So, you want to be a surveyor......

[steffan]

Just published concerning a dispute out of Healdsburg. Would have been interesting to have witnessed the exhibits and testimony presented at trial.
Should be noted that the survey issues are not why this case was published. Still interesting though.

[D Ryan]

Some very interesting stuff regarding parol and extrinsic evidence on page 8 & 9. As long you aren't trying to "add to or detract from the terms of the deed", but are instead clarifying the location, this was admissable testimony.
That's consisitent with my prior understanding of parol evidence, but helps affirm the concept.

Also some good stuff a little further down regarding surveyors offering expert opinions.

Thanks for sharing. This is great reading regarding how this court viewed surveyors' roles in retracing boundaries.

Dave Ryan,
Humboldt County

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

Only the section reversing award of Attorney's fees is published.

The unpublished sections contain the survey and prescriptive easement issues. It is an excellent summary for Surveyors and has a lot of good case cites. The Parole Evidence rule is full of holes; it's not as simple as it is often believed to be. The Witkin section on it runs to 83 pages (see 2 Witkin Cal Evid. 5th (2012) Docu Evid, Sec 60, pg. 215).

I located a couple of Brunner monuments this week between Ukiah and Willits. I have also met Joe Story.

I've driven by that spot on 128 many times but I don't specifically remember it.

It looks like being a nice guy cost Dick $116k :-(.

They affirm on facts (the substantial evidence rule) which is probably why it's unpublished. Appellate Courts are unlikely to reverse findings of fact such as a boundary location. That is what we do, locate where the boundary is actually located, not layout where it should be.