Need some assistance from the LS community

LS_8750 · Post by **LS_8750** » Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:30 pm

Mr. Scarpa,

How do you handle ALTA surveys where you are under agreement to locate underground utilities? Do you go out and dig them up? Or do you compile the best as-built information you can and compare it to the USA markings? And then perhaps indicate that to the best of your knowledge you have shown on the survey the locations of underground features that you basically could not have possibly confirmed? You throw in some type of disclosure.

I'm not talking about that.

What I am talking about it this:

Say I design some type of flood control improvement, or maybe a water or wastewater treatment system, or perhaps a building, or grading plan, all of which the public is going to rely on for safety and utilization purposes, and then I add a note on my drawings that say "if it doesn't work, I as engineer in responsible charge am not responsible for its failure."

I think that is what Mr. Pallamary is dealing wth. And such a silly disclosure impacts the legitimacy of the parcel as described, or marketable title.

Tickled.

Ian Wilson · Post by **Ian Wilson** » Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:57 pm

Find a medical release and really read it, Dane. It's a completely different document and totally unrelated.

dmi · Post by **dmi** » Sun Oct 07, 2012 9:35 pm

I am not comparing the medical release form to the OP's presentation of a CYA note. I admit freely that I may not have remembered correctly the last release form that I signed, but my recollection was that it was a basically a CYA note agreed to by the patient. What purpose would these forms serve except to limit the liability of the service provider?

mpallamary · Post by **mpallamary** » Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:09 am

I came across this:

http://www.smith-roberts.com/pdf/underg ... lities.pdf

land butcher · Post by **land butcher** » Mon Oct 08, 2012 11:49 am

I have done design surveys where DIG alert, or whoever, came our before our survey and painted the underground utility locations.
The topo plan and design plan did state that these locations were from located paint markings on the surface by others.
Unless the underground installation has a "real" asbuilt done - NOBODY knows the exact location of underground utilities.
There is a part of our job were we have to indicate there might be a issue but without pothole investigation all we as surveyors can do is alert others to the possibility. If we think there is a utility running across the middle of the property we need to state such and make the logical disclaimer.

As for Mikes deed. again it's accuracy depends on where the data used to write that desc came from. And just because it's a recorded doc and/or from a title company does not make it correct.

land butcher · Post by **land butcher** » Mon Oct 08, 2012 11:54 am

I know Dane thinks I am old and senile but when it comes to Medical Malpractice I have first hand knowledge. My granddaughter was killed by negligence at UCI. Since it was a single case no investigation was made and any corrections done by UCI are sealed data by them. With a $250K plaintiff limit there is no way to sue them. The defendants do not have a cap. Trust me we consulted the best lawyers in CA.
Dennis Quaid sued the pharmaceutical company not Cedars Sini. And 3 infants were involved that's why it was reported.

I was ready to mortgage my house to sue them but with the cap there was no reason to do so. (in 2007 my home was worth ~900K and I would have spent every dime.)

dmi · Post by **dmi** » Wed Oct 10, 2012 7:46 pm

there he goes again killing another thread lol

Anthony Maffia · Post by **Anthony Maffia** » Thu Oct 11, 2012 6:53 am

DWoolley wrote:Or maybe, cite the ASCE Standard Guideline for the Collection and Depiction of Existing Subsurface Utility Data

I read an excellent article in one of the trade magazines about that just a few weeks ago, can't remember which one though.
EDIT - Sept 2012 POB
EDIT2 - Not! see below

Ian Wilson · Post by **Ian Wilson** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:06 am

Anthony: can you post a link? I can't find the article.

Anthony Maffia · Post by **Anthony Maffia** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 7:29 am

Professional Surveyor Sept. 2012
http://www.profsurv.com/magazine/article.aspx?i=71198

Ben Lund · Post by **Ben Lund** » Fri Oct 19, 2012 7:35 pm

Mike,
I think I'm missing part of the story. Why was the county surveyor writing the legal description in the first place?

I agree that we surveyors should be knowledgeable regarding marketable title. Who else has the legal right to opine on whether or not title is marketable besides surveyors?

E_Page · Post by **E_Page** » Sat Oct 20, 2012 7:18 am

Surveyors need to be aware of the effect of their work to the marketability of title and be aware of pre-existing matters that may affect marketability. But surveyors do not generally render opinions on it. That is a function of the title attorney.

mpallamary · Post by **mpallamary** » Mon Oct 22, 2012 6:30 am

In response to the question as to why the County Surveyor prepared the description, a land planner told him that the parcel was illegal in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Because the planning department made that determination, they ordered the County Surveyor to prepare the deed. We believe that is why there is a disclaimer - he is not certain. What I do know is I did not prepare it nor would my client endorse preparing it. The unlicensed planning department made the decision.

land butcher · Post by **land butcher** » Mon Oct 22, 2012 8:45 am

Michael - Where do you find these client's LOL I just read your LA tax issue.

The law does strange things these days, but if I was a judge reading that deed I would toss it, saying if the Surveyor that prepared this deed isn't comfortable with it's accuracy how can the court rely on it.

Now how you keep what I would call a worthless deed from being recorded by the county recorder of the same county is beyond me.

mpallamary · Post by **mpallamary** » Mon Oct 22, 2012 11:02 am

Thanks all! As to how do I get these clients, it is what I do. Because I tend to be persistent and an advocate for my clients, I get a lot of referrals. A lot of people, much smarter than me I might add, prefer not to get involved in complicated matters. I enjoy them as they are always unique. As to the COC issue, as you can expect, there is more coming.

E_Page · Post by **E_Page** » Mon Oct 22, 2012 12:25 pm

Woodcutter wrote:Evan,

I think that's open for debate. I know where you're coming from but I do believe we can provide recognition and remedy when the appearance of cloud of title is uncovered as part of our investigation.

Woodcutter,

I agree with you to a point. You are correct where the marketability issue is boundary only. But there are many other issues that can affect the marketability of title that are not survey related. There are a few surveyors who are well versed in non-boundary related title matters and can provide services based upon their experience.

Because marketability of title goes beyond matters which are within the practice of surveying, surveyors generally (except for those few with additional acquired knowledge) cannot offer opinions as to whether the title is marketable. A surveyor may unwisely give an opinion that title is marketable based upon a lack of boundary/survey related matters but miss the fact that a previous conveyance was incorrectly made and did not convey title properly - description good, other deed terms lacking. That's a base title issue, not a boundary location issue.

Most surveyors do not have the expertise to interpret all deed terms outside of the description and place them in context of the chain of title. For that matter, there is probably a sizable percentage of surveyors who do not know how to research a chain of title and ensure it is complete.

marchenko · Post by **marchenko** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 10:25 am

How does this disclaimer comport with the "responsible charge" obligations of the surveyor?

No it does not. The County is taking responsibility because they are issuing a Conditional Certificate of Compliance. That is an action that only the County can do.

Does this create marketable title?
I don't know. My guess is that it may not if there is an overlap with something that is senior. If there is no overlap or gap in title, then I am still unsure.

Does this introduce ambiguity in the chain of title?
Yes. If the description is different than before, then yes. If it is the same but only the note... then yes. The County Surveyor has a higher authority and with it responsibility, than other surveyors and should not attempt to wriggle out of that.

If the description is in error, who is held responsible and liable with such a disclaimer?

For the reasons above, the political subdivision that prepared it. If they have the authority, and the only entity with that authority ' the County will issue a certificate or a conditional certiciate' to paraphrase the map act. If no one else can prepare the thing, and there is a problem, who else could?

Is such a disclaimer permissible and can one use it on other survey documents such as maps and records of survey?

My understanding is that discalimers are like dogma, they will eventually end up being karma...

George Marchenko

California Surveyors Forums

Need some assistance from the LS community

Ian

yep thread killer confirmation

Conditional CoC with note