How about those non-record monuments

[mpallamary]

I came across this case in connection with one of my projects.

Interesting.

[David Kendall]

I think they are saying that it is important to demonstrate pedigree of monuments used in your survey

[mpallamary]

Yes! A 1937 case.

[Ian Wilson]

And, the C.W. Cook referred tp as the surveyor in this case is the grandfather of none other than Paul Cook, PLS 4691!

I'll bet Paul has his grandfather's notes on the survey and the case.

And...the Hubb's Tract...

[mpallamary]

That is him!

[Ian Wilson]

Oh, and...a couple of more maps to play with. Perhaps Mr. Cook was right.

[mpallamary]

Thanks!

[mpallamary]

Ian, here is their argument:

Indeed, given that the 2020 City Survey was filed subsequent to the survey being utilized by XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Company, its accuracy in comparison to the 2018 City Survey is presumed. See Hoffman v. Van Duzee, 19 Cal. App. 2d 517, 519 (1937) (explaining that a recorded map was sufficient to establish plaintiff’s prima facie case for relief because “[d]imensions shown on recorded maps used and referred to in conveyances for the purpose of description express the understandings and agreements of the parties with reference to the location and boundaries of the land conveyed . . . are to be taken as correct until shown by clear proof to be in error.”);

The 2018 City Survey and the 2020 City Survey are not city surveys. They are both Corner Records filed with the County, in disagreement with each other by 0.08 feet. As you know they are not recorded and both are in error as they did not use the proper controlling monuments. The dispute involves a 90-year old wall in downtown LA. They are arguing over an encroachment of 0.04' to 0.08'.