The Role of Land Surveyors in Society

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

An article I wrote:
https://rplstoday.com/news/land-surveyi ... n-society/

I want to say thank you to Duane Frymire (NY), Warren Smith (CA), Evan Page (CA), Warren Ward (Colo), and Peter Ehlert (CA) for reviewing the article and making great and helpful suggestions. Finally, thanks to Wendell Harness for publishing it on RPLS Today.

One of the issues I have noticed in my research is that Surveyors have been applying Title rules to Boundary problems; the Courts traditionally view Title as a question of law and Boundary location as a question of fact. It is difficult, if not nearly impossible, to formulate rules for fact questions; that is why there seems to be a lot of variation in the case law.

[pls7809]

Well done Dave.

[Peter Ehlert]

Thanks Dave. It is an excellent reference.
Can you post the PDF here? It would be more portable, and printable.
I could put it in my DropBox and post a link to it here if you like.

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

Here is the PDF file.

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

Peter, I tried to reply to your e-mail but your e-mail server bounced it.

Thanks for the link; I uploaded it here.

[Peter Ehlert]

Dave: sorry for the bounce, your Cal Fire email is now in my white list... it should not happen again.

[David Kendall]

Thank you for sharing that article, I have read it twice now and I am also happy to be made aware of the RPLS Today site...

Do you frequently use the Warren-Knight staff compass that you have on your RPLS Today profile picture? I have been thinking of getting one for forest line marking and estimation (my hand compass has gotten me in trouble too many times). That looks like a nice one, would you recommend it?

[Peter Ehlert]

I also have a Warren-Knight, quite similar to Dave's, but I think mine is a couple decades older. I love it. Far superior to the Brunton Pocket Transit compass... probably just due to the circle size makes the difference.

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

Yes we do use it. It's reliable on the sub 5' level and can achieve line within 1 or 2'. We use it where that is sufficient accuracy, there are no fences or buildings on line, and we can run between two established monuments.

[LA Stevens]

Dave,

You have done a great job with this paper. It should be required reading for the profession as well as tested upon for those seeking a land surveying license.

Best regards,

[LS_8750]

Excellent work Mr. Karoly. I agree with Mr. Stevens. Thank you for your contribution to the profession.

[mpallamary]

This is a great paper. Thanks for routing it and sharing!

[Steve Martin]

Well written Mr. Karoly!

I would enjoy seeing this excellent work expanded into a book for California Surveyors


Just for fun, a quote from Beall v. Weir 11 Cal.App. 364 (1909)

"When land has once been conveyed with reference to stakes and monuments which were fixed and in place at the time of such conveyance, the conveyance cannot be afterward defeated by a new survey which shows that the stakes and monuments were not as a matter of fact in their true places. A contrary rule would upset titles and make all conveyances more or less uncertain. It is always the endeavor of courts to ascertain the intention of the parties in applying the description contained in a deed to the monuments referred to therein so as to locate the land in accordance with the intention of the parties."

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

Beall is a R/W case in Fresno County. The R/W had been set up from stakes at the Section Corners. The private owner had a survey and based on it built a fence southerly into the R/W. The Court ruled that the stakes in existence and called for in the R/W deed controlled (they may not have been original section corners). The private land owner was ordered to move the fence back to the R/W line.

The opposite result happened in People v. Covell, 17 Cal.App.2d 627 (1936), a R/W case near Modesto. Ward Avenue runs along north-south Section lines. Apparently the Section corners had disappeared (probably because of construction of the road, ironically) and the County Surveyor reestablished the Section Lines calling Covell's fence line encroaching. The ruling was essentially you don't know where the original section lines were located so you can't say Covell's fence line is encroaching. There is a lengthy and excruciating quote of the cross examination of the Deputy County Surveyor.

[Steve Martin]

I could not find People v. Covell on Google Dave, only a case that quotes from there:

"In People v. Covell 17 Cal. App. 2d 627, 62 P. 2nd 602 (1936) the court stated that "whether accurate or inaccurate, the original survey granting and establishing certain rights fixed the rights not only of the Government, but of the landowners, and that the Government, after establishing such a line and granting and conveying certain rights, possessed no power thereafter to change the course of that line." In Churchill Co. v. Beal, 278 Pac. 894 (Cal. App., 1929), the same court approved the following rule: "When public land has been surveyed by authority of the United States, and patented with reference to the boundaries as fixed by such surveys, the corners and lines so established, wheather correct or not, are conclusive and cannot be altered or controlled by other surveys." This universally applied rule was enacted into statute by the Acts of March 3, 1909, 35 Stat. 845, and June 25, 1910, 36 Stat. 884, 43 U. S. C. 772."

"There is additional reason in law why the original survey in this case governs the lands which passed to the State. We have shown, and the district court recognized (R. 36-37), that the United States is irrevocably bound by the Reed survey. It cannot by a corrective survey intermeddle with the rights which it granted thereby, In such a case, "The Government is bound by its patent; is estopped to disavow the subdivision granted; and as estoppels are mutual, [the grantee] is equally bound by the grant"{footnote} That principle of mutual estoppel is generally recognized in cases granting public lands."

From the Ninth Circuit Court of Appleals in No. 12448 United States v. Livingston et. all (not sure on the correct citation)

[LS_8750]

Mr. Karoly,
Perhaps you might want to put together a workshop and hit the road with this?

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

Steve-

Every California published case is available here for free:
http://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/CACourts/

It's paid for by the California Courts.

[Steve Martin]

Thanks Dave,

Yes, in one case a fence was ordered to be moved and in the other it was ruled that the County had not made their case.

The underlying principle of control of the survey by which the grant was made did not change though.

People v. Covell is interesting in how the appellate court focused in on how the testimony was insufficient to support the finding of the trial court however.

[Jason Gasser]

Mr. Karoly,

A wonderful article. Thank you for identifying the need for this and for creating such a well reasoned document in response. Your effort is much appreciated. I wish I had an article like this when I was studying for the big test. If you don't mind, I'm putting a copy on my survey bookshelf as a reference for every future boundary I work on :)

Jason Gasser, PLS

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

I'm working on the next big thing.

[LS_8750]

"Blood Will Tell" by one Frank Bettencourt. (???)

A study about Jasper O'Farrel, surveyor, and his role in early California before, during, and after the Mex-American war, and the aftermath, or the birth of California as a state, and during the Civil War period.

An interesting look at the Role of the Land Surveyor in Society, especially during the birth of a society.

The book is no masterpiece, but I think my fellow surveyors would get something from it.

I enjoyed it.

[goodgps]

Dave K,

From a quick glance at this article, it looks excellent !

I wrote an interesting piece several years ago entitled "Beyond the yellow box" which outlines the importance of boundary care, research evidence collection AND removing the "Calculation ego" from the equation. My Dad taught me that the best evidence for boundaries is had by use of the shovel.

You bring many great points in this article. I am "stealing" (ala facebook) and will print and share.

Thank you Dave K

[LS_8750]

Mr. Karoly's paper attached for those in the back.