California Surveyors Forums

Greetings,

So, "A" has two parcels situate east and west. the parcels are separated by a bluff line. there is a fence about 50 feet west of the bluff locally known as the "Johnson fence". "A" sells the west parcel to "B". "B" says the property between the fence and bluff is of no value. in the sales contract, the parties agree to do a Lot Line Adjustment from the bluff to the "Johnson fence" at "A's expense. Later, "A" sells the east parcel to "C". and makes "C" aware of the pending LLA. which hasn't begun. "C" is good with the LLA and begins to occupy the space between the bluff and Johnson fence. "A" forgets about the LLA until "B" reminds them about it. Meanwhile "C" does some research and discovers that the TRUE Johnson fence is another 100 feet west of the fence mistakenly called the Johnson fence. (the true Johnson fence being found by evidence and historical confirmation from Johnson family survivors)
NOW "C" wants the additional 100 feet to the old true Johnson fence, as the "Johnson fence" is stated in the sales agreement. "B" contacts "A" and demands the LLA be prepared at "A's" expense per the original sale from "A" to "B", and at the fence line being 50 feet west of the bluff . Since the sales agreement to "B" specifically states the boundary be adjusted to the Johnson fence, "C" demands the new line be placed 150 feet WEST of the bluff at the true "Johnson Fence" and NOT 50 feet west to the falsely claimed Johnson fence.

"A" believes he can sign off on the LLA to the fence at 50 feet without any involvement from "C".

Any thoughts on this ?

goodgps wrote: Since the sales agreement to "B" specifically states the boundary be adjusted to the Johnson fence, "C" demands the new line be placed 150 feet WEST of the bluff at the true "Johnson Fence" and NOT 50 feet west to the falsely claimed Johnson fence.

"A" believes he can sign off on the LLA to the fence at 50 feet without any involvement from "C".

Any thoughts on this ?

The intended new line in the contract between A and B was the false Johnson fence. This is the agreed line. A is no longer a party to the LLA except that he gets the honor of paying for it to be executed. From what you describe I don't believe that A has any rights to the land in question.

B has a civil claim against A for LLA fees but he is losing land so why would he be motivated to pursue this?

C has a civil claim against A for LLA fees and possible unwritten rights to the false Johnson fence, depending on his agreements with B and his contract for purchase with A.

C has a long row to hoe. He has occupied up to false Johnson happily until the new evidence was presented. Right now he has nothing and might never have anything if A doesn't act soon. If the written contract between A and C doesn't mention the LLA then C could be SOL

David, (thank you)

Yes the LLA is mentioned in both sales contracts executed by "A" Indeed, "B" has told "C" to get off his land until the LLA is executed (by "A")
The big BUT, is that "C" wants more ground. simply because he's relying on the traditional fence location as it was so named decades ago.

Apparently. when a new fence was built, folks referred to it by the same name as the old fence. I agree that the new fence is the agreed location for the LLA. "C" is perhaps attempting to take advantage by thinking he has found a loophole.

"A" should have hired a surveyor and now he has to hire a lawyer. Live and learn.