A question of conduct

[mpallamary]

I have a theoretical question. An engineer and a surveyor are working on a project together. There are some questions regarding the interpretation of a deed and the engineer and surveyor go to the County Assessor and inform the assessor that the deed is for a vacated easement and should be extinguished as the easement does not exist. The assessor accepts their explanation (because they are an engineer and a surveyor) and he removes the parcel. The engineer designs a project as if the strip did not exist.

They do more work and realize that it was not an easement, it was a fee owned strip of land, owned by a third party. In spite of the fact they know their original interpretation was incorrect, they proceed with the project and they make no effort to correct the record or let the assessor know that their representation as originally advanced was wrong, nor do they notify the third party owner.

The actual owner of the property finds out that their land was taken and is being planned for development. When asked as to their professional obligations to disclose the correct information, the engineer and surveyor explain that the reason they did not set the record straight is because it would harm their client and they have no duties to correct work done by the assessor.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this theoretical situation? Is it ethical? Unethical? A violation of any codes? The basis for a board complaint? An act of fraud?

Thoughts?

[Dave Lindell]

I think that is the definition of fraud!

[mpallamary]

Thanks for your reply.

[Peter Ehlert]

If the assessor redrafts their index drawing incorrectly (a parcel not illustrated, so it will not be taxed)... how is that land "taken"?

[Stephen Johnson]

If the assessor redrafts their index drawing incorrectly (a parcel not illustrated, so it will not be taxed)... how is that land "taken"?

It is by fraud on the part of the engineer and the surveyor, because they knowingly included it in a project for another owner.

[mpallamary]

Hi Peter,

In this theoretical scenario, the surveyor and the engineer receive a title report that shows a strip of land in the middle of a larger parcel of land. They go to the assessor and convince the assessor that the strip of land is only an easement so the assessor removes the parcel because the surveyor told the assessor that government easements are not taxed; the easement is for a utility line.

The assessor listens to the surveyor and the parcel is eliminated and the engineer plans a subdivision over the large parcel of land. The surveyor convinces the municipality to quitclaim to the property owner as the property owner will relocate the utility line, never mentioning that someone else owns the land beneath the easement. Because the assessor was told by the surveyor that his client owns the underlying land, the third party owner's land is developed.

The third party owner finds out the development has been approved and his land and has been extinguished by the surveyor because the surveyor misrepresented the facts to the assessor. Because the surveyor is licensed, the assessor acts. After all, why would he argue with a licensed land surveyor who knew the truth but made a conscious decision not to inform the assessor?

[Ian Wilson]

The title to the strip has not been extinguished. The tax collector/assessor cannot change title to the land without an action of the owners or of the court. The surveyor and the engineer have thrown a serious cloud of title on the property. They have also violated ethical standards found in Board Rules 475 (a), (c)(7), (c)(9), (c)(11) and 476 (a), (c)(7), (c)(9), and (c)(11), at a minimum.

Depending upon the status of the construction on the project, the remedies involved could be rather hefty.

I would suspect that, if the allegations prove true and are upheld in court, the surveyor and the engineer will soon be asking the age old question "Would you like fries with that?"

[Proud7191]

Sounds to me the argument is with the title company. Engineers/surveyors don't determine ownership, the law does, and title companies insure that ownership. Did the title company erroneously insure the title of the area represented as an "easement" as real property owned by the developer? If so they should pay up, and then possible sue the surveyor/engineer for misleading the title company, if they did.
Sounds like this may be an old vacated r/w where a reservation for existing utilities was reserved in the vacation process, and the land was to revert as required by law. Now the rightful owner is coming forward to claim his land (100 years ago farmer Jones created a 60' road, then sells off tracts adjoining the road specifically with qualifying language within the tracts that excluded the road bed upon vacation/ abandonment, the ownership probably reverts to the heirs of farmer Jones. Now their back to collect). Am I close? Interesting scenario, Keep us posted. Jon

[Peter Ehlert]

Original question was did the Surveyor/Engineer screw up... Hell yes!

as Ian said None of it changes Title...
and no insurance policy can make it whole either...they would be just another party that could catch (or not catch) the bookkeeping error of the Assessor.

[RAM]

as a licesnee, our primary task is "to protect the public", we do not work for the best interest of anyone individual. If it were an easement, a true vacation requires an action by the public agency. Individuals do not vacate easements. They can relinquish rights, but they would have to sign the documents.

[mpallamary]

This theoretical engineer convinces the assessor to remove a parcel of land. There is no parcel shown. The title company takes the advice of a licensed individual. As to the easement, the public agency vacates the easement. No problem. The fee owner of the underlying land owns the property. Because the engineer told everyone that the strip was only an easement and his client (the adjoining owner), owns the land. In reality, the underlying strip is owned by the original owner. He expressly reserved ownership in the land. The engineer made his arguments on behalf of the adjoiner, who never had any interest in the land. The engineer argued that "naturally" the adjoiner gets the land.