Boundary Line Agreement?

[LA Stevens]

http://www.californiasurveyors.org/clsa ... +agreement

[E_Page]

Mike,

Just off on a little tangent here, but what led you to the conclusion that the creek is the boundary in this case rather than the road? As you said, the roads appear to be the boundaries between other lots, and the old map doesn't clearly distinguish a different intent between 39 and 46.

I'm guessing that you had deeds, land use evidence, previous maps, or something else that pointed to the creek.

[Ric7308]

Mike,

Give Mike Sullivan, Ventura County Surveyor a call. There has been a couple filed in the last few years as RS Maps in his county and they do not go through Planning at all. And I believe the surveyor had the property owners sign the RS map.

Ric

[E_Page]

Thanks, Mike.

Those other surveyors should have looked at adjoining deeds.

[RAM]

Sounds like you have the boundary. I boundary line agreement is to be used only when the boundary can NOT be determined. Maybe Quiet Title would be more approirate.

[E_Page]

Or a Boundary Line Adjustment.

[7702]

For some reason I can't view the larger file that Mike attached. Anybody else have that problem or am I "special"?

It looks like the road crosses the creek and is east of it towards the northerly portion of the Borland property. If so, how did the subsequent land surveyor's plot the ownership in that area? If they used the road, it seems like that would clearly overlap Borland unless there was an adjustment prior to or duringM the platting that occurred.

I wonder if there is any record of the road dedication or description that might shed some light?

The gentleman that prepared the plat calculated the lot areas to a tenth of an acre. I wonder how he did it? Probably be pretty tough, if not impossible, with an older plat like that, but comparing the acreage would be useful in determining the intent of the lot boundaries.

I guess there's the issue of whether the "no man's land" was ever conveyed to subsequent grantees to the west of Borland. If a hiatus is determined to exist, then the quiet title action might be appropriate.

[mbstanton]

I have a deed in 1982 which describes all of Lot 46 with various exceptions. I suppose I could track down that individual (or surviving heirs) to try to obtain a quitcliam deed. However, as soon as I do that - the assessor's will flag it as an illegal subdivision. The road was built in the 1860's and there are no records for it. There is also a PG&E deed on the west side which avoids the subject entirely by stating "thence along the east boundary of Lot 46...." without any referece as to whether the line is the creek or the road.

Mike

[D Ryan]

The subject of boundary agreements only being applicable when "the true boundary of the properties is not ascertainable" has come up before. I have to weigh in here that I have a differing interpretation on how this is to be viewed.

I think this means when litigation is under way, the court cannot make a finding that there was an agreed boundary as a basis for arriving at a ruling, when the true boundary was known. The rationale being to ensure one party doesn't gain an unfair advantage over another when having a conflict.

Conversely I believe this principle has no applicabilty to 2 parties wishing to agree to a boundary and then following it up with a proper conveyance in conformance with state and local codes. There is a lack of rationale in preventing otherwise ageeable parties from agreeing to their line only when they have no clue where the true line is.

If your county or city has a means for "blessing" some type of agreed boundary, I think it's entirely valid. I would add the caveat to supplement any agreement with words of conveyance to ensure it "runs with the land", otherwise it may only be applicable to the parties executing the agreement.

Dave Ryan,
Eureka

[Ben Lund]

DWoolley,
After reading the case I agree with what you and Ian have said. It is my understanding that the “agreed upon boundary” doctrine hinges on:
1. The fact that the line in question is uncertain
2. The parties are establishing the true dividing line
3. The parties mark it upon the ground or build up to it
4. Occupy on each side up to the place thus fixed
5. Acquiesce in such location for a period equal to the statue of limitations

The posted case quotes from Water Co. v. Brown, 168 Cal. 456 [143 P. 754):

"When such owners, being uncertain of the true position of the boundary as described, agree upon the true location, mark it upon the ground, or build up to it, occupy on each side up to the place thus fixed and acquiesce in such location for a period equal to the statute of limitations, or under such circumstances that substantial loss would be caused by a change of its position, such line becomes, in law, the true line . . . . “

Dave Ryan, this is what the courts have said:

“And if the line is located and agreed to, NOT for the purpose of settling an uncertainty in the minds of the parties as to the position of the true line upon the ground . . . or without the intent to fix the true line, such agreement is invalid and does not change the legal boundary nor affect the title of either party to the land he previously owned."

Chapter 10 of Wattles’ Writing Legal Descriptions has some good information and plenty of California case citations.