California Surveyors Forums

A couple of weeks ago I got a notice from a CS office that a ROS I prepared is ready for mylar. I print, sign and ship the mylar to the CS office along with a check for the filing fee. Today I get email from CS staff saying that the Recorder rejected the ROS because the Surveyor's Statement says "...at the request of John and Jane Smith..." instead of "...at the request of John Smith and Jane Smith." (Not their real names.)

Fortunately, the Recorder agreed to accept the map if John's last name is added by hand, and the helpful CS staffer is willing to write it in with my permission, which I immediately granted.

The only reason I'm not identifying the county is because I don't want anyone to get flak for modifying a map statement after it was signed, but I truly am grateful that the staffer is willing to go the extra mile and save me the hassle of printing and shipping a replacement mylar. To the unidentified CS: please give A.Z. a big "Thanks!" from me (and a big "Seriously?" to the Recorder).

Good ending! I've done this numerous times at the Recorder's office with the consent of the submitting surveyor. Recorder's staff can be very literal with some of this stuff - and that's fine - they work for an elected official ...

It was an acceptable ending, but I still believe the Recorder's staff made a ridiculously bad call.

In the first place, there's no defined standard (save for the absence of fraud) of which I'm aware for listing the "at the request of" designee in the Surveyor's Statement. At one time it was my practice to list "Frame Surveying & Mapping" as the designee, since most of the time my clients not only don't request a ROS, they'd actually rather not have to pay for one. But somewhere along the line I started listing the owner; maybe it's time to revert.

Second, the vesting deed shows the grantor to be "The John & Jane Smith Revocable Trust," and the Assessor lists the ownership as "John & Jane Smith." Good for the goose, but not for the gander?