New Boundary Case for Review...

[Ian Wilson]

I pulled the Record of Survey, too. It's RS 37 / 152 (Book 37, Page 152)

If you can't get it from San Joaquin County, email me at ianw@acpwaq.org and I'll send it to you.

The case and the Assessor's Plat are attached...

[David Kendall]

USGS Quad Sheet Section Boundary? I have not heard of that as a boundary survey reference

Interesting read, for a second I thought we were going to lose some of our parol evidence rights.

Sounds to me like Connolly may have been the more likable or believable party in the complaint.... I guess he didn't even need a survey expert to win

Thank you for posting this Ian!

PS I thought you were the San Mateo CS?

[hellsangle]

I "guessed" lat/long on Google Earth to be N37*35'45.49" W121*31'40.6"

I can't imagine spending a nickel on this! If I'm guessed correctly - the ground is worthless unless there is oil/gold/etc. Billy goat country.

Thanks for the post, Ian! Interesting read.

Happy Holidaze all!

Crazy Phil Surveyor to Recorder - Sonoma

[Anthony Maffia]

The county has scans online. The RS can be found at
https://lfweb.sjgov.org/WebLink/0/doc/60851/Page1.aspx

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

They only publish part I which is about whether Mark Connolly's hearsay testimony about what his father told him about the 1958 agreement with McDermott, they rule the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony. Part II is where they affirm the trial courts application of the agreed boundary doctrine using the substantial evidence rule, this is fairly typical and usually not published as here. Part III is about technical trial details involving requests for admissions which resulted in McDermott being ordered to pay attorney fees to Connolly, also not published.

I didn't really get the picture but honestly there's nothing unusual in this case as far as I can see.

[Anthony Maffia]

Good read.

A USGS quad map may have been the only "map" available in 1958, excluding GLO notes. It is available to the public, and the topography shown would assist in locating the approximate section lines. Or it might have been a trial exhibit.

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

Okay I looked at the R/S, interesting.

In agreed boundary cases 1) did they know where the boundary is located (it doesn't matter whether they could find out)? If no then 2) is there sufficient evidence to prove they agreed to fix the boundary (even if wildly wrong in a surveying sense)? If yes then 3) for 5 years or substantial loss if not upheld? If yes then you have an agreed boundary, it literally doesn't matter where the Surveyor puts it. That's the law. The worst one I know of is 500 feet "off."

Despite technicalities people are free to make stupid agreements and courts will uphold those agreements if they can be proven as in that case of the section line being no where near where they assumed it was located. In the case of agreed boundaries, if the parties don't know where the true boundary is located they are free to agree to its location the fiction being it hasn't moved. Land Surveyors have a tough time with this concept being interested in technically precise justice but Judges let people do what they want to do as long as it's their own property. "A long time ago I made me a rule, I let people do what they want to do." Hondo Lane (John Wayne)

There is also the idea that they didn't intend to leave McDermott with a strip all around Connolly's irregular tract in Section 10 separating it from the rest of Connolly's land which is part of interpreting a Deed contract.