surveyor one is clearly out in left field) As a group, we are clearly confused as evidenced by the conflicting advice of reputable surveyors right here in this thread. Lot Line Adjustment? quitclaim deeds? line of agreement?....don't choose the wrong one or you'll be labeled negligent. At one point, Mr. Pallamary talked of offering a seminar on the subject, but I haven't seen any brochures for it yet arrive at my office.

User avatar
LS_8750
Posts: 661
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Sonoma
Contact:

Re: Agreed Line per Survey Map

Postby LS_8750 » Sat Sep 16, 2017 8:03 am

Although I agree with Mr. Woolley in principal, the plot thickens.

I ran across a case where: surveyor A performed a crap job and set corners. Surveyor B did the right thing, talked with the old neighbors, dug up an old non-recorded map, found deed corners noted as found on said old non-recorded map, set his own corners in congruence with superior boundary evidence, and noted the conflict and explained his case on his record of survey. Then, a few years later Surveyor A returns with the neighbors at the table recording a boundary line agreement, not at the true line as found by Surveyor B, or Surveyor A's flubbed line, but somewhere in between.

Similar to the scenario Mr. Woolley pointed out, the true line in the case I describe was known. This was not the right case to justify a BLA.

Furthermore, I hold that applying the BLA in cases such as the one I describe tears into the heart of what the profession is all about and erodes away the profession as a whole. Who needs land surveying if all anybody needs to do is draft up boundary line agreements?

Degrees of uncertainty yield to the preponderance of the evidence. The greater weight of the evidence is 51% certainty. I think most of us, most of the time, can easily surpass the 51% certainty threshold.

Like Mr. Edmundson said, we/CLSA need to focus on this sort of matter and sort it out.

Regards,
Clark E. Stoner, PE, PLS
CFS Engineering
Sonoma County
Santa Cruz County
tel. 707.996.8449 (Sonoma) or 831.477.9215 (Santa Cruz)
stoner@cfsengineering.com

User avatar
btaylor
Posts: 420
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2002 4:33 pm
Location: Foster City, CA

Re: Agreed Line per Survey Map

Postby btaylor » Sat Sep 16, 2017 10:09 am

Clark, I get your point but there is no "decider" who is telling the two owners who is the right one so you either do that, or tell them to spend tens of thousands in court to get a judgment, which they aren't going to do. Once each side gets their expert, it's essentially stalemated.

User avatar
Olin Edmundson
Posts: 115
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 8:37 am

Re: Agreed Line per Survey Map

Postby Olin Edmundson » Sat Sep 16, 2017 10:17 am

goodpgs - Thank you for bringing up this topic. I'll apologize on behalf of those who feel it appropriate to berate you for your less than polished use of the English language. Clearly your intent is to learn, become a better surveyor and serve your client in the best way possible. In my opinion, this should also be the focus of this forum and the CLSA organization and there is no place here for this superfluous commentary by DWoolley.

I'm no expert here, but I have done some thinking on the matter and some preliminary research. I've read the major cases of Bryant v. Blevins, Ernie v. Lutheran Church and Martin v. Van Bergen. My understanding of the Agreed Boundary Doctrine is that its purpose is to give effect to good faith agreements that have taken place between adjoining property owners, to provide for the stability of property lines and in especially in cases where damages would be caused by unsettling the line. These cases are clearly distinguishable from the situations we are talking about where coterminous property owners have come to a surveyor to proactively prevent future conflicts where uncertainties or conflicts in the record may exist. For this reason, I'm wondering how appropriate it is for us to be looking to these cases as guidance as to whether a Boundary Line Agreement is appropriate for a given situation. I've heard mention through the grapevine of problems that can be created if an BLA is improperly used, or if quitclaim deeds are improperly used, but have yet to hear about any actual cases that are on point. I can envision local planning/zoning problems that could come up if a knowable line were to be moved to an alternate position without a Lot Line Adjustment. I'm having a hard time envisioning situations where owners sought to fix a line through agreement and with the help of a surveyor using any of the three methods (LLA, BLA, Quitclaim deeds) but the line were to be invalidated by the courts. As, with any of these options, the intent of the parties should be written all over the document. For these reasons, I'm wondering if any of the three options would suffice.

I welcome all courteous feedback and contribution to this important discussion, as I too, am here to learn.
Last edited by Olin Edmundson on Sat Sep 16, 2017 7:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
DWoolley
Posts: 144
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: Orange County
Contact:

Re: Agreed Line per Survey Map

Postby DWoolley » Sat Sep 16, 2017 12:02 pm

Olin Edmundson wrote:So with this concept a surveyor would put together a very thorough Lot Line Adjustment Map for submittal showing that the boundary was being adjusted from the true line to the true line, exchanging an area of 0 sq. ft. Is that what you envision? Then after approval, deeds would be recorded with new legal descriptions of the parcels referring to the second surveyor's very thorough Record of Survey where they would grant from themselves to themselves these new descriptions. Is that the overall concept?


Yes. However, I misread the scenario. I was thinking regardless of the established line location there were encroachments remaining. I either got this from another thread, my real life situations or simply, made it up in my mind. The Lot Line Adjustment would still work, but a less expensive remedy exists.

Olin Edmundson wrote:goodpgs - Thank you for bringing up this topic. I'll apologize on behalf of those who feel it appropriate to berate you for your less than polished use of the English language. Clearly your intent is to learn, become a better surveyor and serve your client in the best way possible. In my opinion, this should also be the focus of this forum and the CLSA organization and there is no place here for this superfluous commentary.


In this instance, I agree. The issue is, when you, Olin Edmundson, state "those who feel it appropriate" on a 12 post thread, it is unclear precisely who or what you are referencing. Plain talk goes a long way with me. An innocent bystander, say, Clark Stoner, [see what I did there with a name] thinks it may be him being referenced and now, we're off to the races exchanging un-pleasantries rather than good land surveying mumbo-jumbo.

To be clear, I take no exception to GoodGPS's prose. My emphasis on "very thorough" - if you were in fact talking about me - is to show we, as a community, have come to accept vast variations of quality - and yes, negligence - in the practice. There is no "un-thorough" or in between boundary establishment process. We have unqualified, incompetent land surveyors dominating the market share with their low bid coordinate surveys. This scenario is played out hundreds of times everyday throughout the state. The only difference here is the neighbor spent the money to hire a qualified land surveyor for a second opinion - there is little doubt the cost was multiples of 2 or 3 times the competing land survey. The minute there was a need for a second survey for a common line the public has been damaged. For example, my best days are when a concerned neighbor delivers to me a recent survey by another firm and I can tell him a second survey would be a waste of his money. In the event there are issues, I appreciate when I can tell them to use the survey provided as a jumping off point to begin resolution and offer my review services for the settlement documents.

I would bet this competing survey issue comes up, maybe, 1:2000, 1:3000 of the surveys completed. Restated, when we encounter the land surveyor, as in the instant case, that establishes boundaries without searching for all of the "old property controlling" monuments, doesn't do a "diligent" records research or establish "the senior rights" - as stated by GoodGPS - placing lines are off 3.5' and 10.5', we are seeing one of 2000 instances of bad surveying, maybe. Although true, the acceptance of this practice is ridiculous on its face. Without dipping to far into my post on another thread, this is precisely the issue with BPELSG staff not enforcing the law quickly and with real, very real, consequences. Most of these types of surveyors perform several "boundary surveys" per week. These surveyors, knowingly and unknowingly, scoff at proper boundary surveying methods.

When BPELSG staff coaches a wayward land surveyor [Tony Battaglia, RIP] to file an amended map (the wrong vehicle) - which doesn't resolve the issue shown on the first map - I am flabbergasted. In that case, one of the many surveys I have, the surveyor went back to the field and found several monuments he previously never looked for and established a senior line which he had previously ignored - under Ray Mathe's coaching - and he was let off the hook when the license clearly should have been subject to sanctions. He was clearly incompetent at boundary surveying and mapping. However, it resulted in a compliance achieved, case dismissed letter. There are hundreds more of the same class practicing every day throughout the state.

When a complaint actually gets to the board staff it is, it has to be, only the slightest tip of the iceberg. A boundary surveyor is incompetent when he establishes a metes and bounds boundary without reviewing, oftentimes establishing, all of the adjoining properties, period.

There is no such thing as a "record boundary" as shown on so many topographic maps. If you encounter such a map with the accompanying weasel notes i.e. "this is not a boundary survey...", please file a BPELSG complaint or send it to the Practice Based Chapter's JPPLC so they can file a complaint. Unlike Baskin Robbins, when it comes to boundary surveying there is only one flavor.

I will try find time to address the boundary line agreement at a later time. I appreciate your commentary Olin Edmundson. I hope to post some sample work product used to resolve these situations, time permitting.

DWoolley
Last edited by DWoolley on Sat Sep 16, 2017 2:05 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
DWoolley
Posts: 144
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: Orange County
Contact:

Re: Agreed Line per Survey Map

Postby DWoolley » Sat Sep 16, 2017 12:44 pm

On second thought, a sample of an executed boundary line agreement is attached. To establish the line in question I filed a 3 or 4 page record of survey which is referenced in the document. We will have something to talk about the next time we meet.

DWoolley
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
DWoolley
Posts: 144
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: Orange County
Contact:

Re: Agreed Line per Survey Map

Postby DWoolley » Sat Sep 16, 2017 12:56 pm

The record of survey is attached. I have not reviewed this work for well over 6-7 years. I had forgotten that I put a boundary line agreement note, which addresses the uncertainty, on the top right corner of sheet 2. On sheet one, I advised the parties to get legal counsel. I recall sending them letters to get their own attorney before signing the documents.

In hindsight, little wonder I associate boundary line agreements having high liability. I have only completed a handful of these documents in the last 20 years. It is an inappropriate tool in most instances.

I dislike looking at my old work product. I always see something I could have done better. Props to anyone that can identify my hillbilly error.

DWoolley
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Olin Edmundson
Posts: 115
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 8:37 am

Re: Agreed Line per Survey Map

Postby Olin Edmundson » Sat Sep 16, 2017 6:03 pm

DWoolley wrote:In this instance, I agree. The issue is, when you, Olin Edmundson, state "those who feel it appropriate" on a 12 post thread, it is unclear precisely who or what you are referencing. Plain talk goes a long way with me. An innocent bystander, say, Clark Stoner, [see what I did there with a name] thinks it may be him being referenced and now, we're off to the races exchanging un-pleasantries rather than good land surveying mumbo-jumbo. DWoolley

I highly doubt Mr. Stoner was confused or offended there (he's a pretty smart guy) same goes for the rest of the group, yourself included.

If you have any comments on the actual subject of the thread, I look forward to reading them.

User avatar
Dave Karoly, PLS
Posts: 658
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 6:26 pm
Location: Sacramento

Re: Agreed Line per Survey Map

Postby Dave Karoly, PLS » Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:52 am

Let me see if I can break this down briefly...
Boundary Agreements require uncertainty which means the property owners don't know where the boundary is located. There are two types of uncertainty, 1) subjective and 2) objective.

Subjective uncertainty means the uncertainty is solely in the mind of the property owners, simply put they don't know and they don't have to find out (they are probably charged with knowledge of what's in their Deed, for example, beginning at a pipe...they know there is a pipe). If they have seen the section corners, for example, then they are not uncertain (there is case law on this point). California allows subjective uncertainty but it is my opinion that Land Surveyors should steer clear except if the property owners agree to a lot line adjustment. The most common case is the old fence vs. the so-called true line (a fictional entity) which is usually based upon measurements (not found monuments); later it is found out the owners had a discussion over the fence which may or not be accepted by the Court as direct evidence of mutual uncertainty and mutual agreement.

Objective uncertainty means what the property owners know or don't know is irrelevant. They have a duty to find out where objective sources of information locate the boundary (such as Deeds and surveys). The most common way to resolve this uncertainty is to hire a land surveyor to find out where the boundary is located. If two or more Land Surveyors would stake the boundary in the same place (within a reasonable tolerance) using the evidence called for by a standard of care then the boundary is objectively certain. An example is a recent subdivision lot where everything fits to a tight level of precision. If two or more Land Surveyors using the same careful effort don't agree on location then the boundary is objectively uncertain and the best resolution is a boundary agreement.

A boundary agreement does not move the boundary, this is the key concept. It establishes where the boundary is located on the face of the earth. The agreement is not within the statute of frauds therefore the agreement may be in parol but I don't recommend that. Only the legal title holders in possession need to be involved because they hold the right of possession, theoretically lien holders (Deed of Trust) don't need to participate because their title interest (regarded as a lien in California) is not affected. The Attorney that draws up the agreement may want to involve them anyway. I don't recommend a boundary agreement unless the boundary is objectively uncertain because the reality is only a small percentage of subjective cases get upheld by the courts.

In the O.P. it is presented that the first survey was not carefully done and was not accepted by the adjoiner. So it can't be said to locate the true boundary. The second survey is presented as carefully done and presumably locates the true boundary; better yet the current legal owners accept it as marking their boundary. They wish to memorialize their agreement in writing which is a very good idea, a boundary location agreement is the way to do this (I avoid using the word line which implies a mathematical entity which boundaries are not, they are a legal entity).

If both surveys were carefully done and simply represent a difference of opinion then a boundary adjustment may be the better option. The first survey would be held to be the true survey as a fiction and the boundary would be adjusted to the second survey which the property owners agree upon. Having not seen the surveys and deeds in this case I can't really say for sure what my option would be as to which document is best.
"Gee, I wish we had one of them doomsday machines." -General "Buck" Turgidson

User avatar
Olin Edmundson
Posts: 115
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 8:37 am

Re: Agreed Line per Survey Map

Postby Olin Edmundson » Sun Sep 17, 2017 9:40 am

The way it is presented in the OP, to the qualified surveyor, the boundary is not objectively uncertain, the record is definitely confused due to the conflicting Records of Survey, but the first survey was done without care and proper procedure, the first surveyor may have even been negligent or incompetent (not an opening for another one of your plugs Woolley). If this is the case, that a third and fourth survey (if done properly) would agree with number two, then, from a surveyors perspective, you don't have a case of objective uncertainty (right?) only possibly subjective uncertainty by the owners and a case of a confused record. But if I understand correctly, it is still ok to do a boundary location agreement in Ca because Bryant allows for subjective uncertainty if there is an explicit(ish) agreement. And the two owners have reason to be uncertain as there are two different land surveyors licensed by the State of California to perform boundary surveys telling them two different answers. Is that your understanding?

User avatar
Dave Karoly, PLS
Posts: 658
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 6:26 pm
Location: Sacramento

Re: Agreed Line per Survey Map

Postby Dave Karoly, PLS » Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:59 pm

Yes I think that is correct. They are presented with two conflicting surveys which of course raises the possibility of uncertainty. They can certainly agree to resolve the uncertainty by executing a boundary agreement. I can't imagine a court refusing to enforce such an agreement but the point is to keep it out of court in the first place.
"Gee, I wish we had one of them doomsday machines." -General "Buck" Turgidson

User avatar
LS_8750
Posts: 661
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Sonoma
Contact:

Re: Agreed Line per Survey Map

Postby LS_8750 » Sun Sep 17, 2017 9:53 pm

Ok, so shitty surveyors can crack the egg and open up confusion, uncertainty.... Knowingly or not.
Boundary Location Agreement my ass.
You gotta be kidding me.

The Professional Land Surveyor is digging his own grave.
See ya.
Time to get an Uber license, well unless you have a PE.

User avatar
Olin Edmundson
Posts: 115
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 8:37 am

Re: Agreed Line per Survey Map

Postby Olin Edmundson » Mon Sep 18, 2017 6:50 am

LS_8750 wrote:Ok, so shitty surveyors can crack the egg and open up confusion, uncertainty.... Knowingly or not.
Boundary Location Agreement my ass.
You gotta be kidding me.

The Professional Land Surveyor is digging his own grave.
See ya.
Time to get an Uber license, well unless you have a PE.

Yes owners have the right to fix problems caused by shitty surveyors. That's a good thing. How could that possibly be threatening to you or your business? Unless your business model relies on spending massive amounts of time in court unnecessarily litigating these differences all at the clients expense. Is that beneficial to you, the public, or your profession?
Last edited by Olin Edmundson on Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:03 am, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
dedkad
Posts: 270
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 3:55 pm

Re: Agreed Line per Survey Map

Postby dedkad » Mon Sep 18, 2017 12:16 pm

If the local agency agrees with Surveyor 2, could a Certificate of Compliance be filed on the two properties referencing Surveyor 2's RS?

-Dave Ryan-
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2015 10:45 am

Re: Agreed Line per Survey Map

Postby -Dave Ryan- » Mon Sep 18, 2017 8:26 pm

A certificate of compliance ideally uses the existing description for the property, never intending to be a vehicle for altering written title. It would merely serve to certify the lands therein being created in conformance with subdivision laws, nothing more. Any underlying potentially conflicting or poorly written boundary calls are perpetuated, in the same state as when title was acquired. Not sure that's any kind of fix.

User avatar
LS_8750
Posts: 661
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Sonoma
Contact:

Re: Agreed Line per Survey Map

Postby LS_8750 » Mon Sep 18, 2017 9:25 pm

Mr. Taylor and Mr. Edmundson,
Your points are well considered, well taken, and frankly I won't support that line of thinking.
Next round on me.

I hold that if the true line exists, is recoverable, and was recovered by the surveyor (like in the instant case and in my case reported above), then the line on the ground is the title line and is not moveable except under the rules of the SMA.

BLA my ass.

He/she who plays the "uncertainty" charades game better understand the rules of evidence (federal and state), and know that degrees of "uncertainty" are very much at play. Evidence, relevant evidence, means something.

Involvement in such shady "uncertainty" interpretation tactics aids and abets promoting illegal subdivisions, or at least illegal lot line adjustments, in violation of the SMA.

User avatar
Olin Edmundson
Posts: 115
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 8:37 am

Re: Agreed Line per Survey Map

Postby Olin Edmundson » Tue Sep 19, 2017 9:39 am

Who's Mr Taylor?

Mr. Stoner

Before you get all fired up, why don't you take a moment to listen here because I think you are reading between the lines and mis-interpreting what is being said. Again, I'm no expert, but I'll offer my thoughts on the matter. Whether you like it or not, it is a fact that the Agreed Boundary Doctrine does exist and has been upheld by the courts using both subjective and objective uncertainty. Mr. Karoly is very well read on the topic and can I'm sure provide further explanation, (he gives some simple explanation above) With either type of uncertainty, when upheld, the courts don't see this as moving a line, rather that the property owners have established on the ground that very line that is described in the deed. (stay calm and keep reading)

Now, from a practical perspective, surveyors can use the framework of the Agreed Boundary Doctrine to clear up conflicts and uncertainties in the record. The purpose of helping the client do this is to stay out of court and prevent future problems of any kind. It is one thing to be right, it is another entirely to have to defend yourself in court.

Your concern about these being in potential violation with the SMA is a valid one and this brings up the relationship between surveyors utilizing Boundary Location Agreements and the Lot Line Adjustment process. For example in the case GoodGPS presented, a client has come to him seeking guidance on how to create a clean record that has zero potential to cause problems in the future. I don't blame him. The way it is presented, Surveyor1 has the line completely screwed up, while Surveyor2 has properly placed the line. If I were to be involved to help them I would want my own sense that Surveyor2 is indeed correct because it makes a difference on how the problem could be solved. While it may be true that by law through the Agreed Boundary Doctrine the owners have the right to agree to either of the solutions, from a practical perspective, I would not aid them in agreeing to the erroneous Surveyor1 line because (right or wrong) this could be seen by the local jurisdiction as a Lot Line Adjustment that wasn't properly approved and thus has the potential to open up future problems. If I were confident that Surveyor2 were correct, I wouldn't have a problem directing them down the path of agreeing to the "true" line. On the contrary, If they wanted to agree to Surveyor1 line, I would insist on a Lot Line Adjustment.

The few cases where I have used Boundary Location Agreements are during situation where there is objective uncertainty. Meaning the line has the potential to be located by two qualified and careful surveyors in two alternate positions. If you survey long enough and in challenging enough and old areas you will eventually come across these situations if you have the ability to recognize them. You cite the Preponderance of Evidence rule, which I understand, is technically what the law says. Personally, I look at these situations through the lens of, is it defensible?, can you present a convincing argument? After all, we are not counting beans here, it is weighted evidence, and your 51% could be someone else's 49% These don't happen very often, but by chance, I'm currently finishing one up. The property is located on Mission Hill across from the old mission in Santa Cruz, one of the very oldest areas of town. The deeds are of course ancient and very vague with no call to any survey monuments, in the field, we recovered a very, very limited amount of evidence in the local area (much of it conflicting) and there was not any pattern of occupation to rely on nor any helpful recorded or unrecorded mapping. After thorough field work and research, I felt that there was objective uncertainty and that the owners would benefit from a Boundary Location Agreement. Based on the very limited amount of evidence that was available, I took a best "guess" at where the line was, thoroughly monumented it with lines points and witnesses. I prepared a legal description calling for all these monuments and gave to the lawyer to prepare a Boundary Location Agreement. Both parties signed, it was recorded and now I'll file a Record of Survey memorializing all that has transpired. It was not a Lot Line Adjustment because the position of the line was uncertain.


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests