PLSO The Oregon Surveyor Mar/Apr 2019

16 The Oregon Surveyor | Vol. 42, No. 2 Book Reviews Chuck Wiley’s Review Introduction This book not only reminds us that our primary role as retracement surveyors is to gather evidence, it also provides the opportunity to advance our profes- sional obligation to continuing education in our chosen profession. The following two ideas taken from the introduction are in my humble opin- ion some basic rules for all surveyors to follow in their professional practice. “Only reading objectively, with an open mind and with the intention of accept- ing and appreciating the wisdom of the court, rather than criticizing judicial decisions based upon personal pref- erences or inclinations will result in a beneficial experience for the reader.” “Boundary retracement and resolu- tion is not a mechanical, numerically driven exercise that can be executed without regard for established princi- ples, because property boundaries are fundamentally interconnected and do not exist in isolation.” The author poses numerous questions for the reader to ponder as each case is studied. The topical index is invalu- able when researching boundary issues. I found it quite useful. I reviewed two cases, both in the Port- land Metro area as that is where I practiced during my working years. I chose two different types of cases. The first is dealing with Monuments and the second with Easements and Right-of- Way questions. Monumentation: Goodman v Myrick This case is about a dispute between two prominent properties in the City of Portland and is the first case that the court analyzed detailed survey evi- dence from multiple Surveyors serving as witnesses. The key question is as follows: Can mon- umentation established during resurveys of any boundary line which was origi- nally surveyed and platted by the GLO control the location of that line in the face of valid evidence to the contrary, indicating that the originally surveyed location of the line was elsewhere? No resurvey of any line originally mon- umented by the GLO holds any validity for boundary control unless it is defini- tively connected to that original survey. Physical evidence set in the original survey is treated as primary evidence. All other relevant evidence set in any resurvey is secondary in nature. Land Surveyor testimony regarding original boundary evidence comprises potentially controlling boundary evi- dence. Numerical data controls only in the absence of physical or testimo- nial evidence of the original location monumented by the GLO. Easement and Right-of-Way issues: McQuaid v P&V Railway This case covered the use of a public- ly dedicated right-of-way by a railroad and the effect of the condition of the improved railroad upon the adjoining property owner. The improvements made by the railroad made it difficult for the adjoining land owner to use the street that abutted his property. A suit was filed to clarify the property owners land rights and to seek a damage award from the rail- road for interference with access to his property. The court determined that the railroad holds a statutorily bestowed right to install tracks within, and to use typi- cal platted public streets. So long as they do not interfere with the existing property rights of the abutting owners of platted lots to use the same public right-of-way. Fee ownership of typical platted lots ex- tends to the centerline of any abutting platted street. The land rights associ- ated with the platted lots include the right to full and free use of the right- of-way. They cannot be prevented from making use of the street unless they have been provided with appropriate compensation for that loss.  x The key question is as follows: Can monumentation established during resurveys of any boundary line which was originally surveyed and platted by the GLO control the location of that line in the face of valid evidence to the contrary, indicating that the originally surveyed location of the line was elsewhere?