A few years ago, a local public agency was abandoning some seldom used streets and public lands which are adjacent to a new expressway.
Our firm was hired to review title history, prepare relinquishment legals and plats, asssist with merger and file a record of survey.
During the process, one of the land owners engaged in a development sale with an out of state development organization. The organizarion pressed the local public agency for an advanced rezone, and compelled their (out of area) engineering/architectural firm to press forward with a parcel map and plans.
The A/E firm obtained preliminary documents such as maps and the relinquishment documents, prepared their map and submitted , adding a note that record and measured information was based upon a survey in process.
(Our ROS was being held up in title due to problems with a different property owner)
Soon after the Parcel map recorded, Our Ros was filed. [our monuments had been set and were used by the A/E firm.]
It now has been discovered that the A/E firm made an error on their map, shorting one of the parcels by 12 feet, causing a parking non-compliance.
The A/E firm has deposed that their error is directly related to information obtained on OUR preliminary ROS and therefor "they" are not responsible.
Our ROS only addresses the exterior boundary and is exactly the same as the A/E firms boundary. I've verified all of the monuments set by "us" and they prove out well.
Lawyers are hounding, but I don't see any liability on My part ????
Error in Parcel Map
-
dmi
- Posts: 981
- Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:42 pm
- Location: San Francisco
- Contact:
first of all....
I do not understand how a local agency can accept and file a parcel map that has not been surveyed, if the local agency has a requirement that parcel maps be based upon a field survey. This is not unsual, having been a checker for various jursidictions in a previous incarnation, I am amazed everyday. What will they think of next?
I can see a very limited use for a record data parcel map, but 99% of the time where people want to use them as a COST saving measure rather than where the facts on the ground would support using a record data parcel map.
But as far as I know there is no such animal as a partial survey that would satisfy the SMA requirement for a surveyed parcel map.
Now, it seems to me that you are saying that their was an error in your preliminary record of survey and they used your preliminary record of survey. This is a moot point,error in your map or not. The presumption is that it is correct. Generally, a presumption is rebuttal. No matter what the presumption maybe, the professional is obliged to adhere to a minimum standard of care. A part of what I would view as a minimum portion of a standard of care is to verify the evidence used to arrive at a professional opinion.
If you made an error, even on a record of survey that had been filed and another firm blindly used your map, then you error becomes their error.
Brown's Boundary Control and Legal Principles,Fifth Edition page 420...
"Reliance of a retracing surveyor on a previous surveyor's work does not relieve the retracing surveyor from liability in the event in the event the previous surveyor's work is in error."
If your recorded survey is different than the preliminary survey and the other firm did not bother to follow up, then the error is entirely their fault.
If there is an error, in the recorded record of survey, then you have some liablity for that error, but the other firm does not get to dump everything on you because it is their resposiblity to do their own work.
It would seem to me that they have a couple of large problems.
The first one is practicing in an Area outside of their normal business service Area. How can they possibly know what the local practice is unless they are on the ground in the region on a regular basis or have a local consultant to adivse them in an appropriate standard of care and about local issues that would be generally common knowledge amoung the local practing professional land surveyors. Sound like negligence to me on count one and negligence for not checking your work before accepting it. Negligence on count two....
I have no idea if your mapping was incorrect or not, so please do not think I am saying you are wrong about anything.....
I know I would not want to be the other firm in this deal.... too many mis-steps on their part....
HAPPY NEW YEAR
I can see a very limited use for a record data parcel map, but 99% of the time where people want to use them as a COST saving measure rather than where the facts on the ground would support using a record data parcel map.
But as far as I know there is no such animal as a partial survey that would satisfy the SMA requirement for a surveyed parcel map.
Now, it seems to me that you are saying that their was an error in your preliminary record of survey and they used your preliminary record of survey. This is a moot point,error in your map or not. The presumption is that it is correct. Generally, a presumption is rebuttal. No matter what the presumption maybe, the professional is obliged to adhere to a minimum standard of care. A part of what I would view as a minimum portion of a standard of care is to verify the evidence used to arrive at a professional opinion.
If you made an error, even on a record of survey that had been filed and another firm blindly used your map, then you error becomes their error.
Brown's Boundary Control and Legal Principles,Fifth Edition page 420...
"Reliance of a retracing surveyor on a previous surveyor's work does not relieve the retracing surveyor from liability in the event in the event the previous surveyor's work is in error."
If your recorded survey is different than the preliminary survey and the other firm did not bother to follow up, then the error is entirely their fault.
If there is an error, in the recorded record of survey, then you have some liablity for that error, but the other firm does not get to dump everything on you because it is their resposiblity to do their own work.
It would seem to me that they have a couple of large problems.
The first one is practicing in an Area outside of their normal business service Area. How can they possibly know what the local practice is unless they are on the ground in the region on a regular basis or have a local consultant to adivse them in an appropriate standard of care and about local issues that would be generally common knowledge amoung the local practing professional land surveyors. Sound like negligence to me on count one and negligence for not checking your work before accepting it. Negligence on count two....
I have no idea if your mapping was incorrect or not, so please do not think I am saying you are wrong about anything.....
I know I would not want to be the other firm in this deal.... too many mis-steps on their part....
HAPPY NEW YEAR
-
subman
- Posts: 453
- Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 6:22 pm
- Location: Ventura County
Good,
If the A/E firm represented this PM as a "field survey" performed by them on a specific date... in accordance with the Surveyor Certificate required by the SMA, they would have found your set "preliminary" ROS monuments and should have made a determination of accepting them as the corners of the underlying property described in the preamble on the title sheet and described the lines connecting those corners by the appropriate deed or other record document. Or did the map include the surveyor certificate describing this parcel map as being compiled from record data?
Assuming that the distinctive border (exterior boundary) and corner monuments of the A/E firm's recorded Parcel Map and your recorded ROS are in agreement (i.e. the monuments you set), it sounds like the location of the newly created interior parcel line was mapped in error causing one of the new parcels to be 12 ft. short and the adjacent newly created parcel to be 12 ft. long.
Do the traverse calculations agree with the dimensions shown on the parcel map? Do they close within the necessary accuracy? Do the net/gross areas shown on the parcel map for each parcel agree with the traverse calculations?
Assuming the parcels have not been sold yet, can't a lot line adjustment rectify the dilemma?
If the A/E firm represented this PM as a "field survey" performed by them on a specific date... in accordance with the Surveyor Certificate required by the SMA, they would have found your set "preliminary" ROS monuments and should have made a determination of accepting them as the corners of the underlying property described in the preamble on the title sheet and described the lines connecting those corners by the appropriate deed or other record document. Or did the map include the surveyor certificate describing this parcel map as being compiled from record data?
Assuming that the distinctive border (exterior boundary) and corner monuments of the A/E firm's recorded Parcel Map and your recorded ROS are in agreement (i.e. the monuments you set), it sounds like the location of the newly created interior parcel line was mapped in error causing one of the new parcels to be 12 ft. short and the adjacent newly created parcel to be 12 ft. long.
Do the traverse calculations agree with the dimensions shown on the parcel map? Do they close within the necessary accuracy? Do the net/gross areas shown on the parcel map for each parcel agree with the traverse calculations?
Assuming the parcels have not been sold yet, can't a lot line adjustment rectify the dilemma?
Dennis Hunter, PLS & PE
Simi Valley, CA
Simi Valley, CA
-
E_Page
- Posts: 2141
- Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 6:49 am
- Location: El Dorado County
I'm confused and apparently reading this scenario a little differently than Dane and Dennis.
What I got out of your post, Good, is that this 12 foot error on the other firm's part is on a line that is somehow related to the boundary you surveyed, but not a line of the exterior boundary that was the object of your survey. I also read that you have checked your work on the exterior boundary and found no problems. Is that right?
If the other firm is putting the problem at your feet, on what basis are they doing so? Did you show the interior line in question on your survey?
But then we go back to the point Dane made and Dennis echoed, if the other firm supposedly did a field survey (you stated that they used your monuments), then they should have gone through the exercise of evaluating them to determine their correctness or relevance to their survey.
Even if they prepared their PM based on record, presumably thy should have found something in the record that would raise a question on this 12' discrepancy.
It seems to me that maybe they are trying to bring you in to share the pain.
But as I said, the info is a little sketchy and confusing.
What I got out of your post, Good, is that this 12 foot error on the other firm's part is on a line that is somehow related to the boundary you surveyed, but not a line of the exterior boundary that was the object of your survey. I also read that you have checked your work on the exterior boundary and found no problems. Is that right?
If the other firm is putting the problem at your feet, on what basis are they doing so? Did you show the interior line in question on your survey?
But then we go back to the point Dane made and Dennis echoed, if the other firm supposedly did a field survey (you stated that they used your monuments), then they should have gone through the exercise of evaluating them to determine their correctness or relevance to their survey.
Even if they prepared their PM based on record, presumably thy should have found something in the record that would raise a question on this 12' discrepancy.
It seems to me that maybe they are trying to bring you in to share the pain.
But as I said, the info is a little sketchy and confusing.
Evan Page, PLS
A Visiting Forum Essayist
A Visiting Forum Essayist
-
dmi
- Posts: 981
- Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:42 pm
- Location: San Francisco
- Contact:
Without all the evidence, no one can come to any type of conclusion. I was ,for the sake of argument, proceeding on the assumption, that there was an error at some point in the process that was not caught by either firm and now having relied upon the survey provided by GOOD's firm, the second firm was trying to get out of the liability by blaming GOOD. They won't be able to do this if Good has Good representation.
Sounds like a staking problem to me..... happens all the time one set of values are calced based upon the desire of planners and/or engineers and that gets sent to the field, those values get staked and built and in the interim the designers have changed their minds and have moved the calced parcel line to a different location and now the map records with a 12' problem. Each item along the way looks okay, but the whole combo plate is short a taco at the end.
Remember Strother Martin in "Cool Hand Luke".....
Sounds like a staking problem to me..... happens all the time one set of values are calced based upon the desire of planners and/or engineers and that gets sent to the field, those values get staked and built and in the interim the designers have changed their minds and have moved the calced parcel line to a different location and now the map records with a 12' problem. Each item along the way looks okay, but the whole combo plate is short a taco at the end.
Remember Strother Martin in "Cool Hand Luke".....
-
goodgps
- Posts: 642
- Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 7:32 pm
- Location: Modesto, Ca
Error on the inside
The error I am speaking of is inside My exterior boundary.
Each "parcel" was supposed to be a certain size according to a development sales agreement in accordance with the requirements of the untimate occupant.
Parcel A was supposed to be 225 feet wide Parcel B, 417 feet and Parcel C 156 feet. total of 798 feet along that boundary side. the trouble is, is the total side only measures 786 feet !
The A/E firm took 12 feet out of PArcel A leaving 213 feet AND they showed it this way on their map !
They are contesting that the true distance along that frontage, should've been 798 feet, yet they simply "agree" with My map boundary (R & M)
Upon further review of the relinquishments and acquisitions, I cannot find this additional 12-feet they speak of. They must be referring to a 24-foot wide access easement adjacent with and north of the subject property which was granted by the north owner in favor of a property to the East. This easement now abandoned by document. and shown on my ROS (but not referred to on the A/E parcel map.
Like it has been poointed out, I think they have a problem which doesnt involve me in any way. [but you know lawyers]
"good"
Each "parcel" was supposed to be a certain size according to a development sales agreement in accordance with the requirements of the untimate occupant.
Parcel A was supposed to be 225 feet wide Parcel B, 417 feet and Parcel C 156 feet. total of 798 feet along that boundary side. the trouble is, is the total side only measures 786 feet !
The A/E firm took 12 feet out of PArcel A leaving 213 feet AND they showed it this way on their map !
They are contesting that the true distance along that frontage, should've been 798 feet, yet they simply "agree" with My map boundary (R & M)
Upon further review of the relinquishments and acquisitions, I cannot find this additional 12-feet they speak of. They must be referring to a 24-foot wide access easement adjacent with and north of the subject property which was granted by the north owner in favor of a property to the East. This easement now abandoned by document. and shown on my ROS (but not referred to on the A/E parcel map.
Like it has been poointed out, I think they have a problem which doesnt involve me in any way. [but you know lawyers]
"good"
-
E_Page
- Posts: 2141
- Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 6:49 am
- Location: El Dorado County
Let's see. The error is with an interior line which you didn't resolve as a line of your survey. You surveyed the exterior showing 786'(m) and 798'(r). They say that they depended upon your survey as being correct, used the shortened dimensions on their map, and yet now say that the 786' dimension should have been 798', and it's all your fault. (????)
Questions to other firm:
1. On what evidence do you believe the correct dimension to be 798'?
2. If you believe this to be so, why didn't you identify the "error" and bring it to the previous surveyor's attention at the time you prepared the PM?
I sense a staking error where the CAD tech doing the staking calcs missed the shortened measured distance and used record, and the PC was probably a I-man/button monkey rather than an experienced chief who would have spotted the error in the field. Big firm, left hand didn't communicate with the right hand.
"Good" luck, Good.
Questions to other firm:
1. On what evidence do you believe the correct dimension to be 798'?
2. If you believe this to be so, why didn't you identify the "error" and bring it to the previous surveyor's attention at the time you prepared the PM?
I sense a staking error where the CAD tech doing the staking calcs missed the shortened measured distance and used record, and the PC was probably a I-man/button monkey rather than an experienced chief who would have spotted the error in the field. Big firm, left hand didn't communicate with the right hand.
"Good" luck, Good.
Evan Page, PLS
A Visiting Forum Essayist
A Visiting Forum Essayist
-
dmi
- Posts: 981
- Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:42 pm
- Location: San Francisco
- Contact:
what is an easement?
When I was knee-high to a jack rabbit, My Pappy told me," An easement is a non-possessory interest in the lands of another, for a specific purpose". I think that means, if I am the owner of an easement, I have an interest in the real property of anther and that interest DOES NOT INCLUDE OWNERSHIP.
At a point in time when the easement right is extinguished, there is no longer any rights held by the easement holder. For this discussion,we are not speaking of unwritten rights or the case of public right of way abandonment.
Based upon the assumption that the representations made by Good are true and accurate, there is no basis to include 12' from an abandoned easement inside the total exterior boundary , unless the 12' was part of the original fee holding prior to the granting of the access easement.
I think that Good is claiming the 12' is not part of the original fee holdings and therefore it is not appropriate to include it as part of the Parcel Map.
Good luck Good
Glad not to have this as my problem
At a point in time when the easement right is extinguished, there is no longer any rights held by the easement holder. For this discussion,we are not speaking of unwritten rights or the case of public right of way abandonment.
Based upon the assumption that the representations made by Good are true and accurate, there is no basis to include 12' from an abandoned easement inside the total exterior boundary , unless the 12' was part of the original fee holding prior to the granting of the access easement.
I think that Good is claiming the 12' is not part of the original fee holdings and therefore it is not appropriate to include it as part of the Parcel Map.
Good luck Good
Glad not to have this as my problem
-
Gary O
- Posts: 97
- Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 4:28 pm
- Location: Sonoma County, God's country
My take.....The A/E firm didn't really do a survey and designed a grandiose project based on flawed information. You came along and did a survey, finding that the exterior isn't quite as large as they ASSUMED and now they're having problems fitting everything they ASSUMED would fit inside the CORRECT boundary.
Tell me again how this is your problem?
And the jurisdiction filing a parcel map NOT based on a field survey (that's why I hate 66448!) should be given a smack upside da head for their incompetence.
Tell me again how this is your problem?
And the jurisdiction filing a parcel map NOT based on a field survey (that's why I hate 66448!) should be given a smack upside da head for their incompetence.
Gary O'Connor, L.S. 7272
County Surveyor, Sonoma
County Surveyor, Sonoma
-
goodgps
- Posts: 642
- Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 7:32 pm
- Location: Modesto, Ca
nailed it on the head
Gary O (and others too)
you defined the problem roght on the head. Someone at the a/e firm grabbed a quick evaluation of the situation, "thought" the 24-foot wide easement was a split of the property lines, calculated a "correct" tentative map and made their clients feel warm and fuzzy.
They then pressed forward (ahead of my map) and designed their on-site and final map.
It does seem that the drafter followed my initial (and final) findings and drafted a map based upon My findings.
Engineering at the A/E firm must've had the crews stake something else and it all squeezed together at some point chosen by the PC ??
Supposedly, none of the people who worked on this project are still employed at the A/E firm. It has been testified that the project surveyor simply used my information as record (and indeed it does fit) There really is no error on the A/E parcel map.
I find now, that the tentative map, which allows for the additional 12 feet, was used by "engineering" and marketing depts. of the "FIRM". The buyer of the "shrunk" parcel has gotten a raw deal.
If this goes much further with me, I guess ill be forced to do the dirty deed of notifying the board of these Engineering/Architecturals. I really think their surveyor is in the clear (thankfully)
Happy new year ???
you defined the problem roght on the head. Someone at the a/e firm grabbed a quick evaluation of the situation, "thought" the 24-foot wide easement was a split of the property lines, calculated a "correct" tentative map and made their clients feel warm and fuzzy.
They then pressed forward (ahead of my map) and designed their on-site and final map.
It does seem that the drafter followed my initial (and final) findings and drafted a map based upon My findings.
Engineering at the A/E firm must've had the crews stake something else and it all squeezed together at some point chosen by the PC ??
Supposedly, none of the people who worked on this project are still employed at the A/E firm. It has been testified that the project surveyor simply used my information as record (and indeed it does fit) There really is no error on the A/E parcel map.
I find now, that the tentative map, which allows for the additional 12 feet, was used by "engineering" and marketing depts. of the "FIRM". The buyer of the "shrunk" parcel has gotten a raw deal.
If this goes much further with me, I guess ill be forced to do the dirty deed of notifying the board of these Engineering/Architecturals. I really think their surveyor is in the clear (thankfully)
Happy new year ???