California Surveyors Forums

pls7809 wrote:"Reestablishment" is in 8762(b)(4)...I think added in 2012.

Back on the old RPLS forum I remember Jim Frame saying "I do not establish, I reestablish.."

From that day on I changed from checking 'establish' to 'reestablish' on my CR's

It certainly is a fuzzy area. Theres no shortage of opportunity to bring the level of veracity of information into this fuzzy area to save time/money.

So, while I'm here in the "fuzzy zone", let me ask. Could the "dimensionless ties" be viewed as witness mons not shown on a previously recorded map (triggering 8762)?

Cody Hustead

There is nothing "fuzzy" about this particular law-it is quite clear.

I have sat through several hearings and watched licensees argue these same "fuzzy" points-several of these licensees are no longer licensed to practice. A licensee may have done the dirty (record boundary/paper boundary in connection with a field survey) a thousand times in a career without an incident- most of which had disclaimers. It was the 1001 that was his Waterloo. For a licensee to feign ignorance of this law in 2015 is simply ridiculous.

In my line of work, as it relates to land surveying negligence, the disclaimer is welcomed in that it helps the parties reach a quicker settlement-which saves them time, money and heartache. Disclaimers work as a quasi signed declaration of negligence. In other words, the surveyor is acknowledging that he did not perform the duties which cannot be reassigned to any other professionals i.e. engineer, architect etc. and he placed the understanding and responsibility on the public. Disclaimers do not work the way the author intended, quite the contrary. If asked, I would advise anyone trying to skirt the law not to put such a disclaimer on a map-it gives the attorney a little more to work with in his defense.

As Jim Frame stated in an earlier post, paraphrased, a topographic map and a boundary map are two different work products-neither is dependent upon the other. I recommend that the practitioner list them as two separate tasks with separate fees associated. In my case, the boundary is almost always more cost than the topographic map. There are engineers and architects that ask for a "paper boundary" because they know it costs less-what interest does the engineer have in my cost? Particularly in lowering my cost. I often wonder where they learned that concept in connection with a field survey. The surveyor is usually better to contract with the owner, not through the engineer or architect. Why would a professional break the law to save someone money? If the engineer, architect or owner insist...give'em the Nancy Regan "Just say no". Anything less is putting pressure on honest business practices.

DWoolley

......

DWoolley wrote:There is nothing "fuzzy" about this particular law-it is quite clear.

I have sat through several hearings and watched licensees argue these same "fuzzy" points-several of these licensees are no longer licensed to practice. A licensee may have done the dirty (record boundary/paper boundary in connection with a field survey) a thousand times in a career without an incident- most of which had disclaimers. It was the 1001 that was his Waterloo. For a licensee to feign ignorance of this law in 2015 is simply ridiculous.

In my line of work, as it relates to land surveying negligence, the disclaimer is welcomed in that it helps the parties reach a quicker settlement-which saves them time, money and heartache. Disclaimers work as a quasi signed declaration of negligence. In other words, the surveyor is acknowledging that he did not perform the duties which cannot be reassigned to any other professionals i.e. engineer, architect etc. and he placed the understanding and responsibility on the public. Disclaimers do not work the way the author intended, quite the contrary. If asked, I would advise anyone trying to skirt the law not to put such a disclaimer on a map-it gives the attorney a little more to work with in his defense.

As Jim Frame stated in an earlier post, paraphrased, a topographic map and a boundary map are two different work products-neither is dependent upon the other. I recommend that the practitioner list them as two separate tasks with separate fees associated. In my case, the boundary is almost always more cost than the topographic map. There are engineers and architects that ask for a "paper boundary" because they know it costs less-what interest does the engineer have in my cost? Particularly in lowering my cost. I often wonder where they learned that concept in connection with a field survey. The surveyor is usually better to contract with the owner, not through the engineer or architect. Why would a professional break the law to save someone money? If the engineer, architect or owner insist...give'em the Nancy Regan "Just say no". Anything less is putting pressure on honest business practices.

DWoolley

,,,,

DWoolley wrote:There is nothing "fuzzy" about this particular law-it is quite clear.

I have sat through several hearings and watched licensees argue these same "fuzzy" points-several of these licensees are no longer licensed to practice. A licensee may have done the dirty (record boundary/paper boundary in connection with a field survey) a thousand times in a career without an incident- most of which had disclaimers. It was the 1001 that was his Waterloo. For a licensee to feign ignorance of this law in 2015 is simply ridiculous.

In my line of work, as it relates to land surveying negligence, the disclaimer is welcomed in that it helps the parties reach a quicker settlement-which saves them time, money and heartache. Disclaimers work as a quasi signed declaration of negligence. In other words, the surveyor is acknowledging that he did not perform the duties which cannot be reassigned to any other professionals i.e. engineer, architect etc. and he placed the understanding and responsibility on the public. Disclaimers do not work the way the author intended, quite the contrary. If asked, I would advise anyone trying to skirt the law not to put such a disclaimer on a map-it gives the attorney a little more to work with in his defense.

As Jim Frame stated in an earlier post, paraphrased, a topographic map and a boundary map are two different work products-neither is dependent upon the other. I recommend that the practitioner list them as two separate tasks with separate fees associated. In my case, the boundary is almost always more cost than the topographic map. There are engineers and architects that ask for a "paper boundary" because they know it costs less-what interest does the engineer have in my cost? Particularly in lowering my cost. I often wonder where they learned that concept in connection with a field survey. The surveyor is usually better to contract with the owner, not through the engineer or architect. Why would a professional break the law to save someone money? If the engineer, architect or owner insist...give'em the Nancy Regan "Just say no". Anything less is putting pressure on honest business practices.

DWoolley

Very clever! I probably wouldn't have thought of that.

7 years ago I did a topo for an engineer. It was a multi acre subdivision lot, lots of control, everything fit so I put the boundary on there. If I set a monument then it would be a Corner Record.

Next topo for this Engineer. Large parcel in the middle of urban area. Believe it or not, metes and bounds description from the 19th century, quarter degree bearings, distances in chains, call for an old wagon road long buried under a 6 lane thoroughfare. Description miscloses by 40'. It falls 50' short of an apparent boundary CMU wall and mismatches the neighboring parcel by that 50'. Major flacked up mess, cluster frock of cluster frocks. So I deliver the topo with no boundary (no planned work within 200' of the boundary for crying out loud).

Engineer says "put boundary on here." So I send long detailed email explaining why no boundary and it'll be very expensive T&M if you really have to have the boundary and does your client really need that. I think it went back and forth once or twice after that then I never heard from him again.

Bonus question:

I'll buy a beer at the March conference to the first person who knows where this often used disclaimer is standard practice:

"For accurate right of way data, contact right of way engineering at the district office."

Sort of like saying, "for accurate boundary information, see the county recorder".

Maybe they get a free pass since the overlaying of R/W lines onto the plan view layouts is usually done by engineers??

Speaking of cartoon boundaries. Did a google search for parcel lines shown in google earth. Lots and lots out there. Reminded me of several times where new clients told me that they used one of those services (dis-services?) to try and find their lines before they called me. But realized the lines were too far off from where they thought they should be that they realized they needed to call a surveyor. Am curious how many calls I don't get from land owners who look at one of those Google Earth KMZ parcel lines and it looks close enough that "must be right"?

The key is based upon a field survey and "Retracement" in 8762(b)(4)...

(4) The location, relocation, establishment, reestablishment, or retracement of one or more points or lines not shown on any subdivision map, official map, or record of survey, the positions of which are not ascertainable from an inspection of the subdivision map, official map, or record of survey.

If you have retraced a boundary based upon a field survey (not shown on a map of record), a surveyor is required to file a Record of Survey.

Please read all of the LA Act. The language of 8762 has many requirements to file a Record of Survey, Please try to interpret all of the language from a judges stand point. The whole spirit of 8762 is prservation of evidence of boudaries both title and physical (occupation) boundaries. The surveyor seldom has all of the facts that are presented to a judge. Sureyor's are required to show all of the evidence both in agreement and disgreement with their survey. Surveyor's are licensed to protect the public, that also means your client's neighbor. You are not licensed to be an advocate one way or the other.

What about a situation where the boundary has been previously mapped and recorded?

"The surveyor seldom has all of the facts that are presented to a judge."

Why would a surveyor not have all the facts? How can the surveyor form a sound, well reasoned and defensible opinion without all the relevant evidence to the question of a boundary location? I ask this question without regard to private records.

It seems to me that since he is showing (what I call) witness corners, he is showing monuments not shown on a previously recorded map, hence a ROS is required. Unless the County Surveyor will let him get away with a corner records which shows witness corners not of record with nothing set at the actual parcel corner (and no actual ties to said corner).

And I also postulate that because he is not setting his tag on said witness corner, or showing dimensioned ties to it on his map, he actually did not re-establish anything, and actually did a paper survey (record boundary). Therefor no CR or ROS is necessary. Actually, no Land Surveyor needed either.

I was thinking of unwritten rights and not the title line. Think of the Kliban case and the agreed boundary doctrine.

Wouldn't the normally prudent surveyor be on the look out for such issues as "unwritten rights" ?

pls7809 wrote:"Reestablishment" is in 8762(b)(4)...I think added in 2012.

(4) The location, relocation, establishment, reestablishment, or retracement of one or more points or lines not shown on any subdivision map, official map, or record of survey, the positions of which are not ascertainable from an inspection of the subdivision map, official map, or record of survey.

Please excuse me for taking this conversation one step further. It does not matter what the code requires as to mapping document. If you really want to protect yourself 100%, you must always file the Record of Survey and never, ever file a Corner Record. Do you think this statement is extreme and outlandish ?

This land surveyor has had the privilege of studying cases where this particular Borpelsg has issued citations to licensed people for mapping lines and points that were previously shown on maps of record. In other words, there was no longer a trigger for (8762(b)(2)(3)(4) and the local county surveyor was in agreement and signed the appropriate Corner Record filing.

The Borpelsg people have good intentions, but the fact of life is; the world is not perfect and the system in place is flawed. Pallamary, several months back posted one of his magazine articles relating to peer review and the citation process. He pointed out that it is typical nationally, for a 3-person review group to determine if a code section was violated. This goes across the board in all professions. But not in this state. With regard to Borpelsg and the process in place in CA, one so-called expert is hired, based on a one-page qualification sheet and one interview. His/her opinion of what you did is then used in the final decision. Once again, if you really want to fully protect yourself, the Corner Record filing will offer you no such protect. The Record of Survey is your best chance for full protection.