California Surveyors Forums

Arch Pallisades No. 2
Book 3, Page 16&17

This map is referenced in Swarzwald v. Cooley, 39 Cal.App.2d 306 (1940).

As far as I can tell on the Orange County GIS you have to know where it is, there is no way to enter a book and page that I can find.

All I know is it is somewhere in Laguna Beach. If someone knows a way to find it or has it I would appreciate a copy.

The Supreme Court made a prior ruling in this case at 220 Cal. 438 (1934).

You can enter the book and page. You just need to know OC's syntax. Tract maps are generally "Miscellaneous Maps" or "MM" but this map is a Record of Survey. There's a dropdown list to the right of the dialog box, you can choose the kind of map you are looking for, or just leave it as "all fields".

Step 1: type in "RSB 3/16" (without the quotes)

Step 2: Click the "search" icon

Step 3: You'll see a list of all the RS maps which have those numbers in them. Choose "Zoom to" or "View" depending on whether you want to see it geo-referenced or you want to download it. The map you want comes up as #9 in the list as I'm viewing it now.

Got a train to catch so I'll leave it there. Hope this helped you. I also downloaded it, you can PM me with your email addy if I need to send it to you.

squid

The attached may be of interest.

The map is attached. Squid described the easiest way to find it.

There's some high dollar property on that map.

pls7809 wrote:The map is attached. Squid described the easiest way to find it.

There's some high dollar property on that map.

Most definitely some High Dollar property.

Whomever drafted that map was a true DRAFTSMAN.

NICE work.

Thanks everyone.

The case concerns Lots 8 & 9.

The Map posted by 7809 indicates that Lot 8 was intended to have access to the cove on its southeast side (southwest of Lot 9. The actual Lot line runs a bit upcoast from where it is depicted on that map according to the diagram connected to the case and therefore runs a couple of hundred feet further out to the point of land on the southwest of Lot 8. This cut off Lot 8's access to the beach in the cove which was the reason for the dispute.

There is nothing in the case about how they knew where the Lot lines where located up and down coast. The map indicates redwood hubs were set in 1927 so they were probably out there because the litigation started not too long after the lots were laid out.

This is the diagram from Swarzwald, note the OHWM does not touch the lot line immediately below S:

Compare Swarzwald to Hyman v. Haun, 191 Cal.App.2d 891 (1961). Both of these cases involve the OHWM as a natural monument. Swarzwald is in Orange County. Hyman is in Fort Bragg (Mendocino County) on the south side of the Noyo River just inside the mouth. It is also adjoining Route 1.

In Swarzwald the Supreme Court had prounounced the law of the case is the monument rule, monuments control over distances to which the Court of Appeals (Second District) very strictly adheres to. The true distance from the highway to the OWHM is 592 feet versus the deed distance of 376 feet.

In Hyman the Court of Appeals (Third District) holds that the monument rule does not apply and they decline to extend the distance to the OWHM leaving Haun with a strip of property between the described meander line above the river and the OHWM. The ground is very steep dropping down from the top of bank down to the river. They say the clear intention was for Hyman to receive 10 acres and extending the boundaries down to the OHWM was clearly in conflict with the intentions of the parties because it would enclose 14 acres. The Hyman Court holds the rules of construction (such as the monument rule) are rules of construction, not rules of property, and are merely aids to help the Courts ascertain the intentions of the parties.

It is just my informal observation that the California Appellate Courts were more strict in the 1920s and 1930s and loosened up considerably during the 1950s and 1960s. I think a lot of tradition went by the wayside after WWII, it was a cultural watershed. My parent's generation were tearing down old buildings as fast as they could in favor of freeways and glass boxes.

See if this helps. I use this case in some lectures.

Regarding Swarzwald, I believe RS 3-46 probably caused the initial conflict (page 6 of Mike's PDF). It was filed in 1928. It was common to file a Record of Survey to show a proposed split then the Deeds would be described by metes and bounds.

It shows a 10' wide r/w strip down to the cove in front of Lot 9. The map is signed by Cooley. Swarzwald probably objected to all of those additional owners having access to his beach front. There is still a stairway going down there. A little bit of the cove sand is on Lot 8 but it is all above OHWM so Swarzwald could keep those people from accessing the beach down to the water although he can't prevent the stairway on Lot 8 down to the base of the bluff.