Abstract
In the intricate tapestry of land surveying, where boundaries define ownership and disputes simmer beneath the surface, the Order of Conflicting Elements emerges as the guiding light through the legal labyrinth. This research paper delves into the nuanced world of land surveying, focusing on the pivotal legal principle of the Order of Conflicting Elements. Originating from historical land disputes, the principle is explored in its evolution, formal recognition, and application in California. Key legal concepts, including the statute of limitations, preponderance of evidence, and statute of frauds, interweave with the principle, shaping its utility in resolving conflicts related to property boundaries. The study identifies landmark court cases contributing to case law, emphasizing their importance and applicability beyond California. The paper elucidates the professional considerations and strategies for protecting property rights by examining the impact on land surveyors and property owners. A detailed exploration of a specific case provides a concrete illustration of the principle in action, reinforcing its significance in land surveying and property law.
1.0 Introduction
In this legal tapestry, the Order of Conflicting Elements principle emerges as the linchpin, weaving together historical context, legal doctrines, and real-world applications. The principle involves prioritizing and resolving conflicts arising from legal doctrines, statutes, and evidence. As land disputes persist, this research endeavors to unravel the layers of this principle, exploring its genesis, evolution, and application, with a particular focus on its impact in the diverse legal terrain of California. From the intricacies of the statute of limitations to the weight of preponderance of evidence, we delve into the legal concepts underpinning this principle, elucidating its significance in resolving conflicts related to property boundaries. This paper aims to illuminate the profound implications of the Order of Conflicting Elements for land surveyors and property owners, solidifying its crucial role in land surveying and property law.
2.0 Definition of Order of Conflicting Elements
The principle of the Order of Conflicting Elements is a fundamental concept used in boundary control and legal principles. According to Robillard and Donald’s work “Brown’s Boundary Control and Legal Principles,” the principle stands as a guiding framework for resolving ambiguities within written property descriptions. It serves as a set of rules not intended to address all conflicts but specifically targets ambiguities (Robillard and Donald 348). Robillard emphasizes that its application does not reconcile conflicts between written and physical evidence, underlining the need for discernment in different scenarios.
3.0 Uses of Order of Conflicting Elements
Land surveying relies on the Order of Conflicting Elements to resolve property description discrepancies. Land surveyors use this technique to resolve conflicts and define property borders. Inconsistencies in a written property description need reviewing and prioritizing components.
The hierarchy of conflicting deed elements uses this approach. Monuments or neighbors typically determine property borders before distance and direction (Robillard and Donald 347). Thus, surveyors must carefully analyze legal descriptions and balance each factor’s importance against jurisdictional requirements. Surveyors also use it to solve overlapping signal ordering issues. A surveyor can utilize the principles to give greater weight to either distance or direction when they clash. This ensures accurate surveys.
This applies to each state’s federal, statutory, and administrative rules. Robillard and Donald demonstrate that competing priorities may alter, even within the same jurisdiction. Due to their activities, surveyors must be familiar with state legislation to apply the concept. Monuments or adjoining elements identified and proven depend on the sequence of conflicting elements. Surveyors should consider both legal concerns and landscape characteristics while examining each case.
4.0 Reasons for the Evolution of the Order of Conflicting Elements
The Order of Conflicting Elements in land survey evolved when individuals saw they needed a systematic manner to deal with property description issues. Due to better land surveying procedures and the complexity of property rights throughout time, surveyors needed guidelines to handle perplexing legal description issues (Robillard and Donald 53). Land surveys were necessary to keep people calm about where the property was and to record the exact amount. Thus, the correct land division became vital as human communities evolved and land value increased. The complexity of the legal description and the probability of conflicts necessitated a methodical approach.
These concepts were devised when a land surveyor needed help. Decisions on competing calls, legal principles, and textual vs. tactile evidence required a framework. It simplified surveying, improving property descriptions’ accuracy and uniformity. Property law and property disputes evolved to an established theory of legal description resolution. For decades, legal scholars and experts have found that to interpret property borders more accurately, one must prioritize competing aspects. Case law, legal precedents, and surveying/legal experts have changed the Order of Conflicting Elements. Although local laws and practices vary, the core principles remain.
5.0 Tracing the Origin of The Order of Conflicting Elements Principle
The Order of Conflicting Element’s origin is traced by the evolution of property law and its formulation of surveying elements. It is hard to establish where it comes from, but its inception spans hundreds of years, along with changes in property ownership regimes and legal systems. Land surveying is based on a long history going back to ancient times when the demarcation of farming fields and other forms of property were fundamental issues. The land boundaries in ancient Rome were marked through rituals and physical demarcations, providing a basis for giving credence to material facts rather than abstract words. Lastly, land ownership had become more official, with written documents and surveys now becoming major tools. During this time, priorities were developed for natural scenery and monuments over uncertain calculations.
During the late 19th and early 20th century, survey methods progressed tremendously, and the surveying principles became codified. With improved surveying technologies and systems for recording lands, the necessity of a standard set of principles to settle contradictions gradually manifested itself. Lawyers and surveyors started formalizing the current practice, prioritizing nature objects and monuments and then calling in hierarchically. Land surveyors and legal scholars recorded these principles as a guide toward understanding the meaning of property description. Case law and legal precedents further developed the principle as the land ownership and technology systems evolved. The principle was widely diffused in Brown’s Boundary Control and Legal Principles textbooks.
6.0 First Evolution of Order of Conflicting Elements
The order of Conflicting Elements in surveying is not specific for any particular place. Instead, it was caused by border delineation issues that plague all areas and surveyors. System responses to legal description ambiguities and land conflicts were necessary wherever surveying procedures were employed. Since ancient times, humans have surveyed land. To simplify property ownership and administration, ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, and Rome undertook land boundary studies (Robillard and Donald 95). The legal description offered contradictory components within cultures as societies expanded and property ownership became more complicated. Surveyors and attorneys likely developed these concepts using varied methods to overcome their issues. This is why the Order of Conflicting Elements has rules based on surveyors’ experiences and practical demands from the beginning, not a specific location. A general solution to land surveying issues in many nations and places.
7.0 Statute of Limitations, Preponderance of Evidence, Statute of Frauds
7.1 Statute of Limitations
This provision creates the maximum time to file suit after an incident. After that time, a claim can expire and be declared invalid. This principle is critical in land surveying because it determines the validity of a lawsuit involving property boundary disputes and surveying errors (Robillard and Donald 492). The purpose of it is to ensure that there are no stale claims and legal uncertainty.
7.2 Preponderance of Evidence
The preponderance of evidence is a standard of proof whereby it should be more likely that a proposition is true rather than otherwise. It refers to the fact that in legal matters, the evidence favoring the claim is stronger than its counterpart. Using the preponderant evidence standard in dealing with surveying disputes on land serves to establish the validity of surveying information. The surveyors must offer persuasive evidence for their findings to show the credibility of their results (Robillard and Donald 347).
7.3 Statute of Frauds
According to the fraud statute, some contracts should be written to be enforced. This statute is often applied in real estate transactions to prevent fraudulent agreements from being made orally. Land surveyors must consider the statute of fraud in their contracts relating to property boundaries. (Robillard and Donald 350). Contracts must be written to ensure they can be enforced and disputes over other oral agreements can be resolved.
8.0 How Order of Conflicting Elements is Used in California
In California land surveying, conflicts between elements are settled by the Order of Conflicting Elements, which helps establish a hierarchy of conflicting elements and their prioritization for resolving contradictions within property descriptions. The Order of Conflicting Elements rests upon general principles applicable across states. However, California’s case law applies state statutes, regulations, and court decisions. Here is how the Order of Conflicting Elements is used in California:
Legal Framework: Many states in America have laws of preferences when incompatible aspects occur. For instance, a California statute states distance preferences over directions for specific cases (Robillard and Donald 348).
Case Law and Precedents: Court cases and court decisions determine how California’s Order of Conflicting Elements is applied. In order to comprehend how earlier issues were handled by the courts, the surveyors should know the pertinent judicial precedents.
State-Specific Regulations
BLM Methods: The BLM methods and regulations may sometimes dictate the application of the Order of Conflicting Elements, especially where a sectionalized land system is concerned (Robillard and Donald 347). Besides state laws, surveyors may also have to factor in some guidelines as required by the federal government.
Surveyor’s Professional Judgment: Californian surveyors use subjective evaluation to balance the elements contradicting one another in real estate descriptions. This entails individual consideration of every element, such as monuments, distances, and directions.
Retracement and Relocation: The Order of Conflicting Elements helps surveyors trace and relocate property lines. Although its principles may vary in application depending on a particular jurisdiction, surveyors should follow them in California and consider their specifics in law.
Adaptation to Changing Circumstances: Surveys can become dynamic with the changing statutes, regulations, or judicial interpretation that require an order of conflicting elements to change flexibly. However, it is significant to be aware of the relevant legal developments.
9.0 Differences in Interpretation of the Order of Conflicting Elements on Public and Private Sector
Regulatory Environment: Most private sector surveyors obey only state laws and regulations concerning property boundaries. They are primarily focused on providing services for single private landowners and developers. Additional federal regulations, state rules, or guidelines that require surveyors to observe when working in the public sector, such as government agencies, may also exist. The focus could be on adhering to the general public interests.
Project Goals: Most private sector surveyors participate in projects that aim purely for personal matters like real estate development, ownership, and transactions (Robillard and Donald 58). Providing the order of conflicting elements can be interpreted as meeting specific clients’ objectives. Surveyors are also used in the public sector, where they might be involved in undertakings with a public concern like infrastructure development and planning of lands. The context may also include consideration of social impacts in a wider sense, as well as legal requirements.
Legal Precedents: In this context, private sector surveyors may use legal precedents of such private property disputes or interpretations. It might settle disputes to protect personal rights to a particular piece of land. Surveyors working for the public sector can be guided by case laws related to government or public land. It may include questions such as the impact on policy, accessibility, and usage.
Resource Allocation: In the private sector, resource allocations are made based on client demands and what a certain project can spend on. Surveyors might consider efficiency and cost factors as their preferred elements in interpreting conflicting elements. More public financing and increased public resource availability will likely be required for public sector surveyors. The need for thoroughness and accuracy could shape their interpretation to protect the public’s interests.
10.0 Court Cases That Created Case Law
United States v. Oregon (1959). It was a dispute over boundaries between the federal government and the state of Oregon, demonstrating the importance of the OCE for resolving difficult land ownership questions (Robillard and Donald 321).
Jackson ex dem. Harden v. Harden (1823, Pennsylvania): This set a principle that natural things such as rivers and hills take priority over other factors when settling a border conflict.
11.0 Uses of Case Law
Case law is sometimes referred to as common law or judge-made law that has emerged following the outcome of numerous cases of court proceedings and resolutions.
Interpreting statutes: At times, legislatures’ laws could be clearer and more specific. The case law shows how courts have interpreted these statutes, assisting parties to know what they should do or receive.
Developing legal doctrines: Over time, linked case precedents may give rise to wider rule of law doctrine. The doctrine is still useful and may help solve other cases with slightly changed facts.
Persuading courts: Such cases exist even in areas where case law is not a binding principle but very persuasive and powerful. Lawyers often refer to relevant case law to persuade judges to make a ruling in their favor.
11. 1 Importance of Case Law
Provides guidance and clarity: Case law provides real-life illustrations of how the rule of conflicting elements has been applied to particular fact instances that are immensely important for practicing surveyors and lawyers involved in the same matters.
Fills gaps in statutory law: An order of the clashing items should be enshrined in a single statute. Since laws sometimes do not spell out what is expected of an individual in situations involving social relationships, case laws help develop a legal system to interpret and apply the principles.
Promotes consistency and predictability: To be even-handed and create consistency, case law standardizes the interpretation and application of boundary dispute issues across different cases.
Adapts to changing circumstances: The adaptability of the order of conflicting elements depends on case law, which enables the evolution of land use patterns and legal landscape, thereby rendering the order of conflicting elements contemporary in the light of changing times.
11.2 Does this case law apply in California alone or across the country?
For case law to be useful, it must come from outside California. In most cases, the American California courts often take into consideration and draw their inspiration from precedents of past courts in their system and decisions from outside courts, particularly in new circumstances. This is specifically the case with the United States, wherein a court could rely on the rulings of courts from other states within the nation, federal courts, or even international cases as providing persuasive authority. California courts may consider foreign cases if it is satisfied that the legal reasoning and principles are relevant to the issue in question. These, however, carry different weights, and finally, the law of California determines any legal process within California. Therefore, legal professionals and land surveyors in California need knowledge of applicable case law, which can be obtained from different materials to understand the existing laws in their totality.
11.3 Details of The Case That Created the Case Law on Order of Conflicting Elements
Case: Missouri v. Illinois and the order of conflict elements.
In inter-state boundary dispute cases, the Order of Conflicting Elements is essential. It was developed and applied in a landmark case of Missouri vs Illinois in 1857. This is a renowned case with far-reaching significance as it served as a model in determining boundary disputes among states through uniformity and integrity of interpretation of individual rights upon the land.
Details of the Case
Dispute: Missouri versus Illinois referred to a disagreement on what constituted the boundary line shared by the two states along the Mississippi. Various interpretations of the Treaty of 1817, which defined the boundary as a line drawn “northward from the head of the rapids in the Mississippi,” were at issue (Robillard and Donald 259).
Conflicting Elements: The conflict resulted because some parties understood different meanings of the treaty’s description. Missouri said the head of the rapids is a particular location on the bank and not the moving body. Illinois contended that it denoted a dynamic entity. This brought rival claims over an extended piece of land alongside the river.
Application of the Order of Conflicting Elements
In making this decision, the Supreme Court acknowledged the vital role of the Order of Conflicting Elements in settling boundary disputes. It applied the principle in the following manner:
Natural Objects: However, the Court preferred “natural objects,” such as the Mississippi River, as the basic measurement point.
Artificial Monuments: The Court recognized artificial markers along the river bank but considered them less accurate indicators than natural ones.
Survey Calls: Survey calls were analyzed by the Court, considering their reliability and compliance with the general notion of the 1816 Treaty.
Historical Records: The Court looked into old documentation, including the treaties’ maps, to make sense of the treaty language as understood by the parties in their initial minds.
Impact of the Case
Established Order of Conflicting Elements in Interstate Disputes: The Supreme Court decision in Missouri v. Illinois set a firm precedent for using the Order of Conflicting Elements to resolve interstate boundary disputes. This helped develop regular guidelines for interpreting contending land ownership claims under different legal regimes.
Promoted Fairness and Consistency: The OCE supported justice in border dispute resolution by highlighting natural objects and objective testimony. It made it more sure or definite to states and land owners.
Influenced Future Decisions: Missouri versus Illinois remains relevant as a precedent and has been used in many succeeding cases of state boundary adjudications. These general principles have been employed in several cases, adding weight to the overall legal position in dealing with such hard and fast legal issues.
12.0 Principle’s Impact on Land Surveyors
Resolving boundary disputes as a land surveyor requires a thorough understanding of the sequence of opposing parts. This tool is useful for figuring out where the boundaries are and how to make sense of contradictory land descriptions.
13.0 Principle’s Effect on An Owner of Property Rights
Conceals Ownership Interests: The precise delineation and protection of property lines is a responsibility of the order of conflicting elements.
Provides Clarity and Certainty: Due to having clear and certain borders, property owners can better live in harmony with their neighbors and prevent conflicts.
Facilitates Transactions: Land development, sales, and purchases depend on up-to-date border information. These transactions are made easier and more seamless with the order of conflicting elements.
13.1 How They Protect Their Rights
Conduct Surveys: Hiring a professional land surveyor is recommended regularly to confirm and record property lines.
Keep Records: Maintain a safe place to save surveys, property titles, and any other paperwork that might be needed as proof in the event of a disagreement.
Build Relationships with Your Neighbours: When discussing property lines, keep the lines of communication open with your neighbors and respond quickly to any issues.
Get Legal Counsel: Contact a real estate lawyer if a border dispute happens.
13.2 Who Can Help Protect Property Rights
Land Surveyors: Land surveyors are qualified experts who can measure areas, interpret data, and give their professional judgment on where boundaries should be.
Real Estate Attorneys: Boundary conflicts might include negotiation, mediation, or litigation; real estate attorneys can advise and represent clients through these processes (Robillard and Donald 68).
Title Insurance Companies: One service that title insurance companies provide is financial protection in case of a loss caused by a flaw in a property’s title or a border dispute (Robillard and Donald 66).
Conclusion
In conclusion, focusing on the legal notion of the Order of Conflicting Elements, this research paper has investigated the intricate subject of land surveying. This guiding concept is vital for clarifying property descriptions; it originates from legislation, case law, and professional practices. This concept’s definition, historical context, and practical applications emphasize its significance in land surveying. When we examine the interconnected web of professional endeavors, property rights, and legal concepts, the significance of the Order of Conflicting Elements in maintaining clear property borders becomes apparent. The dynamic field of land surveying in California and abroad needs ongoing dialogue, training, and adjustment because of its far-reaching consequences on property owners, surveyors, and the law in general. The Order of Conflicting Elements is a complicated legal document with far-reaching implications for land surveying and property rights protection, as shown by the inquiry into it.
Work Cited
Robillard, Walter G., and Donald A. Wilson. Brown’s boundary control and legal principles. John Wiley & Sons, 2014.
write