California Surveyors Forums

whether this stuff is "material". Sounds like it so the chances are the answer is yes. If this stuff wasn't shown on the RS, I don't know what recourse you have. I just hope I wasn't my map.

Visible encroachments are always a good thing to show on a survey map.
underground pipes aren't so easy to locate.

As far as "recourse" for whom do you wish this recourse to be on ? The constructor of the encroachemnt ? or the Surveyor ?

Did the surveyor build the encroachment ?
What was the purpose of the Record of Survey ? to specifically show the encroachment, as in public notice? Or was it just to monument the property lines, leaving the owners to solve the encroachment.

A record of survey is NOT an ALTA if you want an ALTA. . . pay for it !!

I am not sure why the judge was told nothing. Were you in court ?
Withholding evidence may be one thing, but letting them get away with it. . . priceless.

How are you gettin' onto your land right now ? If you are, then you have a prescriptive easement, especially after 20 years .

Did you order a survey 20 years ago ? Who claims the building and driveway ?

You may want to find the follwing article. It is available on the CLSA member section.

Land Surveyor's Liability to Unwritten Rights
Curtis M. Brown
(As presented at the NMASM Legal Seminar in Jan. 1979)

So Joe, you have access to the article, you are a CLSA member? From your understanding of the issues you appear that you may also be a Surveyor...

Are you just jerking us off? Who are you, and what is the real situation?

Peter,

Joe is not jerking anyone around here. I have visited the site and reviewed some of the documents related to the situation.

There are some things going on here that seem quite odd to me. The court ruling has no discussion of the evidence. In it, the judge basically says, "I've looked at a bunch of evidence and listened to a bunch of witnesses and here's my ruling..."

Having seen the site, much of the documentation, and hearing Joe's side of what has transpired, I have some opinions (and a lot of questions), but a public forum is not the place to discuss them at this time. I'll just say that it's an interesting situation from a surveyor's point of view.

Joe seems to have educated himself quite well, as a non-surveyor, as to the issues surrounding his case.

Evan: Great, I am glad he is in good hands and getting good advice. I am also very glad Joe is not a troll.
Joe: listen to Evan, best of luck! need a second opinion? as Evan said, this is not the place to discuss. The Non Trolls here have email addresses in their profiles... me included.
Peter

Evan,

It is great you're on the case. I'm really excited about this one and I'm sure you will share when / if you can.

AWWWsome dude. :^}

It seems awful fast for a trial to have happened, after Evan got involved ??

Surveying errors cannot truely establish a landlocked situation unless it was specifically stated and intended on the onset of the property dipersal.
Example. . navigable rivers were once a prime mode of access. Common trails and pathways were reasonable too. Parcels created along these "avenues" were considered accessable during their time.

From what I read, the parcel in question was definately created, sold and aquired with the roadway intended as access. As i have expressed many times in these threads, it is the responsibility of ANY surveyor, who discovers contradictory evidence, to bring this forth openly and honestly for discussion amongst the affected. The Idea of "flop / drop and "dutifully" record a map without consideration may be dangerous and unprofessional.

I hope you recieved you affirmation of non-land-locked-ness.

"good"

Trial happened before I was involved and did not go well for Joe. That makes it very difficult to reintroduce any facts.

This really disturbs me. "50% of the law is 90% intent "

without even seeing the information, I can bet my last bouncing dollar that the original intent was for the parcel to have access.

Isn't there a statute that goes . . ."an error is resolved to benefit the recievee" unless otherwise specifically stated ?
I'd have to look that up again, to see if it's evidence use, may be of importance.

Is access being held hostage for some value ? a fence ? locked gate keeping Joe out.

I had a similar situation up in RAM's territory unfortunately, the owners decided not to ever visit their supposed land locked parcel (very elderly)
the case was dropped. This parcel never did have access but it did have several trails that led to and fro since the 1840's.

The owner between the subject parcel and the new road just fenced everything off.
If this would've trialed, it may've set precidence.

Sorry :~{

Without really looking at the case, but "hearing" your evidence is seems that AT-LEAST you should've been awarded a prescriptive easement.

Slicing a 100-year old building (your building?) may weel not have been appropriate.
Who was your attorney and expert attorney? man these guys may have gotten steam rolled ?

Ive seen cases where original section corners had been found but were ruled against allowing a long standing barn to remain on a property with access to the county road.

i know what your'e thinking . . .

i'll get you the case number.


"Good"