What would you do? (Survey Help)

[mpallamary]

Chapter 31: Duration of Copyright

301. Preemption with respect to other laws2
(a) On and after January 1, 1978, all legal or equitable rights that are equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright as specified by section 106 in works of authorship that are fixed in a tangible medium of expression and come within the subject matter of copyright as specified by sections 102 and 103, whether created before or after that date and whether published or unpublished, are governed exclusively by this title. Thereafter, no person is entitled to any such right or equivalent right in any such work under the common law or statutes of any State.

(b) Nothing in this title annuls or limits any rights or remedies under the common law or statutes of any State with respect to—

(1) subject matter that does not come within the subject matter of copyright as specified by sections 102 and 103, including works of authorship not fixed in any tangible medium of expression; or

(2) any cause of action arising from undertakings commenced before January 1, 1978;

(3) activities violating legal or equitable rights that are not equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright as specified by section 106; or

(4) State and local landmarks, historic preservation, zoning, or building codes, relating to architectural works protected under section 102(a)(8).

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 303, and in accordance with chapter 14, no sound recording fixed before February 15, 1972, shall be subject to copyright under this title. With respect to sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, the preemptive provisions of subsection (a) shall apply to activities that are commenced on and after the date of enactment of the Classics Protection and Access Act. Nothing in this subsection may be construed to affirm or negate the preemption of rights and remedies pertaining to any cause of action arising from the nonsubscription broadcast transmission of sound recordings under the common law or statutes of any State for activities that do not qualify as covered activities under chapter 14 undertaken during the period between the date of enactment of the Classics Protection and Access Act and the date on which the term of prohibition on unauthorized acts under section 1401(a)(2) expires for such sound recordings. Any potential preemption of rights and remedies related to such activities undertaken during that period shall apply in all respects as it did the day before the date of enactment of the Classics Protection and Access Act.

(d) Nothing in this title annuls or limits any rights or remedies under any other Federal statute.

(e) The scope of Federal preemption under this section is not affected by the adherence of the United States to the Berne Convention or the satisfaction of obligations of the United States thereunder.

(f)(1) On or after the effective date set forth in section 610(a) of the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, all legal or equitable rights that are equivalent to any of the rights conferred by section 106A with respect to works of visual art to which the rights conferred by section 106A apply are governed exclusively by section 106A and section 113(d) and the provisions of this title relating to such sections. Thereafter, no person is entitled to any such right or equivalent right in any work of visual art under the common law or statutes of any State3.

(2) Nothing in paragraph (1) annuls or limits any rights or remedies under the common law or statutes of any State with respect to—

(A) any cause of action from undertakings commenced before the effective date set forth in section 610(a) of the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990;

(B) activities violating legal or equitable rights that are not equivalent to any of the rights conferred by section 106A with respect to works of visual art; or

(C) activities violating legal or equitable rights which extend beyond the life of the author.

302. Duration of copyright: Works created on or after January 1, 19784
(a) In General.—Copyright in a work created on or after January 1, 1978, subsists from its creation and, except as provided by the following subsections, endures for a term consisting of the life of the author and 70 years after the author’s death.

(b) Joint Works.—In the case of a joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire, the copyright endures for a term consisting of the life of the last surviving author and 70 years after such last surviving author’s death.

(c) Anonymous Works, Pseudonymous Works, and Works Made for Hire.—In the case of an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication, or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first. If, before the end of such term, the identity of one or more of the authors of an anonymous or pseudonymous work is revealed in the records of a registration made for that work under subsections (a) or (d) of section 408, or in the records provided by this subsection, the copyright in the work endures for the term specified by subsection (a) or (b), based on the life of the author or authors whose identity has been revealed. Any person having an interest in the copyright in an anonymous or pseudonymous work may at any time record, in records to be maintained by the Copyright Office for that purpose, a statement identifying one or more authors of the work; the statement shall also identify the person filing it, the nature of that person’s interest, the source of the information recorded, and the particular work affected, and shall comply in form and content with requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation.

(d) Records Relating to Death of Authors.—Any person having an interest in a copyright may at any time record in the Copyright Office a statement of the date of death of the author of the copyrighted work, or a statement that the author is still living on a particular date. The statement shall identify the person filing it, the nature of that person’s interest, and the source of the information recorded, and shall comply in form and content with requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation. The Register shall maintain current records of information relating to the death of authors of copyrighted works, based on such recorded statements and, to the extent the Register considers practicable, on data contained in any of the records of the Copyright Office or in other reference sources.

(e) Presumption as to Author’s Death.—After a period of 95 years from the year of first publication of a work, or a period of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first, any person who obtains from the Copyright Office a certified report that the records provided by subsection (d) disclose nothing to indicate that the author of the work is living, or died less than 70 years before, is entitled to the benefit of a presumption that the author has been dead for at least 70 years. Reliance in good faith upon this presumption shall be a complete defense to any action for infringement under this title.

303. Duration of copyright: Works created but not published or copyrighted before January 1, 19785
(a) Copyright in a work created before January 1, 1978, but not theretofore in the public domain or copyrighted, subsists from January 1, 1978, and endures for the term provided by section 302. In no case, however, shall the term of copyright in such a work expire before December 31, 2002; and, if the work is published on or before December 31, 2002, the term of copyright shall not expire before December 31, 2047.

(b) The distribution before January 1, 1978, of a phonorecord shall not for any purpose constitute a publication of any musical work, dramatic work, or literary work embodied therein.

304. Duration of copyright: Subsisting copyrights6
(a) Copyrights in Their First Term on January 1, 1978.—

(1)(A) Any copyright, in the first term of which is subsisting on January 1, 1978, shall endure for 28 years from the date it was originally secured.

(B) In the case of—

(i) any posthumous work or of any periodical, cyclopedic, or other composite work upon which the copyright was originally secured by the proprietor thereof, or

(ii) any work copyrighted by a corporate body (otherwise than as assignee or licensee of the individual author) or by an employer for whom such work is made for hire, the proprietor of such copyright shall be entitled to a renewal and extension of the copyright in such work for the further term of 67 years.

(C) In the case of any other copyrighted work, including a contribution by an individual author to a periodical or to a cyclopedic or other composite work—

(i) the author of such work, if the author is still living,

(ii) the widow, widower, or children of the author, if the author is not living,

(iii) the author’s executors, if such author, widow, widower, or children are not living, or

(iv) the author’s next of kin, in the absence of a will of the author, shall be entitled to a renewal and extension of the copyright in such work for a further term of 67 years.

(2)(A) At the expiration of the original term of copyright in a work specified in paragraph (1)(B) of this subsection, the copyright shall endure for a renewed and extended further term of 67 years, which—

(i) if an application to register a claim to such further term has been made to the Copyright Office within 1 year before the expiration of the original term of copyright, and the claim is registered, shall vest, upon the beginning of such further term, in the proprietor of the copyright who is entitled to claim the renewal of copyright at the time the application is made; or

(ii) if no such application is made or the claim pursuant to such application is not registered, shall vest, upon the beginning of such further term, in the person or entity that was the proprietor of the copyright as of the last day of the original term of copyright.

(B) At the expiration of the original term of copyright in a work specified in paragraph (1)(C) of this subsection, the copyright shall endure for a renewed and extended further term of 67 years, which—

(i) if an application to register a claim to such further term has been made to the Copyright Office within 1 year before the expiration of the original term of copyright, and the claim is registered, shall vest, upon the beginning of such further term, in any person who is entitled under paragraph (1)(C) to the renewal and extension of the copyright at the time the application is made; or

(ii) if no such application is made or the claim pursuant to such application is not registered, shall vest, upon the beginning of such further term, in any person entitled under paragraph (1)(C), as of the last day of the original term of copyright, to the renewal and extension of the copyright.

(3)(A) An application to register a claim to the renewed and extended term of copyright in a work may be made to the Copyright Office—

(i) within 1 year before the expiration of the original term of copyright by any person entitled under paragraph (1)(B) or (C) to such further term of 67 years; and

(ii) at any time during the renewed and extended term by any person in whom such further term vested, under paragraph (2)(A) or (B), or by any successor or assign of such person, if the application is made in the name of such person.

(B) Such an application is not a condition of the renewal and extension of the copyright in a work for a further term of 67 years.

(4)(A) If an application to register a claim to the renewed and extended term of copyright in a work is not made within 1 year before the expiration of the original term of copyright in a work, or if the claim pursuant to such application is not registered, then a derivative work prepared under authority of a grant of a transfer or license of the copyright that is made before the expiration of the original term of copyright may continue to be used under the terms of the grant during the renewed and extended term of copyright without infringing the copyright, except that such use does not extend to the preparation during such renewed and extended term of other derivative works based upon the copyrighted work covered by such grant.

(B) If an application to register a claim to the renewed and extended term of copyright in a work is made within 1 year before its expiration, and the claim is registered, the certificate of such registration shall constitute prima facie evidence as to the validity of the copyright during its renewed and extended term and of the facts stated in the certificate. The evidentiary weight to be accorded the certificates of a registration of a renewed and extended term of copyright made after the end of that 1-year period shall be within the discretion of the court.

(b) Copyrights in Their Renewal Term at the Time of the Effective Date of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act7—Any copyright still in its renewal term at the time that the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act becomes effective shall have a copyright term of 95 years from the date copyright was originally secured.8

(c) Termination of Transfers and Licenses Covering Extended Renewal Term.—In the case of any copyright subsisting in either its first or renewal term on January 1, 1978, other than a copyright in a work made for hire, the exclusive or nonexclusive grant of a transfer or license of the renewal copyright or any right under it, executed before January 1, 1978, by any of the persons designated by subsection (a)(1)(C) of this section, otherwise than by will, is subject to termination under the following conditions:

(1) In the case of a grant executed by a person or persons other than the author, termination of the grant may be effected by the surviving person or persons who executed it. In the case of a grant executed by one or more of the authors of the work, termination of the grant may be effected, to the extent of a particular author’s share in the ownership of the renewal copyright, by the author who executed it or, if such author is dead, by the person or persons who, under clause (2) of this subsection, own and are entitled to exercise a total of more than one-half of that author’s termination interest.

(2) Where an author is dead, his or her termination interest is owned, and may be exercised, as follows:

(A) The widow or widower owns the author’s entire termination interest unless there are any surviving children or grandchildren of the author, in which case the widow or widower owns one-half of the author’s interest.

(B) The author’s surviving children, and the surviving children of any dead child of the author, own the author’s entire termination interest unless there is a widow or widower, in which case the ownership of one-half of the author’s interest is divided among them.

(C) The rights of the author’s children and grandchildren are in all cases divided among them and exercised on a per stirpes basis according to the number of such author’s children represented; the share of the children of a dead child in a termination interest can be exercised only by the action of a majority of them.

(D) In the event that the author’s widow or widower, children, and grandchildren are not living, the author’s executor, administrator, personal representative, or trustee shall own the author’s entire termination interest.

(3) Termination of the grant may be effected at any time during a period of five years beginning at the end of fifty-six years from the date copyright was originally secured, or beginning on January 1, 1978, whichever is later.

(4) The termination shall be effected by serving an advance notice in writing upon the grantee or the grantee’s successor in title. In the case of a grant executed by a person or persons other than the author, the notice shall be signed by all of those entitled to terminate the grant under clause (1) of this subsection, or by their duly authorized agents. In the case of a grant executed by one or more of the authors of the work, the notice as to any one author’s share shall be signed by that author or his or her duly authorized agent or, if that author is dead, by the number and proportion of the owners of his or her termination interest required under clauses (1) and (2) of this subsection, or by their duly authorized agents.

(A) The notice shall state the effective date of the termination, which shall fall within the five-year period specified by clause (3) of this subsection, or, in the case of a termination under subsection (d), within the five-year period specified by subsection (d)(2), and the notice shall be served not less than two or more than ten years before that date. A copy of the notice shall be recorded in the Copyright Office before the effective date of termination, as a condition to its taking effect.

(B) The notice shall comply, in form, content, and manner of service, with requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation.

(5) Termination of the grant may be effected notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, including an agreement to make a will or to make any future grant.

(6) In the case of a grant executed by a person or persons other than the author, all rights under this title that were covered by the terminated grant revert, upon the effective date of termination, to all of those entitled to terminate the grant under clause (1) of this subsection. In the case of a grant executed by one or more of the authors of the work, all of a particular author’s rights under this title that were covered by the terminated grant revert, upon the effective date of termination, to that author or, if that author is dead, to the persons owning his or her termination interest under clause (2) of this subsection, including those owners who did not join in signing the notice of termination under clause (4) of this subsection. In all cases the reversion of rights is subject to the following limitations:

(A) A derivative work prepared under authority of the grant before its termination may continue to be utilized under the terms of the grant after its termination, but this privilege does not extend to the preparation after the termination of other derivative works based upon the copyrighted work covered by the terminated grant.

(B) The future rights that will revert upon termination of the grant become vested on the date the notice of termination has been served as provided by clause (4) of this subsection.

(C) Where the author’s rights revert to two or more persons under clause

(2) of this subsection, they shall vest in those persons in the proportionate shares provided by that clause. In such a case, and subject to the provisions of subclause (D) of this clause, a further grant, or agreement to make a further grant, of a particular author’s share with respect to any right covered by a terminated grant is valid only if it is signed by the same number and proportion of the owners, in whom the right has vested under this clause, as are required to terminate the grant under clause (2) of this subsection. Such further grant or agreement is effective with respect to all of the persons in whom the right it covers has vested under this subclause, including those who did not join in signing it. If any person dies after rights under a terminated grant have vested in him or her, that person’s legal representatives, legatees, or heirs at law represent him or her for purposes of this subclause.

(D) A further grant, or agreement to make a further grant, of any right covered by a terminated grant is valid only if it is made after the effective date of the termination. As an exception, however, an agreement for such a further grant may be made between the author or any of the persons provided by the first sentence of clause (6) of this subsection, or between the persons provided by subclause (C) of this clause, and the original grantee or such grantee’s successor in title, after the notice of termination has been served as provided by clause (4) of this subsection.

(E) Termination of a grant under this subsection affects only those rights covered by the grant that arise under this title, and in no way affects rights arising under any other Federal, State, or foreign laws.

(F) Unless and until termination is effected under this subsection, the grant, if it does not provide otherwise, continues in effect for the remainder of the extended renewal term.

(d) Termination Rights Provided in Subsection (c) Which Have Expired on or before the Effective Date of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act.—In the case of any copyright other than a work made for hire, subsisting in its renewal term on the effective date of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act9 for which the termination right provided in subsection (c) has expired by such date, where the author or owner of the termination right has not previously exercised such termination right, the exclusive or nonexclusive grant of a transfer or license of the renewal copyright or any right under it, executed before January 1, 1978, by any of the persons designated in subsection (a)(1)(C) of this section, other than by will, is subject to termination under the following conditions:

(1) The conditions specified in subsections (c) (1), (2), (4), (5), and (6) of this section apply to terminations of the last 20 years of copyright term as provided by the amendments made by the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act.

(2) Termination of the grant may be effected at any time during a period of 5 years beginning at the end of 75 years from the date copyright was originally secured.

305. Duration of copyright: Terminal date
All terms of copyright provided by sections 302 through 304 run to the end of the calendar year in which they would otherwise expire

[mpallamary]

Cooley, Thomas M., The Judicial Functions of Surveyors, reprinted in Surveying and Mapping, April-June 1954, Vol.XIV, No.2, pages 161-168.

https://www.krcmar.ca/resource-articles ... yors_1.pdf

https://www.vsls.org/wp-content/uploads ... Manual.pdf

[mpallamary]

Where is the public domain?

The public domain is not a place. A work of authorship is in the “public domain” if it is no longer under copyright protection or if it failed to meet the requirements for copyright protection. Works in the public domain may be used freely without the permission of the former copyright owner.

https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html

[mpallamary]

Public domain books
A public-domain book is a book with no copyright, a book that was created without a license, or a book where its copyrights expired[20] or have been forfeited.[21]

In most countries the term of protection of copyright expires on the first day of January, 70 years after the death of the latest living author. The longest copyright term is in Mexico, which has life plus 100 years for all deaths since July 1928.

A notable exception is the United States, where every book and tale published before 1926 is in the public domain; American copyrights last for 95 years for books originally published between 1925 and 1978 if the copyright was properly registered and maintained.[22]

For example: the works of Jane Austen, Lewis Carroll, Machado de Assis, Olavo Bilac and Edgar Allan Poe are in the public domain worldwide as they all died over 100 years ago.

Project Gutenberg and the Internet Archive make tens of thousands of public domain books available online as ebooks.

[mpallamary]

Enjoy.

[William Magee]

Edit, I read terms of use, and I am not seeing a portion which restricts third party links. Can you point me to the the specific text which governs links?

So is there a difference between distributing a pdf and distributing a link directly opening that pdf? Key word here “distributing”.

Sidestepping this potential exposure might be as simple as just telling people about the availability to view it for free at their own search effort. Wiley and Sons would surely appreciate the plug and would achieve their need by getting users to start their viewing at their Terms of Use instead of going directly in the free viewer.

Of course, and I repeat myself here, you could retroactively click on the “permissions” link instead of the “pdf” link as Wiley and Sons would want, and see where requesting permission takes you.

Or you could just wait to see what the ‘fine people’ at Wiley and Sons have to say when they find out about these distributions performed without their permission. Maybe no big deal, but then again, maybe not a fun deal.

[CBarrett]

William,
Yes, according to the law, there is a difference between distributing a link and distributing the article itself. Please read up on this.

See during the recession I (call it got bored) and went to a snazzy art school, where among other things I studied copyright laws extensively, because they impact you daily, you are held to a high standard of understanding them. Just like we as surveyors are held to high standards understanding SMA and PLS ACT. Link vs. Actual work distribution is a bit like understanding when to file an RS vs a corner record. You will not get it right by speculating. You have to take the time to understand the law minutia.

While I dont publish written works like Mike Pllamary, I publish dozens and dozens of visual works. I have to know ins and outs of protecting my own work and not infringing on someone elses.

So, unless you can point me to the very specific language which prohibits direct linking, this conversation is moot. I know too much about the subject matter to get sucked into hypothetical speculations.

[CBarrett]

Clearly, attempts like this to discourage and intimidate people from writing and publishing material is counter productive to the advancement of the profession. Why someone would do that is beyond me. It must be a distorted side effect of the Coronavirus. As with other medical conditions, one should seek immediate help.

What kind of cracks me up is that in the world of visual arts, and also where you sell digital assets online these kinds of discussions pop up at least weekly.
One of the brokerages where I sell my digital assets, luckily sends cease and desist letters on our behalf all the time. Another one does not. Digital assets are subject of very high rate of theft and other more innocent and more innocuous copyright violations.

Also, in this other business you are also able to make derivative works and redistribute certain things, according to laws and permissions. Much like in surveying you have to analyze a boundary and verify pedigree of each piece of evidence you are considering, in my other business you are managing copyrights, constantly. It is not a new concept the way it is to pure surveyors who may or may not run into a copyright concept once every few years.

In part it is perhaps good that William is suggesting that if one is unsure, stay on the safe side. In my specific case, I am not unsure.

We should perhaps return this thread to it's original topic...

[LS_8750]

Why did the City acquire the 10ft strip of land on the southerly edge of Jacob's Alley? When were the Jacob's Alley improvement constructed? Does the City need more land on the south side of Jacob's Alley?
Is the block longer than record? How much?
Where to the fence lines around the block line up?

Acquiescence and repose?

[Mike Mueller]

Mr. Chain,

Hard to tell as I am not sure what your monument symbols represent (original, unrecorded, etc) are, so I will forgo commenting on the specifics and stick to the broad view.

As I know you area aware from being on the forums as much as I have seen you, you know there are already two fairly entrenched opinions about this situation.

Camp 1: Hold deed, you are not empowered to change a boundary line. Document situation, attempt to assist land owners in solutions that are effected through written contracts, IE LLA or Easement. BLA is not acceptable because you can locate the boundary, its just not where folks might have wanted...

Camp 2: Attempt to equitably "fix" a problem that you find, and cross your fingers that everyone that follows will agree with you.

I generally am in the first camp. I am not aware of any published book or literature that says you (the surveyor) should/can fix title problems in deeds based on your discovery of evidence and opinion IE a RoS. Most folks in this camp like to point to Justice Cooley's lecture, however Justice Cooley was talking about a completely different situation, in a different time, in a different state, with different laws on the books. IE His views are great to consider, but have very little relation to what you are dealing with.

I am sure we are all familiar with incompetent surveyors/engineers, whos maps are generally just ignored except as possible aids in monument recovery? Every time I find myself wanting to stray out of Camp 1, I ask myself the following questions: Why is my map any better? Because I am right? Am I sure? Is there any chance of someone finding controlling monuments that I didn't find?

After I have gone through those questions, the surveys where I step into Camp two are generally as follows:
1. If its a single deed/boundary that is in question, and my work will have no bearing( intended :)) on adjoining tracts if my opinion is disagreed with and the deed itself leaves some ambiguity. IE my harm to the public is limited, and there is ambiguity in the deed itself.

2. If all of the following are true: A. the deeds DO NOT create gaps and overlaps between themselves, B. there is only an issue of location, not title, C. there is a cohesive pattern to the deed/occupation mis-alignment. Then I generally look for something that shows what was held by the scrivenors as correct, IE if all the fences use the same POB and all the fences/buildings are parallel. Then I accept that position as controlling for deeds based on that error (aka interior lines) and trim extend as needed/warranted by the exterior boundary of the parent parcel/lot/section etc. IE if they all call to a pipe that is not a section corner, but was thought to be a section corner.

Your map does not seem to have that consistent of an error. Without knowing more about your survey I would fall back on the old adage, caveat emptor and hold all deeds in their correct senior rights order.

Mikey Mueller
PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[David Kendall]

Find the old-timer

[Mike Mueller]

Find the old-timer

David- Why? I can't think of anything that an old timer will know that can/will change a deeded description. What piece of evidence do you have in mind?

Mikey Mueller
PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[Mike Mueller]

Kept thinking about when I would hold a fence and I would also add when doing large ranch surveys and the following conditions are met:

1. The creation document (deed, GLO plat, map etc) calls for monuments at the corner.
2. The fences are straight, and constructed in hard to build locations, IE gullies, rocky points etc, which show that the fence building was not following the convenient route,
3. The fence corners/intersections match "close enough"(all things considered) to deed called for distances and or bearings,
4. The fence location is old enough that the fence builders prolly found the monuments, IE within 10-15 years. The fence can be new, but it has to have had replaced an old enough fence.
5. I am certain the called for monument is SFNF

Then I am willing to hold the fence corners as the best available evidence of where the original monument was set. This means that the fence itself is not the boundary, just the angle points. These criteria are also in my mind when doing any survey where the fences don't match the deed, but its been pretty rare to find a situation in the deeds for smaller lots.

As I have been thinking of this post more, I would also like to ask any of the "hold the fences" folks to consider the old test to determine if something is good or bad by having everyone do it. Classic test is to consider two scenarios about bread.
First Scenario: Steal a loaf of bread from your neighbor and eat it. Rinse repeat. Leads to everyone starving to death, prolly bad.
Second Scenario: Make a load of bread and give it to your neighbor. Rinse repeat. Everyone lives, prolly good.
So its probably better to make and give than steal.

Survey Version:
Scenario 1. Every Fence is always right. If the deed and fence don't match, change the deeds of both neighbors. Outcome all new fences become new boundaries, easily exploited by any bad actors as no paper trail etc. Only protection from your neighbor is armed defense of your fence as deeds mean nothing.
Scenario 2. Every deed is always right. If the deed and fence don't match, move the fence. Disputes will occur once, then never happen again.

Probably better for the long term cohesion of law and order to rely on the deed version since it lets all members or society rely on the monopoly of violence that the police are supposed to provide rather then on might makes right.

I will grant that the above is a little absurd, but that is the point of that thought experiment, so you can magnify the outcomes and see where it leads if everyone did what you do.

Mikey Mueller
PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[CBarrett]

Find the old-timer

David- Why? I can't think of anything that an old timer will know that can/will change a deeded description. What piece of evidence do you have in mind?

Mikey Mueller
PLS 9076
Sonoma County

'Old Timer' to me read as a metaphor for the original survey of the area.
Maybe he meant something else.

[David Kendall]

Find the old-timer

David - Why? I can't think of anything that an old timer will know that can/will change a deeded description. What piece of evidence do you have in mind?

The deed description is "Lot 12 from the town map". The town map has no bearings. Deed staker is out of luck on this one, you will have to seek and rely on extrinsic evidence. Lines of occupation may be all you get from the field. There are some little handwritten numbers on the town map which might refer to field notes.

I have not done any map research but I don't believe recorded maps will come into play, at least they are not mentioned by the OP. There is paving and possible public utilites in Jacob's Alley....

I always talk to the neighbors. Things they have brought me: stories of how the lines of occupation came to be established, chain of title information, beer, water, lunch, contact information for other people who might know more, old maps of prior surveys, awareness of verbal agreements.

I find that the people who have lived in the neighborhood the longest tend to have a better sense of the orderly development of things. If there is harmony then we work to preserve that. If there is acrimony we work to resolve it.

All of these things go in to the evidence locker and play a part in my boundary determination. On this one I would also check in with the city to see where they believe the road falls. There are historical residences very close to the ROW lines on both sides of Jacob's Alley.

In short, lines of occupation and historic establishment by landowners and prior surveys are meaningful

[Mike Mueller]

Good point about the lot line David, I didn't notice that. I had thought it was all portions of Lot 8, so an exercise in senior junior.

If there is a simultaneous conveyance boundary that is your headache, then you start having more leeway, since its a location problem and you are the master of location :)

Where is Don Street on your map? Is that George Street? How was it created? I assume a deeded road, but if it represents on old lot corner, you start having some apples to apples comparisons if you determine Sterling, Jacobs and Don street edges.

Is your question about using fences to determine location of Lot 8/Lot 12 boundary? or depth of deeded portions? Or both?

On portions of the completely atrocious old subdivision maps in west Sonoma County (Camp Tyrone/Camp Meeker or Summer Home Park come to mind) I have seen surveyors I respect rubber sheet the old map. Worst case is to literally take the take the image of the map in CAD and start pinning it to known places, like the lot lines or the streets. Personally I don't think you are in that sort of scenario as you have basically straight lines, and there are tons of monuments to compare stuff to and either work from or reject in lieu of evidence of original positions.

If you do end up holding fences, I would urge you to at least extend your survey to Don and Sterling to show that you are not just pushing the problem to the next guy. There are five lot corners between Jacobs and Sterling and 2-4- of them have seem to have fences you could compare. I would also have to find some awesome evidence about the Lot 11, 12, 8 area that changed the two lines of Lot 12 to not be parallel since it looks like they were meant to be.

Good Luck!

Mikey Mueller
PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[David Kendall]

I would also have to find some awesome evidence about the Lot 11, 12, 8 area that changed the two lines of Lot 12 to not be parallel since it looks like they were meant to be.

I have seen you emphasize the value of parallel lines once before. Is there a textbook or case law that I am not aware of that tells you that lines originally intended to be parallel must always be held perfectly parallel? I would generally agree with you regarding a ROW but I don't understand this reasoning when it comes to parcel boundaries. I would consider "apparently parallel lines" as evidence somewhere below area in the hierarchy of calls.

There is some important information missing from the OP which makes it difficult to offer helpful advice on this particular boundary problem. The field notes analysis and found monuments are the most obvious but incomplete analysis of occupation is a close second. Most of the responses have suggested additional research in some form and I will say the same thing.

[mpallamary]

I hope the attached is of some value.

Good luck.

[Mike Mueller]

I would also have to find some awesome evidence about the Lot 11, 12, 8 area that changed the two lines of Lot 12 to not be parallel since it looks like they were meant to be.

I have seen you emphasize the value of parallel lines once before. Is there a textbook or case law that I am not aware of that tells you that lines originally intended to be parallel must always be held perfectly parallel? I would generally agree with you regarding a ROW but I don't understand this reasoning when it comes to parcel boundaries. I would consider "apparently parallel lines" as evidence somewhere below area in the hierarchy of calls.

David, Nothing explicit like a rule from Brown that I have handy, however my brain is wiggling that there might be something in Wattles about implied intent? but I lent out my copy of Wattles and its not handy. Its more of the idea that if the original document of creation (DoC) doesn't call out for senior lines or other calls, but rather a geometric shape that is a parallelogram then I try to keep it a parallelogram. Most houses on smaller lots are built assuming lot lines are parallel. How many houses have you seen with tapers? How many houses are parallel with their nearest fence?

In terms of the hierarchy of calls, the angles would trump area in every state I am aware of, and regardless of folks views regarding interior angle vs stated angle, either one will result in record parallel being measured parallel if all you have is the data to go on, IE lacking mons, senior lines etc

Regarding the OP's situation, with a town map that (looking for a nice way to say garbage...) schematic??? You are left with more room to exercise judgement about discerning intent from such a "schematic" map. I consider it the same way that its the intent to follow centers of roads unless the contrary is shown, its my starting point until I find something better.

Mikey Mueller
PLS 9076
Sonoma County

PS Not sure if I did the quote right
EDIT I did! Ha, an old(ish) dog can learn new tricks!

[mpallamary]

Walt Robillard and Don Wilson, through Wiley published Cooley's paper. They copyrighted it in 2011.

I have contacted the FBI, the CIA, James Bond, and Karen. More to follow.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf ... 50050.app3

[LS_8750]

Sometimes the old timer is gone, but his wife is still around and recalls details that tell the story.

[LS_8750]

Sometimes the old timer's son or daughter or grandkids witnessed what took place and how things came to be.

[Man of Chain]

Anyone have any input on whether Junior/Senior conveyances still apply in this situation? When one accepts their legal description as being a lot rather than an aliquot part or a metes and bounds does that set a precedent for the rules of simultaneous conveyance to apply? I don't think the subdivision map act applied in 1898....

[CBarrett]

Anyone have any input on whether Junior/Senior conveyances still apply in this situation? When one accepts their legal description as being a lot rather than an aliquot part or a metes and bounds does that set a precedent for the rules of simultaneous conveyance to apply? I don't think the subdivision map act applied in 1898....

I didn't follow this thread closely enough to be able to give you a specific answer. What you have to do is look at how a certain piece of land was created. That will tell you if there are rights which are senior to it.

If someone merely re-described it in a legal or re-established a lot in a tract, you are dealing with a retracement, not an original creation. Retracement may or may have not been correct, it is for you to dig beyond the retracement and determine if it is correct and acceptable.

[Mike Mueller]

Anyone have any input on whether Junior/Senior conveyances still apply in this situation? When one accepts their legal description as being a lot rather than an aliquot part or a metes and bounds does that set a precedent for the rules of simultaneous conveyance to apply? I don't think the subdivision map act applied in 1898....

Taking this advice with the very large caveat of I haven't ever surveyed that area, nor researched it enough, and speaking in broad strokes...

Given that someone owned all the land prior to the map, and all the deeds in the area trace back to lot descriptions from that map, I would say that the principle of equitable distrubution of survey accuracy issues and reliance on the map as a pictorial representation of the contract by the original purchasers still applies.

Like Barrett said, its all in the original creation, or re-creation if owned by a single entity...

Mikey Mueller, PLS
Sonoma County