Community Forums

Share:

Eminent Domain  

Page 2 / 4

spledeus
Posts: 2734
Member
(@spledeus)
2,500+ posts
Joined: 8 years ago
The value of the land is low because it is s#/++y
Reply
thebionicman
Posts: 3043
Member
(@thebionicman)
2,500+ posts
Joined: 6 years ago

If you need to clean up the record, clean it up. Exchanging documents that appear to transfer title is not the right answer. That's just dipping the turd in chocolate.

Settling the matter requires that you memorialize it, lest some overzealous future mathemagician convince the owners to undo the fix. Putting the owners at the mercy of a planning authority to 'adjust' lines to a place operation of law has already fixed it is also a bad idea.

In this case the actions (or inaction) of the owners likely fixed the boundary. That old corner might control for others and the location needs to be perpetuated. The NE 1/4 description no longer aligns with the boundaries. Somebody figured it out. Don't sweep it under the rug for someone else to fund the treasure hunt again. Help the owners solve the problem and get paid to do it...

Reply
3 Replies
linebender
Member
(@linebender)
Joined: 9 years ago

500+ posts
Posts: 734
Posted by: thebionicman

If you need to clean up the record, clean it up. Exchanging documents that appear to transfer title is not the right answer. That's just dipping the turd in chocolate.

Settling the matter requires that you memorialize it, lest some overzealous future mathemagician convince the owners to undo the fix. Putting the owners at the mercy of a planning authority to 'adjust' lines to a place operation of law has already fixed it is also a bad idea.

In this case the actions (or inaction) of the owners likely fixed the boundary. That old corner might control for others and the location needs to be perpetuated. The NE 1/4 description no longer aligns with the boundaries. Somebody figured it out. Don't sweep it under the rug for someone else to fund the treasure hunt again. Help the owners solve the problem and get paid to do it...

I was with you until you said the description no longer aligns with the boundary. We will part ways there. What's wrong with the description? It tells us what is owned-not where the boundary is. The 1950 survey that established the present boundary tells us where what is owned is in Peace Valley because it was accepted. It is illegal for surveyors to reform the what is owned. I do like what you said about the old corner possibly controlling other other boundaries not involved in the west and north lines this quarter section.  This is what drives us crazy. It did me for years . How can there be two section corner marks? The government didn't mark it that way. But the legal fact is there is a 1950 monument to the NW /4 and a stone possibly controlling the lines to the north and west but not the south and east. Nothing wrong with anyone's descriptions from what we know and nothing can be done to change what has legally occurred. There has been no unwritten transfer of title. Acquiescence is a boundary location doctrine not a title transfer doctrine.  

Reply
thebionicman
Member
(@thebionicman)
Joined: 6 years ago

2,500+ posts
Posts: 3043

Please explain, 'It is illegal for the surveyor...'.

I completely agree the owners have to do it. The surveyor is often the best person to walk them through the process. Leaving the disconnect between the record and the ground is a landmine. Aligning them benefits everyone if it is done properly. The key is knowing what 'properly' looks like...

Reply
linebender
Member
(@linebender)
Joined: 9 years ago

500+ posts
Posts: 734
Posted by: thebionicman

Please explain, 'It is illegal for the surveyor...'.

I completely agree the owners have to do it. The surveyor is often the best person to walk them through the process. Leaving the disconnect between the record and the ground is a landmine. Aligning them benefits everyone if it is done properly. The key is knowing what 'properly' looks like...

My pleasure. I may start another thread if I find time. For now i will just say the title line and boundary should be the same. The survey boundary location should not change the description in the conveyance.  

Reply
Dave Karoly
Posts: 10197
Member
(@dave-karoly)
10,000+ posts
Joined: 9 years ago

I deliberately setup the OP so that the survey of the Sewer Treatment Plant encroached on the neighbor's because it missed the original monument. This was because I was mainly interested in the inverse condemnation angle.

I'm not convinced the DP corner can become an established location when the original exists because the original is mentioned by reference in all of the title Deeds. However, this will vary by State. It could become a corner by other means such as adverse possession or failure to timely bring an action in inverse condemnation. I think in the public use encroachment case the agency takes title via eminent domain then the private owner has the statututory period to bring an action demanding compensation or return of the property.

If the original monument was truly lost then the DP corner could be established as the true original corner even if there was a problem with the procedure used to set it. In this case inverse condemnation would not be a factor.

Reply
LA Stevens
Posts: 88
Member
(@la-stevens)
50+ posts
Joined: 8 years ago

Dave,

For the original boundary corner in California to move to the 1950 surveyed DP corner, wouldn't substantial improvements be required to have been constructed in the area of conflict?  I do not recall reading a case in California that will move the original boundary, when no agreement has taken place and no substantial loss occurs to accept the original corner.  I don't think a fence by itself is considered substantial.

 

Reply
LA Stevens
Posts: 88
Member
(@la-stevens)
50+ posts
Joined: 8 years ago

Dave,

For the original boundary corner in California to move to the 1950 surveyed DP corner, wouldn't substantial improvements be required to have been constructed in the area of conflict?  I do not recall reading a case in California that will move the original boundary, when no agreement has taken place and no substantial loss occurs to accept the original corner.  I don't think a fence by itself is considered substantial.

 

Reply
Page 2 / 4