Bloxham v. Saldinger
175 Cal. Rptr. 3d 650
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Bloxhams and Saldingers dispute the western boundary of the Soquel Augmentation Rancho, the Rancho line that fixes their property boundaries.
- Trial included a judicial view of the property; location of SA-2 and SA-3 (endpoints) was central to determining the boundary.
- Jensen (Bloxhams’ surveyor) retraced the original 1858 survey and located a Rancho line locus consistent with Wallace’s notes, favoring Bloxhams on senior-rights grounds.
- Gray (Saldingers’ surveyor) offered a competing location of the Rancho line using his 2007 and 2009 surveys but did not establish the line more convincingly than Jensen.
- The trial court treated SA-2 and SA-3 as lost corners and relied on Jensen’s field-based retracement and other evidence to fix the Rancho line.
- Bloxhams moved for costs of proof under Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.420 for Barbara Saldinger’s failure to admit a boundary fact; the court denied the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of Jensen 2009 survey | Saldingers claim Jensen failed to tie to the 1858 survey. | Bloxhams contend Jensen properly retraced and respected the original field notes. | Survey sufficient; substantial evidence supports Jensen’s Rancho line. |
| Lost corner doctrine and use of original survey | Saldingers argue lost corners cannot anchor the boundary without the original monuments. | Bloxhams assert retracement and corroborating evidence permissible; no reversible error. | Trial court acted within discretion; lost-corner framework did not require reversal. |
| Costs of proof for admission | Costs of proof should be awarded for Barbara Saldinger’s denial of a boundary admission. | Response denial was reasonable; location issue was central; admission not substantial. | No abuse of discretion; denial of costs of proof affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pauley v. Brodnax, 157 Cal. 386 (Cal. 1910) (retrace footsteps of the original surveyor)
- Kimball v. McKee, 149 Cal. 435 (Cal. 1906) (retrace original lines; field notes control)
- Weaver v. Howatt, 161 Cal. 77 (Cal. 1911) (monuments fix rights; avoid proportional method where possible)
- Chandler v. Hibberd, 165 Cal.App.2d 39 (Cal. App. 1958) (evidence weighing; credibility of expert testimony)
- Luginbuhl v. Hammond, 179 Cal.App.2d 350 (Cal. App. 1960) (admissibility and reliance on expert testimony)
- Yolo County v. Nolan, 144 Cal. 445 (Cal. 1904) (retracing established lines when monuments exist)
- Reid v. Dunn, 201 Cal.App.2d 612 (Cal. App. 1962) (lost vs. obliterated corners; acceptable evidence)
- Bryant v. Blevins, 9 Cal.4th 47 (Cal. 1994) (agreed-boundary doctrine prerequisites)
- Brooks v. American Broadcasting Co., 179 Cal.App.3d 500 (Cal. App. 1986) (discretion in costs under discovery sanctions)
- Smith v. Circle P Ranch Co., 87 Cal.App.3d 267 (Cal. App. 1978) (response to requests for admission; duty to investigate)