Easement or No Easement

[bubblewatcher]

If a client has a title policy showing easements on their property and they are listed in a Title policy, am I required to show them on a Boundary survey or even a Record of Survey?
I am plotting the legal description as per the deed only.

[bruce hall]

8764 regarding the RS mapping requirements. BUT,if I have this information, it would be prudent for me to show this on the RS and this other Boundary Map. Also refer the Title report refernce data on the RS and Boundary Map. An ALTA would most certainly require it.

Some fella is gonna say "We planned this dream home of ours based on your survey. Now it's on top of a sewer easement. The city wants us to tear it down." Or something along those lines.

Show the easement.

[Surveyor826]

Your statement that "I am plotting the legal description as per the deed only" seems to imply you are simply preparing a record data exhibit.

[bubblewatcher]

This was a hypothetical scenario brought about by a discussion of a property that is real. Suppose the client knew there was an easement on the title policy but did not want it shown on the plan (selling the property), am i obligated to show it by law? is it unethical? do i have to disclaim that easements may exist that i have not shown? I am just doing what the client hired me to do.....

[bruce hall]

to only locate those monuments that exist at the street centerline intersections on this street pavement rehab, not any of the tract boundaries, parcel map boundaries or other monuments between the centerline intersections. And he knows there are other monuments there, cause I told him so.

I guess I'll just do what he says, since he is the client, and to hell with all those other points in the street that are gonna get ripped or covered.

That is all he is hiring me to do.

[bubblewatcher]

ok public agency vs. private home owner
apples and oranges
Public agency is guilty of misdemeanor (breaking the law) at the least for knowingly destroying monuments... yadayada..see other thread


Normally I show all easements in the Title policy, i am being asked not to show it by the client (private home owner). Am i required to? Do i say Im sorry i can't do that, it's illegal?
Is it?
It's unethical?
what is my basis for rejecting his request?

[bruce hall]

"Well your honor, I didn't show the easements that encumbered the land cause the owner didn't want me to. He also didn't want me to put a note on the map stating that easements of record or not of record are not shown. He said he was selling the land and thought that might make it harder to sell it."

"And I went along with it cause that's what I was hired to do, your honor."

GFL on that one fella. Your oranges and apples comment is a viable rebuttal to my previous post. But the idea and thought process is the same, whether part of the PLSA or not.

PS: and another thing, how about just stating that his request is "wrong, deceitful, or something along those lines".

[bubblewatcher]

Let me state it this way If you (bruce) were hired to perform a boundary survey and you client was unable to furnish a title policy, what disclaimer would you make as to easements and why?

[bubblewatcher]

Greg, I agree. There may be bad intentions here. But what if its not. What if this easement is in dispute and the Title company does not care to do any research and leaves it on the policy.

[bruce hall]

between not showing easements because I lack a title policy and not showing easements because the land owner didn't want them shown because he was selling the land.

The not showing of the easements because the land owner didn't want them shown, and I agreed not to show them, sounds like someone-read the Administrative Law Judge or others with power to create havoc in my world- could infer that I was helping the land owner to defraud somebody else.

I perform surveys all the time without performing a title search. Mostly lot surveys and boundary surveys that show up on a RS. If I find easements in the deeds that I research, I will show them. If I don't find any, I won't.

Haven't had a problem, yet?!. Whose talking about apples and oranges?

[bubblewatcher]

Im not trying to make fruit salad out of this.
But i think in my instance i would not show the easement as requested but insist that i notate or disclaim that i have not shown any easements at all.
I understand the point of not knowing vs. wishing i had never known. (you cant un-see some things though you wish you had) I was looking for legal points to make my argument. I think the term "willfully with knowledge aforethought" cleared my conscious.

[bruce hall]

great Mr. Watcher. Your starting to sound like Bill W.

[subman]

Not sure what the nature of the easement is. However, I will toss this out there for consideration. If this easement is considered a "senior conveyance" and has a relationship and common lines with your boundary, Section 8764 would require it to be shown.

A possible example: a 10' easement is granted to utility company through the center of a 10 acre parcel in 1930. In 1940 the 10 acre parcel is split into two 5 acre parcels along the centerline of the easement. Both lots are sold to Mr. Smith and Mr. Green. If both Mr. Smith and Mr. Green want to survey and monument their corners, including their common line, is that utility easement considered a senior conveyance compared to their deeds. So does the utility easement need to be shown on the ROS.

[bruce hall]

the parcels that were created and sold to Mr. Green and Mr. Smith reference that line in the deeds. It would then be a relatively easy pickup and should be shown on the RS. I usually show the easements on my RS, whether senior or otherwise, at least I think I do. I'll have to check.

If there is no reference to that easement in the deeds or the map that created these parcels, or however you guys want to word this stuff, it might very well be hard to find the document unless a title report is prepared or someone pays for a title search. It still should be shown on the map, IF it is considered a senior conveyance.

When I think of conveyance, I think of title or owernership, not necessarily and easement. Giving something to someone, instead of granting something to someone. Giving the land, granting the easement. Picky, Picky.

There are sharper tools in the shed than me, myself and I.

[subman]

Bruce,

I had the same instinct on the grant vs. conveyance terminology for an easement. First I pulled out Black's Law Dictionary and found no clear answer. Next I looked to Google. There seems to be a pretty common use of interchanging the terms in various municipalities throughout the state based on the resolutions and City agendas I browsed on the internet. I attached a sample where they use the two terms interchangeably throughout the document.

[bruce hall]

the first page of the agenda we see the words convey. but the resolution uses the GRANT word. Also in the document that was recorded the GRANT word is used.

It appears from pdf that you attached, that the staff for the city used the word convey, and then the city council,on their own accord I guess, proceed to grant, but I think that the city attorney probably helped them out with the verbage.

I think the verbage really comes from who is doing the typing and their background.

I've heard of the Spanish Land Grants and the receivers then owned the land as I understand it. This thread has me rethinking my proposals for my lot surveys, parcel surveys in that I should include the blurb that "no easements will be located on this survey unless I am provided with an up to date title report."

[bubblewatcher]

In my standard proposal i have always stated that i would only show easements or restrictions on the property if i was provided a recent title policy as well as supporting documents. Some times the title policy states "affects said land" but does not clearly state how like w'ly 5' of lot 6.... so you have to contact title company and get the actual inst. referenced in the policy.
The parcel I described in my OP was a metes and bounds description. I had seen the title policy and was asked not to show any easements, I didn't find out why. (went with another surveyor) I'm not sure if the client thought it would cost less if i left it off, or if there were bad intentions. I usually do disclaim that any easements that may exist have not been shown because i have not seen a title policy, but this was a first to be asked not to show them. I guess being hired to do a half assed job, does not relieve you of your "standard of care" as Dave pointed out.

[JMS8070]

When I started drawing up my first Record of Survey I was adding easements to it when I got a sharp crack on my knuckles with a scale and scolded with the comment "easements are shown on subdivision maps; records of survey are for property lines."

I was taught that a Record of Survey is a record of my survey and if I did not survey the location of any easements then why would I show them; however, if in doing my survey I find that there is no viable access to the site (like Dave's situation) then I would point that out on the survey...or something else that is out of the ordinary like neighbors using my clients property for a race track or something like buildings crossing the PL. Easements running through the middle of the site isn't that unusual and I wouldn't feel obligated to show them. So far under my license I have filed 5 RSs and none of them show any easements...one shows buildings crossing the PL though.

So (IMO) the answer to Bubblewatcher's question is no, easements are not REQUIRED to be shown on a record of survey, but if something raises a red flag then by all means show it.