ROS?

[TIB]

My client and neighbor have fence dispute
Neighbor has drawing/plat and provides copy to my client.
Plat has Title "Fence Location Exhibit" and is signed and stamped by LS
Plat has disclaimer note: "This survey plat represents located features in reference to record boundary lines"
there is a line with typical x's indcating "existing wood fence"
next to it is a dark, bold, line labeled as "property line" No bearings, distances, monuments, or reference to documents are shown.
there are 3 dimensions to a tenth shown showing distance between property line and fence.

my question: has PL been "established" triggering ROS under 8762-b-4 ?
if so, what should I do about it?
TIB

[William Magee]

Call the surveyor and discuss the boundary with him or her. No sense making assumptions as to the 150 different possible scenarios that may be present.
I (and you) don't know all the specifics at this juncture, but for example I myself have prepared similar exhibits for the purpose of informing the parties of boundary vs occupation discrepancies as a first step towards achieving what is hopefully but not always an amicable resolution.

[David Kendall]

Are you asking if you are now required to file or if the other surveyor should have filed when he performed the fieldwork to draw that map?

What is the scale of the drawing, how long are the property lines and the fence, how far over the line is the fence and what is the total parcel acreage?

Is the LS still practicing or alive? Have you spoken with him or her and do you agree with his property line resolution in relation to the fence location?

Generally speaking I venture that if there is no material discrepancy (which I define as one that is significant to at least one of the parties involved other than yourself) with the record then maybe nothing has been triggered. In the interest of resolving the dispute you might file a survey for your client to put the location of the fence on record and bring the ambiguity over occupation to light.

Or if they don't want to pay you to do the fieldwork and record of survey then maybe you do nothing but it sounds to me as if the neighbor has the claim and he just might pay for the fieldwork...

I reckon that if I was going to draw an exhibit with a fence or other permanent object tied to a line that was not previously mapped then I'd feel obliged to file it

[TIB]

David, I'm asking if other surveyor should have filed. It's not about material discrepancy, it's about "establishing" line from deed not on official map etc etc.
I have no reason to doubt the plat or field survey work he did. If I were to do survey on the line (I have not) I would most likely end up with very similar results and locate line same place. Of course neither owner wants to pay for ROS.
Does showing hard dimensions to existing fence "establish" the line under 8762b-4?
If so, ROS required, I Think
I have not contacted him yet
If there was an ROS to back up fence plat regarding the line, I would advise client to accept results as correct, end dispute and move on

[mpallamary]

Of course a ROS should be filed.

Mr. Magee, can you share one of your plats with the rest of us?

[Olin Edmundson]

If there is an actual dispute between neighbors, the worst thing you can do is rush out there, set monuments, and file a R/S. You're fanning the flames of their conflict. Not a public service by any stretch of the imagination. Allow them time and help them solve the problem if you can. The survey is in progress.

[William Magee]

Olin said it best. Perhaps the other surveyor sees this as still a survey in progress. Now that you've disclosed that the line isn't shown on another map or survey, That information does lend itself to the need for a ROS when the survey is actually complete. Again, I strongly recommend talking to the other surveyor.

[DWoolley]

It should go without saying, if the client isn't willing to pay for the RoS don't do the work. It's not a choice or an option contingent upon the client's willingness to pay.

TIB,

If the sketch is dated more than 90 days since signature contact the county surveyor's office to see if the surveyor that prepared the sketch has requested a time extension - Section 8762 (d). If there is no time extension file a complaint with BPELSG and let them sort it out. Failure to follow the law is negligence.

And yes, the line is "established" when the line shown is tied to any physical features. Also, if there are no establishment notes, monuments or a reference to work product which shows the same it is beginning to smell like more negligence.

Lastly, if you don't want to mess with it, please send it to the CLSA Practice Based Chapter headquartered in Orange County (jpplc@oc-surveyors.org). Committee members met this morning and prepared 12-15 board complaints which will go in this week. Interestingly, this particular batch was mostly centered around the bay area.

The offer to file complaints on poor work product is open to anyone from Humboldt County to San Diego. The Practice Based Chapter isn't interested in who sends in the work product (use a nondescript gmail account if you're concerned about anonymity) - they want to help honest business to be able to compete by the ending of "surveying" - tongue in cheek - using the two monument tango/math on the ground methodology and failure to file. Let them help your honest business and the other honest businesses in your area by sending in work product.

D. Woolley

[Dave Lindell]

No one wants to pay for an ROS, but do they think lawyers are cheaper?

[mpallamary]

My contract has a standard provision that, if an ROS is required, the client pays for it. End of discussion.

An ROS is required.

[mpallamary]

At some point in time, we, as a profession must stand up and do what is right by the public and ourselves.

[E_Page]

IMO, there are a lot of variables that should be considered first. If the sketch, drawing is fairly recent, then I think that Olin & William are correct: it may be an interim product of a survey in progress for the client's information and so the landowners can consider one of several possible solutions to be reflected in the RS. If this is the case, the drawing should have a prominent indication of its preliminary status.

If the landowners can't agree on a solution or decide to do nothing, then the LS should complete the survey and file the RS. I may have missed it, but don't recall seeing in the thread that the client had refused/declined to pay for the RS, but as others have said, payment is a separate question from the duty to file a map.

If the client has indicated to the LS that he and his neighbor are actively considering solutions, then the LS has a legitimate reason to extend the 90 days, and now that his client has shared the map, the LS should notify the CS that he has a survey in progress, the nature of the delay, and an expected time of completion and/or map submittal.

By the letter of the law, the 90 clock started ticking when the LS provided the map to his client, thereby sharing his opinion of the boundary location based on what he knew at the time and having performed field surveying. As a practical matter, if the client was aware of the preliminary nature of the opinion and never shared the map, the 90 days wouldn't start until the survey was completed. But once you provide an opinion of boundary location to anyone, you have no control over what they do with the info, so be ready for the clock to start whether or not you completed your survey.

But... 8762 (both a and b) start out by saying "after making a survey in conformity with the practice of land surveying...", so doesn't that mean that no RS is required regardless since the field survey is not complete?

IMO, to put that question in perspective, another should be asked: "Shouldn't the LS have waited until he had enough resolution on the boundary, that is have a line based on both documentary and physical evidence, before indicating the boundary position relative to a fixed feature rather than placing a "record" boundary on the map?"

Issuing an informational drawing like this, showing significant discrepancies between existing occupation and the boundary, based on a "record boundary" (i.e. deed dimensions) can be very risky and is ill advised. See Lee Hixon's thread about small claims. In that one, the LS (actually CE) established a "record boundary" off monuments in the front, not adequately searching for back corners, thereby not finding that the sidelines per original monuments were skewed from the deed directions by several feet by the time one got to the back corners. Using a "record boundary" to inform landowners of a discrepancy with existing occupation without fully investigating the true boundary location can cause needless contention between landowners and/or potentially lead them to an inappropriate solution with regard to the true boundary location.

There is a fine line between telling one's client that based on what you've determined to date, that there appears that there are discrepancies between occupation & use and the boundary location, and indicating specific positions and magnitudes of the discrepancies. You can inform of the likely existence of discrepancies along a particular line without getting into the specifics and keep the 90 day clock from starting. Go beyond that such that someone could use your info to represent the boundary location, and you've hit the start button.

[TIB]

thanks for all the good stuff

but like Lindell said, I gotta wonder

boith sides shelling out thousands and mucho more thousands so their lawyers can argue with each other
but cry and gripe about the small fee of surveyor that correctly follows the law
what's up with that?