I have a situation where I could use a little help. The basic scenario goes as follows:
A surveyor prepared a description and plat for land to be conveyed from a private owner to a public agency (special district). The intended purpose is for public right-of-way. At this point, the surveyor has neither set any permanent monuments nor filed a record of survey.
The surveyor is not returning calls, thus, we do not know if the new description, which follows record maps and deed calls, is base on a field survey or paper survey. Therefore, 8762 may or may not have been triggered.
An insider has notified me that the surveyor has set hubs at angle points along the new right-of-way for the benefit of the private owner and public agency. Does this act of setting hubs, albeit temporary, constitute a field survey and trigger 8762??
At this point, I am contracted to only provide topographic mapping within the new right-of-way. It has not been asked as of yet, however, I am sure the engineers will be inquiring about the relationship of the right-of-way and the topographic mapping. If I define said relationship, it will mean I have performed a field survey finding monuments from previous record maps and none along the new right-of-way. I am presuming I would now be responsible for a record of survey.
Thoughts? Comments? What say you o' great forum?
Jon
Field v. Paper
-
E_Page
- Posts: 2141
- Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 6:49 am
- Location: El Dorado County
Whether or not the surveyor set hubs, matchsticks, or 6" brass caps on 4" iron pipes is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not he conducted a field survey to determine these boundaries.
The hubs, assuming they do exist, is a good indication that he did.
The hubs, assuming they do exist, is a good indication that he did.
Evan Page, PLS
A Visiting Forum Essayist
A Visiting Forum Essayist
-
Gromatici
- Posts: 335
- Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 7:06 am
- Location: Santa Barbara, CA
- Contact:
Funny
That's funny, I was going to mention that most Right-of-Ways are easements! Maybe it is a "regional" thing we need to address to keep us all on the same playing field. I have to admit staking out a street is different that staking out a waterline easement, but maybe not in the eyes of the law.
Eric J Ackerman, PLS, RPLS, CFedS
Licenses: CA. AZ, ID, NV, CO,UT
Gromatici Land Surveying, Inc.
http://www.gromatici.com
proposals@gromatici.com
Licenses: CA. AZ, ID, NV, CO,UT
Gromatici Land Surveying, Inc.
http://www.gromatici.com
proposals@gromatici.com
-
goodgps
- Posts: 642
- Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 7:32 pm
- Location: Modesto, Ca
OR,
jscarpa,
you could just do the job for which you were hired and be glad you have the work :-)
Surely you have some control that you used other than the "hubs"
Maybe the other guy won't return calls beacuse he's busy hunting for work AND you gat his job ?
Remember . . "he who goes headhunting must stick out his own neck"
I say shut the heck up, do you job and sell the PA a record of survey if they want the ROW monumented.
"good"
jscarpa,
you could just do the job for which you were hired and be glad you have the work :-)
Surely you have some control that you used other than the "hubs"
Maybe the other guy won't return calls beacuse he's busy hunting for work AND you gat his job ?
Remember . . "he who goes headhunting must stick out his own neck"
I say shut the heck up, do you job and sell the PA a record of survey if they want the ROW monumented.
"good"
-
mpallamary
- Posts: 3462
- Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm
Howdy guys,
As to the notion about owning to the center of the street, note the Civil Code of the State of California:
829. The owner of land in fee has the right to the surface and to
everything permanently situated beneath or above it.
(830.) Section Eight Hundred and Thirty. Except where the grant
under which the land is held indicates a different intent, the owner
of the upland, when it borders on tide water, takes to ordinary
high-water mark; when it borders upon a navigable lake or stream,
where there is no tide, the owner takes to the edge of the lake or
stream, at low-water mark; when it borders upon any other water, the
owner takes to the middle of the lake or stream.
831. An owner of land bounded by a road or street is presumed to
own to the center of the way, but the contrary may be shown.
Good luck.
As to the notion about owning to the center of the street, note the Civil Code of the State of California:
829. The owner of land in fee has the right to the surface and to
everything permanently situated beneath or above it.
(830.) Section Eight Hundred and Thirty. Except where the grant
under which the land is held indicates a different intent, the owner
of the upland, when it borders on tide water, takes to ordinary
high-water mark; when it borders upon a navigable lake or stream,
where there is no tide, the owner takes to the edge of the lake or
stream, at low-water mark; when it borders upon any other water, the
owner takes to the middle of the lake or stream.
831. An owner of land bounded by a road or street is presumed to
own to the center of the way, but the contrary may be shown.
Good luck.
-
goodgps
- Posts: 642
- Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 7:32 pm
- Location: Modesto, Ca
Sorry guys
Sorry
It seemed to me that the thread was leading towards going after the first surveyor, a practice I truely loath.
Obviously the contrary was shown. AND I totally over reacted.
One of the things top be considered in the profession, is that one cannot simply live by the "rules" or an opinion of a text book.
For each and every survey, there are options to be considered. Many intentions were agreed upon without benefit of City codes and/ or section 8766. etc.
If Mr Scarpa feels obligated to file a record of survey, then it is wise for him to discuss it with the hiring party, Or ,he may file it out of his own pocket.
I agree with Mr Woolley, that other surveyors sometimes cannot be contacted and decisions must be made without such input. Often times, communication with your client, along with gentle suggestions, will result in an agreement for you to proceede to the next step AND actually get compensated to do so.
Again, sorry I had a bad week . Scheduling a crainial enema for Monday.
See you all next week
"BAD"
It seemed to me that the thread was leading towards going after the first surveyor, a practice I truely loath.
Obviously the contrary was shown. AND I totally over reacted.
One of the things top be considered in the profession, is that one cannot simply live by the "rules" or an opinion of a text book.
For each and every survey, there are options to be considered. Many intentions were agreed upon without benefit of City codes and/ or section 8766. etc.
If Mr Scarpa feels obligated to file a record of survey, then it is wise for him to discuss it with the hiring party, Or ,he may file it out of his own pocket.
I agree with Mr Woolley, that other surveyors sometimes cannot be contacted and decisions must be made without such input. Often times, communication with your client, along with gentle suggestions, will result in an agreement for you to proceede to the next step AND actually get compensated to do so.
Again, sorry I had a bad week . Scheduling a crainial enema for Monday.
See you all next week
"BAD"
-
mpallamary
- Posts: 3462
- Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm
No need to apologize. Based upon the dialogue, this was a productive effort.
A good way to avoid getting into any problems about filing a ROS is to use a good contract such as the CLSA contract form, to wit:
17. Records of Survey. Client acknowledges and agrees that if Consultant provides surveying services, which require the filing of a Record of Survey in accordance with Business and Professions Code Section 8762, all costs of preparation, examination and filing of such Record of Survey will be paid for by Client as extra services.
A good contract makes for a good client. It is the foundation for all business relationships. It is also required under the LSA.
Have a good weekend.
A good way to avoid getting into any problems about filing a ROS is to use a good contract such as the CLSA contract form, to wit:
17. Records of Survey. Client acknowledges and agrees that if Consultant provides surveying services, which require the filing of a Record of Survey in accordance with Business and Professions Code Section 8762, all costs of preparation, examination and filing of such Record of Survey will be paid for by Client as extra services.
A good contract makes for a good client. It is the foundation for all business relationships. It is also required under the LSA.
Have a good weekend.
-
Ric7308
- Posts: 709
- Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 2:50 pm
Jon,
You have made an effort to contact the previous land surveyor, that is good.
Another approach with the client is to suggest that IF the previous land surveyor did perform a field survey and IF there were markers set to delinate the new ROW, it would be in the client's and that land surveyor's best interests (monetarily and legally) for him/her to complete mandated responsibilities. Otherwise, you would (or could) be recreating some work already accomplished (and paid for) and if necessary, you would be required to follow through with the same responsibilities.
You have made an effort to contact the previous land surveyor, that is good.
Another approach with the client is to suggest that IF the previous land surveyor did perform a field survey and IF there were markers set to delinate the new ROW, it would be in the client's and that land surveyor's best interests (monetarily and legally) for him/her to complete mandated responsibilities. Otherwise, you would (or could) be recreating some work already accomplished (and paid for) and if necessary, you would be required to follow through with the same responsibilities.
-
goodgps
- Posts: 642
- Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 7:32 pm
- Location: Modesto, Ca
The real problem here is the previous surveyor not willing to communicate with J Scarpa.
Communication can solve a lot of issues. perhaps the previous guy was kicked off the job or was informed of "non-payment"
(although this has happened to me, I've file a many ROS's on my own dime)
My issue with the "report to the board" thing, is that a few years ago, we had a vigilante group around these parts, who would file a report everytime another surveyor got a job that "they" didnt.
Well, what goes around, comes around, and one day, one of the little Angels made a huge mistake. I called to talk it through but was literally told to go to Hell.
I did not report anything to anybody, however, the County Surveyor acted on his own and the "angel" has an action filed against him.
P.S.
I met a guy in Warsaw named Scofflaw ! nice fella
Stay thirsty my friends !
Communication can solve a lot of issues. perhaps the previous guy was kicked off the job or was informed of "non-payment"
(although this has happened to me, I've file a many ROS's on my own dime)
My issue with the "report to the board" thing, is that a few years ago, we had a vigilante group around these parts, who would file a report everytime another surveyor got a job that "they" didnt.
Well, what goes around, comes around, and one day, one of the little Angels made a huge mistake. I called to talk it through but was literally told to go to Hell.
I did not report anything to anybody, however, the County Surveyor acted on his own and the "angel" has an action filed against him.
P.S.
I met a guy in Warsaw named Scofflaw ! nice fella
Stay thirsty my friends !
-
bruce hall
- Posts: 642
- Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 9:18 pm
- Location: huntington beach, orange county, california
-
scarpa
- Posts: 122
- Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 3:35 pm
First of all, thank you for all of the responses.
My interest in this matter is educational from a professional Point of view. Is the public being served by the actions or in-actions of the professionals? Are we, as professionals, misleading the public? Do we truly understand our obligations to the public?
I am looking out for the best interest of Public (the property owner in this case). The first surveyor may have done 90% of the work necessary to file a record of survey, which probably includes a field survey. Would it not benefit the property owner for him to complete this task? You better believe it. Do not get me wrong, I would love to prepare a record of survey for the property owner, but I would need to start at “square one.”
I believe the original surveyor’s intentions were for the benefit of the property owner; however, in the long run, not setting permanent monuments and filing a ROS will neither benefit the property owner nor the surveying community.
Once again, my intentions are to educate, whether it be the first surveyor or I.
Jon
Ps~ Eric: I do not believe the “public right-of-way” is an issue; however, to help clarify matter, the City/County abandoned by quitclaim deed the original right-of-way (easement) to the adjacent owners, then the public agency purchased the new right-of-way in fee; thus, no easement.
Pps~ thank you for the grammar etiquette; however, Mr. Scarpa is my father.
My interest in this matter is educational from a professional Point of view. Is the public being served by the actions or in-actions of the professionals? Are we, as professionals, misleading the public? Do we truly understand our obligations to the public?
I am looking out for the best interest of Public (the property owner in this case). The first surveyor may have done 90% of the work necessary to file a record of survey, which probably includes a field survey. Would it not benefit the property owner for him to complete this task? You better believe it. Do not get me wrong, I would love to prepare a record of survey for the property owner, but I would need to start at “square one.”
I believe the original surveyor’s intentions were for the benefit of the property owner; however, in the long run, not setting permanent monuments and filing a ROS will neither benefit the property owner nor the surveying community.
Once again, my intentions are to educate, whether it be the first surveyor or I.
Jon
Ps~ Eric: I do not believe the “public right-of-way” is an issue; however, to help clarify matter, the City/County abandoned by quitclaim deed the original right-of-way (easement) to the adjacent owners, then the public agency purchased the new right-of-way in fee; thus, no easement.
Pps~ thank you for the grammar etiquette; however, Mr. Scarpa is my father.