California Surveyors Forums

With the spring issue of the California Surveyor magazine behind us, I'm focused on the next issue. Any comments, feedback or ideas? Is there something you'd like to see more of (or less of)? Ideas or subjects we've missed that would be of interest to the professional community?
How about a "Letters to the Editor" section? Does this forum cover that role well enough?

I'm planning to solicit feedback like this after every issue, so there'll be more opportunities...
Look forward to sharing ideas.
-Paul
(Editor)

If I may, perhaps you would consider polling the forum to see what the latest topics of interest are.

You know you could run a regular column, something like "What's happening on the Forum?"

1. Quiet Title Suits - how they are a pain in ass;
2. Boundary Dispute Litigation - Who are the real winners and losers;
3. Agreed Boundary Doctrine - how not to have lawyers trample all over it;
4. Boundary line agreements - when appropriate - when not - what can be done about improper application;
5. Illegal Subdivisions, SMA violations, improper certificates of compliance - who enforces and how?

Real world examples of the above.

Thanks fellas. good ideas.

LS_8750: Can you expand on what you're are driving at?
"3. Agreed Boundary Doctrine - how not to have lawyers trample all over it"

Sounds like you have some stories to share...

paulhmabry wrote:Thanks fellas. good ideas.

LS_8750: Can you expand on what you're are driving at?
"3. Agreed Boundary Doctrine - how not to have lawyers trample all over it"

Sounds like you have some stories to share...

I second that request.

Agreed boundary doctrine, also an element for boundary line agreements, requires the boundary to be uncertain to a land surveyor. Uncertainty as to location is immediately following behind unicorns and pixie dust as to rarity. Two adjacent owners agreeing as to the boundary location is usually the basis for a lot line adjustment.

I believe this would be an excellent article to detail the nuances.

DWoolley

Most lawyers and virtually every public agency I have dealt with do not understand this.

I recently prepared and ratified a seven-lot boundary line agreement.

More out there.

Agreed boundary doctrine, also an element for boundary line agreements, requires the boundary to be uncertain to a land surveyor.

For contemporary agreements, mostly yes. For ancient -- particularly inferred -- agreements, not so much.

Sure.

I am thinking of one instance where LS A diligently researched public and private records, found old fence evidence and iron pipe monuments based on those old records, set pipes based on the old iron pipes and fence evidence, and all the while calling off more recent iron pipe monuments and record of survey filed by LS B who clearly just staked math on the ground.

Lawyers X and Y draft up all this stupid garbage using LS B to do the legal descriptions and thereafter record a boundary line agreement.

The point is: the certainty was there in the old evidence recovered by LS A. Because LS B did a crappy job does not create "uncertainty" in the location of the title lines.

This is an important topic that needs to be addressed.

How about Recruitment and Mentoring?


Perhaps get a panel of industry leaders to weight in on the subjects

LS_8750 wrote:Sure.

I am thinking of one instance where LS A diligently researched public and private records, found old fence evidence and iron pipe monuments based on those old records, set pipes based on the old iron pipes and fence evidence, and all the while calling off more recent iron pipe monuments and record of survey filed by LS B who clearly just staked math on the ground.

Lawyers X and Y draft up all this stupid garbage using LS B to do the legal descriptions and thereafter record a boundary line agreement.

The point is: the certainty was there in the old evidence recovered by LS A. Because LS B did a crappy job does not create "uncertainty" in the location of the title lines.

This is an important topic that needs to be addressed.

I do agree. Boundary Line Agreements are often "overlooked" as a reasonable (economic) solution. I have used them many times.

DWoolley said above: "Agreed boundary doctrine, also an element for boundary line agreements, requires the boundary to be uncertain to a land surveyor."
I don't think that is actually true. "A Surveyor" works within the reasonable budget of his clients. Perhaps he will have a differing Opinion than his fellow Surveyor. If the Land Owners are reasonably informed, and they are still Uncertain as to the correct location... it does not become the realm of a Local Agency to endorse/approve/tax the solidifying of the Title and Location.

Too many cities and counties believe it is their business.

It is none of their business.

I say bring back the letters to the editor. Also, a focus on encouraging discussion and debate of important issues, and position pieces on same. SMA Navigator was good too!

Third the Boundary Line Agreement suggestion.

Peter Ehlert stated "I do agree. Boundary Line Agreements are often "overlooked" as a reasonable (economic) solution. I have used them many times.

DWoolley said above: "Agreed boundary doctrine, also an element for boundary line agreements, requires the boundary to be uncertain to a land surveyor."

I don't think that is actually true. "A Surveyor" works within the reasonable budget of his clients. Perhaps he will have a differing Opinion than his fellow Surveyor. If the Land Owners are reasonably informed, and they are still Uncertain as to the correct location... it does not become the realm of a Local Agency to endorse/approve/tax the solidifying of the Title and Location." [end quote]

Boundary line agreements are a high liability proposition for a land surveyor. The agreements do not always show up in title and can create issues on re-conveyances.

Agreed Boundary Doctrine

"The doctrine of an agreed boundary line rests fundamentally upon the fact that there is, or is believed by all parties to be, an uncertainty as to the location of the true line (Clapp v. Churchill, supra). [7] Thus, the doctrine is applicable only where the true line is otherwise unknown or uncertain. There is no occasion for asserting that a boundary has been established by agreement unless the description in the conveyance in reality designates a different boundary. [8] The boundary is considered definite and certain when by survey it can be made certain from the deed [232 Cal. App. 2d 707] (Meacci v. Kochergen (1956) 141 Cal. App. 2d 207, 212 [296 P.2d 573]; Williams v. Barnett (1955) 135 Cal. App. 2d 607, 612 [287 P.2d 789]).

The doctrine of boundary by agreement requires that there be (1) an uncertainty as to the true boundary line, (2) an agreement between the coterminous owners fixing the line, and (3) acceptance and acquiescence in the line so fixed 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. Ernie v. Trinity Lutheran Church (1959) 51 Ca.2d 702, 707; Bryant v. Blevins (1994) 9 Cal.4th 47. While the Martin Court did not question the validity of the doctrine, it indicated that it should be not be applied where there is no evidence that the neighboring property owners entered into an agreement that resolved a boundary, where the boundary can be ascertained from a deed or other legal document. Mere proof as to the acquiescence in the existence of a fence, without any other evidence of an agreement, does not establish an agreed boundary. The Court stated that while the neighbors long acquiesced to the location of the fence (and presumably the boundary), “Bryant makes clear that such acquiescence is not sufficient to prove an agreed boundary. There must be evidence of an actual agreement.” Without an actual agreement, there is no “agreed boundary.” As a final item, the defendants provided no basis for overturning the trial court’s finding that they would not suffer a substantial loss by moving the fence to the true boundary."

There is plenty of material on topic, particularly on the Martin case, that will turn up on a Google search.

DWoolley

Many surveyors can’t tell the difference between a situation where a boundary is truly uncertain, from a survey perspective, and one that is not. This problem arises because they don’t have the ability to recognize how strong or weak a particular survey is and especially their own survey.

Setting property corners after the Parcel Map or Final Map is recorded, the dilemma of setting them before or after construction.

Does an attorney or title company need to be a part of the preparation and recording, or can a licensed land surveyor do it all?

For what it is worth, the recent webinar I presented, on Lot Line Adjustments, etc., generated more than 350 attendees. Since then I have received lots of emails, phone calls, and inquiries, many of them coming from public agencies. This appears to be an important topic for the land surveying community.

The board sent out commendations this last week for folks who have been licensed for 40 years. Some of the stories as to how people got involved is interesting. Perhaps this would be something of interest to readers.