Mr. Robert WM Zierman starts off pretty bad with his opening statement, maybe he is just a poor writer/communicator.
Wow, looked around a bit and found some glaring spelling errors: 'parole evidence', and presumptions of the surveying profession that would be a bit more informed. He also appears to think surveyors will only identify lines of record title for their client. He thinks an as built survey is an ALTA survey, as well. ???
I have to get back to work.
Moe Shetty, post: 359469, member: 138 wrote: Wow, looked around a bit and found some glaring spelling errors: 'parole evidence', and presumptions of the surveying profession that would be a bit more informed. He also appears to think surveyors will only identify lines of record title for their client. He thinks an as built survey is an ALTA survey, as well. ???
I have to get back to work.
I can't help the author out any on what he thinks, but you can probably blame spell-check for the parol / parole diddy. Monumentation is another one that bugs me because SC thinks it's not a word.
paden cash, post: 359470, member: 20 wrote: I can't help the author out any on what he thinks, but you can probably blame spell-check for the parol / parole diddy. Monumentation is another one that bugs me because SC thinks it's not a word.
You can add such words to your SC library but I caution you to never let a middle-school student use your copy of Word. I have hundreds of misspellings added by my children whilst doing their homework.
Attorneys are expected to be more careful with what they write, spell check is a lame excuse. They work with Words and Logic, their basic tools of the trade.
This fella is well informed, but obviously he is in an isolated community. From his bio he has moved around, but it seems he entered the law while living in Washington, and has not practiced elsewhere.
He does a good job of slamming the entire surveying community, but some deserve it... Most Do Not (in my experience).
On some sleepless night I will read more of his blog than just that one page, there are probably some good nuggets in there.
Pretty poorly written, to the point where I believe a quick reading leaves the reader with an opinion that the authors position is 180 degrees from where it actually is. Some of his other posts are pretty good, he just seems to go on the assumption that most surveyors are the "plot the deed, show possession, and let the chips fall where they may" variety. Perhaps that is his experience
http://www.boundarydisputelaw.com/surveys-depictions/
In one he makes the case that there is an area overlapping practice between lawyers & surveyors:
The important question to ask is this: Is it possible that there is some overlap between the practice of law and surveying?
Here in Washington state, Adverse Possession is considered a question of ÛÏmixed-fact and law.Û So, I for one believe that there is. I also recognize that my opinion doesnÛªt generally conform with current practice of either survey and law.
James Fleming, post: 359483, member: 136 wrote: ..The important question to ask is this: Is it possible that there is some overlap between the practice of law and surveying?....I also recognize that my opinion doesnÛªt generally conform with current practice of either survey and law.
There probably is, at a minimum, a fuzzy line between the two.
I for one take my tasks as a surveyor literally. I try to represent the locations of what I consider either the boundary itself, or what I feel is evidence (monument) thereof. While I may have opinions about the evidence, or even the boundary location itself, I am allowed that by our State's statutory definition of land surveying. I really try to avoid having opinions concerning title or ownership. And I realize that surveyors may have a wide and deep knowledge of case law and statutes. But I try to avoid the practice of advising a client as to actions they may need to take. I've seen a few "busy body" surveyors get their tits in a wringer trying to orchestrate something either between owners or family members.
Jack Webb and Henry Morgan would be proud of me....Just the facts, m'am.
I have only read the article linked by Derek, so...
"... while lines of record title may coincide with the boundary lines, it is entirely possible ÛÒ due to exclusive use ÛÒ that the boundary line has shifted to another location which no longer corresponds with the lines of record title."
Can someone please explain (and provide authoritative sources if possible) the difference(s) between a "line of record title" and a "boundary line"
?? Is there a difference in performing the run-of-mill "boundary survey"?
James Fleming, post: 359483, member: 136 wrote: Pretty poorly written, to the point where I believe a quick reading leaves the reader with an opinion that the authors position is 180 degrees from where it actually is. Some of his other posts are pretty good, he just seems to go on the assumption that most surveyors are the "plot the deed, show possession, and let the chips fall where they may" variety. Perhaps that is his experience
http://www.boundarydisputelaw.com/surveys-depictions/
In one he makes the case that there is an area overlapping practice between lawyers & surveyors:
The important question to ask is this: Is it possible that there is some overlap between the practice of law and surveying?
Here in Washington state, Adverse Possession is considered a question of ÛÏmixed-fact and law.Û So, I for one believe that there is. I also recognize that my opinion doesnÛªt generally conform with current practice of either survey and law.
"I also recognize that my opinion doesnÛªt generally conform with current practice of either survey and law."
Too funny!!
Brian Allen, post: 359489, member: 1333 wrote: Can someone please explain (and provide authoritative sources if possible) the difference(s) between a "line of record title" and a "boundary line"
?? Is there a difference in performing the run-of-mill "boundary survey"?
Every adverse possession case is an example of the "line of record title" and "boundary line" being different.
daemonpi, post: 359499, member: 2214 wrote: Every adverse possession case is an example of the "line of record title" and "boundary line" being different.
Well, yea, kinda... But I am getting the impression from the article that his not talking exclusively about AP.
Adverse possession is the acquisition of possessed land that is beyond the established boundary of a parcel - a conveyance so to speak. When the court decides all the statutory requirements of AP has been met, the possessor acquires title to the adversely possessed parcel in question, above and beyond the title of the parcel he currently holds.
AP is not encountered in the "average" boundary survey.
[INDENT=1]"To the best of my knowledge there is no successful business model designed solely to identify problems. Certainly there are consultancies for businesses of all types to identify problems Û? but then they offer solutions to solve them.[/INDENT]
[INDENT=1]Contrastingly, residential surveyors uncover problems and often times instead of seeking to resolve these problems, they send the matter over to a litigator to solve it.[/INDENT]
[INDENT=1]That simply is not ideal!"[/INDENT]
[INDENT=1] [/INDENT]
I FULLY agree with this statement.
Developing a different approach will produce a better result, especially for our pocket books.
Brian Allen, post: 359489, member: 1333 wrote: I have only read the article linked by Derek, so...
"... while lines of record title may coincide with the boundary lines, it is entirely possible ÛÒ due to exclusive use ÛÒ that the boundary line has shifted to another location which no longer corresponds with the lines of record title."
Can someone please explain (and provide authoritative sources if possible) the difference(s) between a "line of record title" and a "boundary line"
?? Is there a difference in performing the run-of-mill "boundary survey"?
I can't speak for him, but I am often called out to stake the deed line, knowing full well, due to my knowledge, that the boundary is over there. There is not, in WA state (that I know of), any mechanism for me to place my stakes at the boundary rather than the deed line. IF I can find original, undisturbed monuments, I could hold those, but that is rarely the issue.
dmyhill, post: 359520, member: 1137 wrote: I can't speak for him, but I am often called out to stake the deed line, knowing full well, due to my knowledge, that the boundary is over there. There is not, in WA state (that I know of), any mechanism for me to place my stakes at the boundary rather than the deed line. IF I can find original, undisturbed monuments, I could hold those, but that is rarely the issue.
This is the problem...how do you know where the deed line is located?
Due to the widespread lack of filing surveys common report monuments are very common. So why is the common report monument that just happens to be at the section corner better than the common report monument at a 1/16th corner?
Here in California the Courts have pretty much tied both their hands behind their collective backs, they are relying on us to get it right because they generally don't know what to do. If both surveyors only survey a deed line, perhaps cutting off two feet from a 115 year old house, then that bad solution can get fixed by the court forever because they have no other good answer. 100 years ago they would wad up the surveys and toss them but they are no longer doing that. They need a boundary expert with an LS to explain the best answer to them whether that is the deed line (often is) or some other established line.
I like the blog post, it's a bit rough but he is absolutely right. A boundary issue is not a cloud on title, however, it's a conflict in evidence but let's assume the property owner has good title. So he is operating on the mistaken impression that title and location are synonymous but that is pretty widespread in the land surveying, legal, and title professions.
What is a record title line? There is no such thing. I've looked in a lot of primary and secondary sources and have never found it. There is a boundary, that is the only word that we should be using.
If the boundary has not been located then locate it, if the measurement controls, use it. If the boundary was originally established then show record vs. measured. If the boundary is located per one of the establishment doctrines then show record vs. measured. There is no sense in showing an imaginary record title line then punting it to the judge because here he will fumble it. If the boundary is set by adverse possession then I believe that is a second boundary...the owner has good title on the lands covered by their deed but not the land between the deed boundary (set by best available evidence) and the A.P. boundary. They either need a Q/C from the neighbor or a judicial decree to fix an A.P. boundary.
Outside of A.P., all the other rules fix the Deed boundary, e.g. the record title line. This is an issue of precision, precision is the lowest form of evidence. The boundary may not be where we expect to find it based on precision alone.
Dave Karoly, post: 359568, member: 94 wrote: This is the problem...how do you know where the deed line is located?
I think that is one of the minimal requirements for being a surveyor.
I am not sure what your question is.
Of course, I locate the boundary, but I only stake what the person owns by deed. Sometimes the measurements hold, sometimes the monuments, that isn't the issue.
What Dave is saying is that sometimes there is a validly established boundary on the ground, but no "survey" monuments. Could be that the survey monuments got removed over the years, or it may be that there were never any iron pipes, rebar, PK nails, or other objects we commonly recognize as something a surveyor would have set to mark a point. Perhaps there is a fence, a hedgerow, or houses on either side that were built about the time the line was created and appear to be 2x the minimum setback apart.
All too often, when a surveyor says "I located the deed line", what they mean is they accepted monuments if they were in place and if they were specifically called for in the client's deed, but otherwise measured the distances stated in the deed as precisely as they could.
If the boundary had been previously established, and courts will more often than not honor establishments made in good faith by the landowners, whether or not they employed a surveyor to do it for them, then the deed dimensions do not control, they merely lead one to the general location of the existing boundary.
When you say "I only stake what the person owns by deed", you are making a statement not only on the boundary location, but on the title of the land on each side of the line you mark. When you only allow deed dimensions and called for monuments into that consideration, but leave out established lines of occupation or other indications of lines established on the ground, you may or may not be locating the deed line. That line established on the ground a couple feet over from the line you mark may actually be "the deed line" even though it is not marked by monuments called for in the deed and does not precisely match your measurements of where the deed dimensions place the line (it may match the measurements made by whoever first placed the line on the ground perfectly but his 100' = your 99.3' or 101.2' or ...).
If you haven't fully investigated the other non-survey-monument indicators of the boundary location, you really don't know what best represents "the deed line", and you really don't know who owns what and by what type or quality of title.
If you are making statements about the disposition of title to land on both sides of the line you mark but haven't fully investigated the other physical indicators that exist, you are setting yourself up to take a financial hit and possibly a licensing complaint for negligence someday. I've known a couple of surveyors to regularly practice this way and then end up totally baffled when one of their surveys went to court and the judge ruled that they incorrectly identified the boundary. Rather than considering that perhaps they didn't properly understand the law and hadn't collected or considered enough facts about how an established line came to be on the ground, they concluded that the judge just didn't understand survey rules well enough to have made a good decision.
Under the circumstances, I can't fault the surveyors too much because almost all of the surveyors in that area practiced the same way - occupation doesn't match dimensions and there are no called for monuments - punt to the legal profession. Just because most everyone in the area does it, doesn't make it the correct thing to do.
Ok, I am not trying to start a war, but this is an important discussion, and I have questions...
eapls2708, post: 359763, member: 589 wrote: What Dave is saying is that sometimes there is a validly established boundary on the ground, but no "survey" monuments. Could be that the survey monuments got removed over the years, or it may be that there were never any iron pipes, rebar, PK nails, or other objects we commonly recognize as something a surveyor would have set to mark a point. Perhaps there is a fence, a hedgerow, or houses on either side that were built about the time the line was created and appear to be 2x the minimum setback apart.
I can obtain and offer evidence, and even expert advice concerning that evidence, but I know of nothing about my license or profession that allows me to determine the fence or hedgerow to be the boundary in fact. Perhaps I am ignorant of where that power comes from, if that is the case, I greatly appreciate any references to the applicable laws.
eapls2708, post: 359763, member: 589 wrote: All too often, when a surveyor says "I located the deed line", what they mean is they accepted monuments if they were in place and if they were specifically called for in the client's deed, but otherwise measured the distances stated in the deed as precisely as they could.
If the boundary had been previously established, and courts will more often than not honor establishments made in good faith by the landowners, whether or not they employed a surveyor to do it for them, then the deed dimensions do not control, they merely lead one to the general location of the existing boundary.
The key part there is "more often than not". It is the purview of the court, not the surveyor to determine the fact of the boundary. I do not own the property, nor do I have judicial power. I am not aware of any power that I have to grant anyone any land. In fact, that is the argument of the original OP's article. Surveyors should offer what they CAN do, which is a BLA, etc.
eapls2708, post: 359763, member: 589 wrote: When you say "I only stake what the person owns by deed", you are making a statement not only on the boundary location, but on the title of the land on each side of the line you mark. When you only allow deed dimensions and called for monuments into that consideration, but leave out established lines of occupation or other indications of lines established on the ground, you may or may not be locating the deed line. That line established on the ground a couple feet over from the line you mark may actually be "the deed line" even though it is not marked by monuments called for in the deed and does not precisely match your measurements of where the deed dimensions place the line (it may match the measurements made by whoever first placed the line on the ground perfectly but his 100' = your 99.3' or 101.2' or ...).
If you haven't fully investigated the other non-survey-monument indicators of the boundary location, you really don't know what best represents "the deed line", and you really don't know who owns what and by what type or quality of title.
Why wouldn't I fully investigate it? I hope everyone would. And in the end I place my marks where, in my professional opinion, they belong per the deed. The question is whether a deed is a mere suggestion, and we are to divine the real thoughts of the grantor?
The assumption is that the deed indicates what they intended (or it would be invalid or fraudulent.) If there are called out monuments, certainly they control, but then, they are part of the deed, aren't they? Perhaps you are assuming that I am looking for an easy way out? Or that I am advocating poor surveying. I am not. I am saying I have no power that I know of to grant land.
eapls2708, post: 359763, member: 589 wrote: If you are making statements about the disposition of title to land on both sides of the line you mark but haven't fully investigated the other physical indicators that exist, you are setting yourself up to take a financial hit and possibly a licensing complaint for negligence someday. I've known a couple of surveyors to regularly practice this way and then end up totally baffled when one of their surveys went to court and the judge ruled that they incorrectly identified the boundary. Rather than considering that perhaps they didn't properly understand the law and hadn't collected or considered enough facts about how an established line came to be on the ground, they concluded that the judge just didn't understand survey rules well enough to have made a good decision.
Are you advocating that I stake an AP line as the boundary prior to the bringing of any suit, much less the adjudication of the case?
I would rather not...do you do this?
And...
Why wouldn't you do the full work? I am curious what about my statement makes you think that there wouldn't be a full investigation?
eapls2708, post: 359763, member: 589 wrote: Under the circumstances, I can't fault the surveyors too much because almost all of the surveyors in that area practiced the same way - occupation doesn't match dimensions and there are no called for monuments - punt to the legal profession. Just because most everyone in the area does it, doesn't make it the correct thing to do.
It is the ONLY thing to do, perhaps. If I tell a person that their best option is a BLA, haven't I started giving legal advice? This guy is saying that the surveyor shouldn't say it is the best way, a BLA, but to confidently start off and offer it as a solution, rather than "punting" to the legal eagles. I think I agree with him. A profession of trouble makers is destined to be hated and to fail. We should be solution providers. But, advocating sticking your head in the sand as a solution (eg call the fence line the deed line, when there is no fact of it being the deed line) simply creates additional problems. We clean those up as well, BTW.
What would be best, for me to understand what you are talking about, is for you to post an actual factual survey that you did, where you applied those principles. I am guessing that we aren't too far off each other's view. (Just a link or recording number would work as well.)
dmyhill, post: 359884, member: 1137 wrote: Ok, I am not trying to start a war, but this is an important discussion, and I have questions...
I can obtain and offer evidence, and even expert advice concerning that evidence, but I know of nothing about my license or profession that allows me to determine the fence or hedgerow to be the boundary in fact. Perhaps I am ignorant of where that power comes from, if that is the case, I greatly appreciate any references to the applicable laws.
The key part there is "more often than not". It is the purview of the court, not the surveyor to determine the fact of the boundary. I do not own the property, nor do I have judicial power. I am not aware of any power that I have to grant anyone any land. In fact, that is the argument of the original OP's article. Surveyors should offer what they CAN do, which is a BLA, etc.
Why wouldn't I fully investigate it? I hope everyone would. And in the end I place my marks where, in my professional opinion, they belong per the deed. The question is whether a deed is a mere suggestion, and we are to divine the real thoughts of the grantor?
The assumption is that the deed indicates what they intended (or it would be invalid or fraudulent.) If there are called out monuments, certainly they control, but then, they are part of the deed, aren't they? Perhaps you are assuming that I am looking for an easy way out? Or that I am advocating poor surveying. I am not. I am saying I have no power that I know of to grant land.
Are you advocating that I stake an AP line as the boundary prior to the bringing of any suit, much less the adjudication of the case?
I would rather not...do you do this?And...
Why wouldn't you do the full work? I am curious what about my statement makes you think that there wouldn't be a full investigation?It is the ONLY thing to do, perhaps. If I tell a person that their best option is a BLA, haven't I started giving legal advice? This guy is saying that the surveyor shouldn't say it is the best way, a BLA, but to confidently start off and offer it as a solution, rather than "punting" to the legal eagles. I think I agree with him. A profession of trouble makers is destined to be hated and to fail. We should be solution providers. But, advocating sticking your head in the sand as a solution (eg call the fence line the deed line, when there is no fact of it being the deed line) simply creates additional problems. We clean those up as well, BTW.
What would be best, for me to understand what you are talking about, is for you to post an actual factual survey that you did, where you applied those principles. I am guessing that we aren't too far off each other's view. (Just a link or recording number would work as well.)
No one is advocating just declaring a fence the boundary.
What is being advocated is to determine the boundary of the Deed based on the best evidence available. The description is only one piece of, generally lower order, evidence.
Suggesting solutions is not giving legal advice. No one is suggesting representing your client's interests only which is within the practice of law.
A couple of examples, 20' wide Deed, 20' wide building, P.O.B. ties from recent block control misses the party wall by several inches. The Surveyor could've shown record vs measured and avoided expensive litigation all the way to the California Supreme Court. Young v. Blakeman and Price v. de Reyes.
1941...City Surveyor fits the block to the occupation, no one is encroaching, everyone is happy. Recent Survey shows 115 year old building encroaching 2' (clear on 1941 Survey). Court uncritically approves survey because parties did not challenge it. This mess could've been avoided by proper Surveying. Courts don't automatically know the correct answer, they need our advice. We need to understand the establishment doctrines (unwritten rights) so we can help get the correct answer. The Courts need our advice and guidance but give it to the property owners first, maybe litigation can be avoided. All of the legal doctrines need to be applied to the ground which is Land Surveying, not Lawyering.
This week, we are acquiring a portion of a 40. Owner is farming a triangle up to the fence on his west. The fence is 50' west on the north and slightly east on the south. Owner says fence was built when properties were in common ownership and they haven't gotten around to moving it yet. Given these facts the fence is not a boundary, the true boundary is the 1/16th line as monumented in the 1990s.
On the other hand if the neighbor is adamant about a fence being the established boundary I would be very careful, encourage the client to find an agreeable solution. It's possible the neighbor may be persuaded to give up their claim but not likely as soon as Attorney nasty-o-grams start flying back and forth poisoning the waters.
