Code of Civil Procedures 2077

[castellanos]

I just read the latest issue of California Surveyor, and the short article entitled Resolving Conflicting Elements in Land Descriptions by Tim Case got me attention. He discusses Code of Civil Procedures 2077 (3), and states that distances control over angels. I had done some research a while back into this code, because frankly, I really did not understand what it was saying. To refresh your memories the subsection reads like this:

“Three--Between different measurements which are inconsistent with
each other, that of angles is paramount to that of surfaces, and that
of lines paramount to both.â€￾

I was bothered by the use of the word “linesâ€￾. Could this really be defined as distances? I first checked Black’s Law and found their definition was “a demarcation, border or limitâ€￾. I then went to our Law Library and did some research and found some information in Deerings’s Annotated California Codes. This book sites and quotes case law that supports the statute. In the section that discusses control over courses and distances it reads:

“A description of line in deed by natural or artificial landmarks clearly identified, will govern and control one by course or distance……Lines, corners, and stations actually run and marked will prevail over courses and distances Coton v Seavey (1963) 22 C 496.â€￾

Reading this I felt comfortable that “linesâ€￾ did not mean distances. I went ahead and pulled Colton v Seavey which said, “..lines, corners, and stations actually run and marked will prevail over courses and distances.â€￾.

My conclusion…Lines are, as Black’s Law said, a demarcation, in our sense, some previous established line, i.e. section line, senior line, Tract line…ect. This then leads me to believe that CCP 2077 (3) does not address angles controlling over distances.

Any other surveyors agree with me? If anyone has any other information into what this law is trying to say, please share.

Mark Castellanos

[Stephen Johnson]

That is the way I learned it.

[Jim Frame]

What is the measurement of a line? It is its distance.

Lines comprise both distance and direction, and both are measured quantities. I find no preference for distance over direction in the "lines paramount to both" statement.

.

[Josh Tatman]

“Three -- Between different measurements which are inconsistent with each other, that of angles is paramount to that of surfaces, and that of lines paramount to both.”


"Between different measurements..."

What is the measurement of a line?
It is its distance. Just as the measurement of a surface is its area. The measurement of angle is most typically provided in bearing form.
The hierarchy of MEASUREMENT is therefor:

distance,
bearing,
area,

In that order.

What woodcutter has presented above, I believe is the correct interpretation of CCP §2077 (3). Since you can’t just rely on someone’s opinion; I’ve attached some supplemental information below.

Browns Boundary Control and Legal Principals 5th Edition, Page 307 “Order of Importance” Paragraph 3. “In California a statue lists distance as preferred to direction."

Boundary Control for Surveyors in California, March 1954, Curtis Brown, Section 12 “In a subdivision, distance is superior to direction (bearing) and area, but gives way to monuments called for.” (see attached)

California isn’t the only state that has this written to a statue for the rules for construing the descriptive part of real property descriptions. See Oregon Revised Statue (ORS)§ 93.310 (3) and Montana Code Annotated (MCA) §70-20-201 (3). They both have the same exact language… I’ve gone ahead and attached a court case from Montana (Pilgrim v. Kuipers), which states “Monuments are superior to lines (distances) which are superior to angles which…” Please see the attached PDF for full particulars. I’ve highlighted the quoted section, which is on page 3.

[castellanos]

I am convinced that Woodchucker and Josh have correctly interpreted the law. I likely have taken the word "lines" out of its context.

A little frustrating that I could not find any California cases that support this. Attached is the page from Deering's.

[E_Page]

Reading CCP 2077 is a good lesson in the evolution of language and that a term that may seem clear to you by your own understanding in 2012 may not be what it meant to the author of the law or deed you are attempting to interpret.

When interpreting 2077(3), first notice that the legislature gave us the context: "Between different measurements which are inconsistent with
each other,..."

Also note that the entire section is about "construing the descriptive part of a conveyance of real property". So what measurements will we typically see in a deed description? Direction, distance, and area. That's really about it.

With that context, read the rest of subsection 3: "... that of angles is paramount to that of surfaces, and that of lines paramount to both.”

It seems pretty clear that angles correspond to direction. Course directions are merely angles from a reference direction - so many degrees East or West from either North or South. "Angles" is still pretty much the same in our vernacular as it was then, so the connection is easy to make.

"Surfaces" is just a little less clear, but we can visualize a surface as something that is at least 2 dimensional. Keeping in mind our context, measurements found in a deed description, only one is not 1 dimensional, area. So "surfaces" is logically "area" in our modern usage.

That leaves us with "lines". In our modern and most proper usage, a line has two components, direction and magnitude (distance). But the legislature has already addressed direction, so does it make sense that they would tell us that direction (coupled with distance to complete the definition of "line") would control over itself when it conflicts with itself (huh?)? That doesn't make any sense, does it? So if we have identified that "angles" means "direction", and that "surfaces" means "area", then that only leaves "distance" for "lines".

Thus, in order of importance (among measurements):
1. Distance
2. Direction
3. Area


Consider the reasons for that. When the law was enacted in the 1800s, which measurement did the current technology afford the most reliability to? Distances where measured with chains which were supposed to be checked regularly against a calibrated chain. With reasonably careful procedures, that allowed distances to the nearest link (0.66'), or in some cases, a fraction of a link. I'm not exactly certain when the first reliable steel tapes appeared, but suspect that they cam into common usage in the very late 1800s.

Direction measurements in the mid 1800s were commonly made with a compass or a rudimentary transit. Transits of the design some of us may have used as our every day instrument in our early career (Gurley, Deitzgen, Lietz) came into common usage in the very late 1800s, probably about the same time as the steel tape. That allowed the surveyor to measure to a precision of the nearest minute. A minute of angular error equates to about 0.03' of position error transverse to the line of site at 100' distance from the instrument location. Reasonably careful taping yields better results.

Reported directions were also dependent upon whatever the surveyor used as a base direction. If that was the Sun, a number of sources of error could have the surveyor starting with an erroneous reference direction. Was his watch set correctly? How well did that watch keep time? How skilled was the surveyor at making those measurements and making the calculations? Whare did he get his ephemeral data and was it accurate? If he used an established set of monuments, how was their direction established?

Sometimes a deed will clearly state how a basis of bearing was established, but more often it will just start at some (hopefully) identfiable point and then just start heading off bearing & distance without citing a repeatable basis.

In most eastern states, direction prevails over distance. Their boundary law basic presumptions developed several decades before ours did and the technology was different. Compasses hadn't changed much, but distance measuring did as metalurgy advanced through the 18th & 19th centuries. When their direction over distance presumption was established, technology and methods for measuring direction was more reliable than that for distance.


Distance over direction, or direction over distance, either way, it is merely a presumption to resort to when you can't find sufficient evidence to support one over the other. With today's technology, neither measurement is necesarilly more inherently reliable than the other.

But also bear in mind that the deed description you are following may be based on measurements made with instruments none of us have ever seen as other than a historic artifact much less used on a regular basis.

In the real world, you will almost always have something giving you at least an indication of which measurement is more reliable than the other. even more common, you will have a set of courses resulting in a misclosure with no reasonable basis to hold the distances over directions or vice versa. In such cases, I don't think anyone can make a good argument that you mishandled the data if you distributed the accumulated errors (that you couldn't isolate) by use of compass rull or least squares adjustment.

Another long answer, but hopefully someone will find it helpful.

[Jim Frame]

In the real world, you will almost always have something giving you at least an indication of which measurement is more reliable than the other.

Hear, hear!

.

[LS_8750]

Very helpful and eloquent Evan.
"Leverite" there.