Boundary Dispute

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

*edit* Oops I posted this when I was at the bottom of Page 2 so it doesn't make a lot of sense in the light of being at the bottom of Page 3. I meant to respond to Evan's post at the bottom of page 2.

[E_Page]

Deleted by author because, well, it just didn't make much sense.

[E_Page]

Woolley's attachment.


The problem was the file format, Dave. TIF is not one of the format options on the attachment screen. Don't know why.

[Ben Lund]

Evan,
First, I agree with your “end result” that a ROS shall be filed when a survey ESTABLISHES points or lines of any parcel described in any deed.

The problem is that is NOT what 8762(b)(5) says nor does it say that anywhere.

I can’t agree with your statement, “I think it is the real world establishment of the line by the surveyor rather than whether or not certain points were found or actually set that is the criteria here” because of the strict definitions of the two words “set” versus “establish.”

Regarding your loophole example, I cannot think of a time when a retracing surveyor finds and accepts monuments to create a deed line that does NOT trigger 8762(b)(1), therefore, no loophole exists.

I’m not arguing what an honest, hardworking, professional land surveyor should do, I’m pointing out what the law says.

[E_Page]

You may be right, Ben. I'm running on about 6 hrs sleep for the week, so my latest comments may not be the most coherent I've made. I'll have to get back to this in a day ot two.


Edit: After just about doubling my sleep for the week, I think that I will just drop back to my comment about which DK says "I think Evan is exactly right". My post #67 has as much half coherent rambling as solid reasoning, and I apparently made my point clearly before.

[Ben Lund]

Bruce, to answer your questions in post #60, from Dons’ description in post #12, he accepted found chiseled x’s representing the deed line (which is some sort of offset from the original lot lines of the map). As far as I can tell he showed the found monuments on a corner record and set nothing.

I believe a record of survey was required but based upon my post #55 which explains 8762(b)(1) applies and maybe 8762(b)(4) applies.

[PLS7393]

Not sure why some are still going around in circles on this.

A surveyor licensed to practice surveying made a decision on what shall be filed under his license, and the county accepted it.


Done.

[Ben Lund]

Whether the county accepted it or not has little to no bearing on whether it was right or not. I believe that is Ric's point.

[E_Page]

I don't think anyone has been going in circles (although I may have done a little sleepwalking off course at one point). Pretty much you, Keith, and Don have given the opinion that a CR is OK, and everyone else has said that an RS is required.

I'm still confused why you think that, in the face of all the opinion otherwise, including that of BPELS.

[PLS7393]

Pretty much you, Keith, and Don have given the opinion that a CR is OK, and everyone else has said that an RS is required.

I'm still confused why you think that, in the face of all the opinion otherwise, including that of BPELS.

I guess the county surveyors signature on the document agrees with you Evan.

Has anyone questioned the Standard of Care (Practice) in that county?
It was previously mentioned that the points were accepted as witness corners.
I know I don't have all the info, but I'm glad others do, heheheee!

[E_Page]

I guess the county surveyors signature on the document agrees with you Evan.

Has anyone questioned the Standard of Care (Practice) in that county?
It was previously mentioned that the points were accepted as witness corners.
I know I don't have all the info, but I'm glad others do, heheheee!

It used to be the "standard of practice" in my area that a map was filed only if the client requested it, and so many surveys prior to the 1980s, and quite a few in the 80s, were never recorded.

Since that was the "local standard of practice", was that OK? (rhetorical question)

Maybe I'll try that argument next time I'm stopped for speeding: "Hey, you can't write me that ticket, everybody drives 85 on this road!"

Yep, that'll work.


The Standard of Practice is only valid insomuch as it complies with the laws governing the practice of surveying. If there is a violation, it doesn't matter who signs the document, it's still a violation and the standard needs to change.

If the points were just witness points to the lots, then that's fine, but they are not. They are points marking a line of a deed which does not appear on any record map.

Further, if your RS (or CR if you are cutting corners) does not show the points as marking the existent boundary line, but rather shows them merely as witnesses to a no longer existing line, you are also in violation of §8780(a) "Any fraud, deceit, or MISREPRESENTATION in his or her practice of land surveying;
§8780(d) "Any violation of any provision of this chapter or of any other law relating to or involving the practice of land surveying";
§476(a) provide professional services consistent with laws;

and the clearest violation:
§476(c)(11) "A licensee shall not misrepresent data and/or its relative significance in any professional surveying report."

If your CR shows these points, which are marking an existing boundary, only as witnesses to a line which no longer has meaning to the landowners, then you are intentionally misrepresenting the significance of those points. They are not significant as witness corners to an insignificant line. They are significant as the points marking the boundary between two properties.


As a side comment: I realize there is some significance to the original lot lines of the subdivision in that the current boundaries are related to them, and that to determine the boundaries of the existent descriptions, we need to determine the location of the original lot lines. But that makes the original lot lines significant only to the surveyor. Nobody else gives a darn where those lines are. The original lot lines are as meaningless to the landowners as our random traverse lines are, thus, of far lesser significance as to the meaning of the data to be shown on the map.