Lot divisions "half"

[goodgps]

Finally hired to do a little investigative surveying on the "halves"

At the 140-160, I found an old bent pipe. very old. at the 150-150, I found a 1" x 2" stake and an old 2"x2" redwood stake (what was left of it.)

I have to go look at the original map to see what was set at the lot corners if anything.

Could this represent a changing of intent by someone ? or an ignorance of fact. i believe the 2x2 is older than the old pipe.

The stake and 2x2 must not have been found by either surveyor or a hole even dug. Hmmmmm?

"good"

[LA Stevens]

Many of the old sub maps in Marin County from the 1800's through the 1960's never stated if they set corners or what was set. However researching the old unrecorded documents from retracement surveyors, it is evident that old redwood hubs were set in many of the cases.

A few years ago, I was retracing a boundary which was a portion of Lot 12 and Lot 13 that had a POB at the common Corner of Lot 12/13. The original map was recorded in 1888 and the grant deed changing the configuration was recorded in 1896. This common corner was turned in to a POT with the description. The crew ended up clearing a couple feet of various old debris and finally got to undisturbed soil, dug another 6" and found a very rotted 2x3 at he original Lot 12/13 corner. Kudos to people who forgo the mag locator & use a geology pick, etc...

I like old hubs, but they were also the choice of many retracement surveyors. I find the unrecorded records some of the best available evidence when performing a retracement survey.

Crew also spent 5 field days searching for hubs along a boundary with a 10' bust. Trenches 2 feet wide, 12' long. Most expensive 10 acres we have surveyed. We had the original surveyors field notes and the deed that was subsequently recorded (no mons mentioned) and finally found the old rotted 2x2. Didn't find it until we widened our trenches another 6".


Now, what to do about the half?

[Scott]

Maybe I missed something, but why would any subdivision map show setting something on a line representing the split of a lot created by said subdivision map?

[goodgps]

It was not uncommon for property owner(s) to hire a land surveyor to stake out their newly defined property without recording anything. In those days, recording was not required. The surveyor just staked the intended line took his $20 and left. Sometimes he would make a sketch. When I get into older areas, I often times dig at deed call lines just to see if there is anything set.

In this case, There is a very old bent pipe at the 140-160 line and an old 2x2 redwood stake at the 150-150.

At this epic in history, it is impossible to extract intent from the original arbritators as most likely they are dead.

Whilst the old pipe (not of a character used in our area) is a witness to one solution, the position of 2x2 redwood stake must also be considered.

When I first entered this arena of hungry lions, I stongly considered "comon practice" of division of lots [in the specific area] AND payment of assessed taxes which further witnesses the divisionary application. Furthermore, there is an unrecorded map adjacent to the "lot" whereby that surveyor set a pipe at the 150-150 line, as he monumented a "half" lot.
Although the poorly constructed fenceline appeared to define one solution, it was contrary to a bevy of other evidence.

While a judgement has yet to be rendered, a staunch lesson here, I believe, is open line communication, presentation of all evidence (even that contrary to an individulal belief), and a solution agreeable to all interested parties.

While we make judgements based upon our training, study of law and principles, We must not forget that wise old statement "the contrary may be shown" {Brown}

[dmi]

I know some folks claim they are not mind readers, or the parties to the original deed are long gone or dead, so their intentions cannot be ascertained.
I may be missing something, but from the training I have, I have been told the the DEED is where we look to determine the intentions of the parties.
In the famous ARCO case where the question of what was meant by DUE north was at issue, there were files in Arco's possession that explained exactly how they had laid out the parcel and what their understanding of the term was. The court did not allow those records in because the deed could stand on its own. I have been told by BLM trainers that you are not allow to ask the parties,if they are available, what they meant by the deed. The answers have to be found inside the deed, unless certain circumstances exist. I think I'd ask any, if I could, just to get agreement.

[goodgps]

I absolutely agree and so do the courts when it comes to intent, "the deed language spells out intent"

In this case, half may not be half. or so it seems. in this case, was the half, to be that protion of the remainder of the lot not within a non-dedicated street right-of-way ? or should it be exactly half of the 300-foot wide lot.

So there we are missing true intent. Now we find quasi monumentation at each location. We have a decrepit fenceline at one location, but a tagged pipe from an unrecorded map at another.

I wish I could disclose all of my information and let you-all really gaze upon it.

As cities grow outward, we as surveyors may be dealing more and more with situations like this.

Thank you for all of the interest in this thread. I will keep you updated as progress happens. Please add you thoughts and experiences as you see fit.

land surveyors' reputations are at stake here. The courts must not make a mistake here or we may all be filing amended maps.

Thanks again

"Good" for something i hope

[E_Page]

"The fence is typical of fences on property lines in that area at that time."

"The owners' on either side were disking up to the dirt berm [that the fence is on]".

These two bits of info certainly would change my consideration of the fence as material evidence.



"2004 RoS showed finding a monument on his line. He has since found a second monument on that line"

This statement, together with the fence info does tend to suggest an intent to divide the net rather than the whole.

It certainly would have been enough to make me dig deeper until I came up with definitive info to either support or refute that line of occupation as the intended property line.

[goodgps]

This very unusual situation could result in "both" surveys to be correct at the time when they were performed. On the one hand, you have a road, a fence an old pipe and an example case from a well respected text book. On the other, there is assessment dimensions, common practice and other court cases that actually dismiss fencelines.

Good Surveyor is right. This case, as all cases, are very unnerving. Judges rule based upon case precidence law and common scense. I don't like the potential of this case but like anybody I am curious to see how this washes out.

Perhaps situations like this demonstrate the need for surveyors in a local area to communicate beyond a monthly chapter meeting.

It looks like the "Goods" will keep you all posted.

[Ben Lund]

Something interesting that I came across in Wattles page 3.6 under “Conveyed and Describedâ€￾ heading. I’ve attached a scan for your reading pleasure. I included the Preface of the book for a background.

Ben

[goodgps]

Thats pretty interesting Ben.

Thanks !