Senior Tract or Equal in seniority? Bryan

LS 4722 · Post by **LS 4722** » Sat Aug 25, 2012 1:52 pm

Two subdivisions stacked one on top of the other, south boundary of one is the north boundary of the other. Both done by the same engineer in 1923. Both recorded the same day July 9, 1923. One has an earlier page number, by just one number.

Does that page difference of one make that one tract senior?

Would these two tracts be treated equally in a retrace or would one hold record for the tract that has the earlier page number?

I am thinking that both tracts have equal status and the one page difference is just that, a number in sequence.

btaylor · Post by **btaylor** » Sat Aug 25, 2012 2:33 pm

Well, technically one tract is literally senior, but in reality all the improvements and monuments are established at the same time, so it would be pretty unusual to have a situation where you have a conflict to worry about on that common line.

Generally what we see out here are several subdivisions done of large areas over several years so the dates between the maps are 1 year or 2. I do not see much conflict between the subdivisions on this case, but I would still apply a senior/junior situation to these.

Peter Ehlert · Post by **Peter Ehlert** » Sat Aug 25, 2012 3:03 pm

Paul: Are both of the subdivisions cutouts of the same parent parcel? ...or are they subdivisions of separate parcels?

Dave Karoly, PLS · Post by **Dave Karoly, PLS** » Sat Aug 25, 2012 6:37 pm

I had a Lot survey in a subdivision about 100 years old (east Sac lot and block neighborhood). The rear lot line is the subdivision boundary and the adjoining subdivision was of about the same age. The difference established from the block control was only a couple of hundredths so I just prorated it like they were the same subdivision and carried on with life. If there was a substantial difference then the senior subdivision would get its due, of course.

Naturally if there was a big gap then we would've spent months looking for people who have been dead for 100 years; NO NO NO not really I'm just being sarcastic.

LS_8750 · Post by **LS_8750** » Sat Aug 25, 2012 6:43 pm

Our prestiged Mr. Dave Wooley would track them down. Not all surveyors are the same...

LS_8750 · Post by **LS_8750** » Sat Aug 25, 2012 6:44 pm

Let the monuments do the talkin boys....

LS_8750 · Post by **LS_8750** » Sat Aug 25, 2012 7:04 pm

Riddle this:

Buildings are built before the subdivision monuments are set. Newer monuments indicate buildings are encroaching setbacks. (note: different surveyors are working on this). Original surveyor records map based on his measurements and his set monuments. He disregarded the location of the existing new buildings..... Note existing buildings are located based on original boundary survey and final subdivision map.

Setback certification time. New monuments show existing neighbor buildings encroaching setbacks. Client's building is fine.

Seniority suggests the buildings hold over the interior subdivision pipes. They are both based on the exterior subdivision boundaries. Now we need a R/S calling the original interior subdivision monuments off (FYI +/- 0.10').

Cute.

When called out monuments don't control....

LS 4722 · Post by **LS 4722** » Sat Aug 25, 2012 7:09 pm

Ok, I erred. I said they were done by the same engineer, they were not.

BTW..the two maps I am talking about are the same two attached PDF's on my last post.

Peter asked: Paul: Are both of the subdivisions cutouts of the same parent parcel? ...or are they subdivisions of separate parcels?

Both preambles read the same.

Anyway... the hour and minute time of recording are missing from both maps , so all thats left is the year, month and day.

The possibility also exists that the page numbering could have been done out of sequence....See California Govt Code Section 27320, which reads in part..

...Efforts shall be made to assign identification numbers sequentially, but an assignment of a non sequential
number may be made if not in violation of express recording instructions regarding a group of concurrently recorded
instruments and if, in the discretion of the county recorder, such assignment best serves the interest of expeditious recording....

The tract with the earlier page number says on the map, for the north common boundary, "Found 2 x 2". However, the map with the later page number says, for the same two positions, "Found 2x2. Set 2" iron Pipe".

Just thinking out loud, but it appears to me that the later page number engineer performed an action that has quite a bit of weight in setting the 2" iron pipe where the 2x2 was and could possibly establish a senior right.

So what do you guys think?

Who knows, maybe these two engineers were partners in 1923.. The distances they both show for exterior courses are identical to the hundredth. There is a bearing difference, one map to the other, but the angle is the same.

land butcher · Post by **land butcher** » Sat Aug 25, 2012 7:21 pm

Engineering partners. Reminds me of a city I worked for.

In it's early days one of the partners of a local firm was city engr and the other submitted improvement plans that, well maybe there was a ink shortage at the time.
Then a year or so later they traded positions - ink shortage apparently still in effect.

LS 4722 · Post by **LS 4722** » Sat Aug 25, 2012 7:32 pm

Taking a closer look at the two maps, the owners of the land of the two tracts are the same, so I do believe that this is a case of simultaneous recording and both tracts are weighed equally.

Dave Karoly, PLS · Post by **Dave Karoly, PLS** » Sun Aug 26, 2012 6:04 am

It is "riddle ME this".

Hope this helps.

;-)

California Surveyors Forums

Senior Tract or Equal in seniority? Bryan

Senior Tract or Equal in seniority? Bryan

Bryan...Peter

Found a smoking gun

Clark you made a mistake...