California Surveyors Forums

That's if they are found to be of a different character than the monument shown in some previous record. It says nothing of monuments found at locations not indicated to have been monumented on any previous records.

Check out California Surveyor Issue #12 for more information on this subject:

http://www.californiasurveyors.org/calsurveyor/CALSURV12.pdf

Interesting side note...Board minutes from July 11, 1969 state "It was moved, seconded, and carried that the Board approve the draft of the letter prepared by the Land Surveyor Committee to Mr. Hasty concerning material evidence."

Back then, standing committees were used, comprised of a few board members, as the Board didn't have the staff we have today.

Can't figure out who "Mr. Hasty" is and was referred to several times in previous board minutes on this subject. The Board letter sent out was to Bud Uzes, not a Mr. Hasty.

This is good information, but I don't necessarily see how this relates directly to not filing records when monuments were set. It fills in some historical blanks in the thinking of the times and predates a couple rewrites of 8762, the addition of 8765(d), and of course Corner Records as used today. The AG opinion was most likely referenced during those later revisions.

Ric7308 wrote:Check out California Surveyor Issue #12 for more information on this subject:

http://www.californiasurveyors.org/cals ... SURV12.pdf

Very interesting. The Board opinion and the AG opinion supplied in response from questions from the Executive Director of the Board appear to come to opposite conclusions. Doubly interesting is that the letter to Bud (02/05/70) which stated verbatim the statement interpreting 8762(a) approved by the Board (07/11/69), both came after having received the letter directly on the same subject from the AG (02/24/69). It appears in this case that the Board chose to ignore an answer from the AG that they did not like and made and adopted their own preferred interpretation of the law.

Ric7308 wrote:This is good information, but I don't necessarily see how this relates directly to not filing records when monuments were set. It fills in some historical blanks in the thinking of the times and predates a couple rewrites of 8762, the addition of 8765(d), and of course Corner Records as used today. The AG opinion was most likely referenced during those later revisions.

From the statement adopted by the Board: "[S]urvey points found or set do not necessarily constitute 'material evidence', which would require recordation of a map..."

I don't see how it could any more clearly and directly relate to the filing or not filing of records when monuments are set.


At any rate, it cannot be anymore clearly demonstrated that there was widespread misunderstanding of what they law actually required as to when a map must be filed in that the licensing board charged with both testing for minimal competence and for enforceing these very laws was at odds with the State's Attorney General's Office on the matter. Moreover and very significantly, the Board took the far more lenient view of when a map was required.

By that interpretation, many, if not most of the boundary surveys performed for which no map was filed were within the law to not file.

Very interesting indeed.

The way I read it was that where there is no material discrepancy, then there is no need to file. It does not say that there is no need to file under all other circumstances. This is just convenient myopia. If there is some iteration of the law that deleted the requirement to file, please share it. The 1891 act provided for mandatory filing. Some folks are always looking for a way not to do what they are supposed to do. Today a whole bunch of surveyors hold the belief that they do not have to file if they do not set any monument. They are mistaken: just as those surveyors, who relied upon the board response to justify not filing a record of survey where there is no material discrepancy used that board response to justify not filing under materially different circumstances, are mistaken as well.

What are you talking about Dane? Are you attempting to respond to a particular post?