We were hired to do a survey for a client, their deed was from 1906 and was apart of a larger (5ish acre tract) that had been divided up between family from 1906-2023. There was a 1 acre tract, next to that was another 1 acre tract with a house on it and next to that was a 2.65 acre tract with a mobile home and barn on it. We were asked to survey the 2.65 acre tract. Now the property had not been surveyed since it was created in 1906. The appraisal district showed the seller owned 2.50 acres with the barn and mobile home on it. The deed was very confusing, I could not find any monuments and went off the called for creek and after I surveyed it I only came up with 2.1 acres and the mobile home and barn actually belonged to the neighbor who lived in the house next door, meaning the neighbor didnt actually own the home she had been living in for 25 years, the person who owned the 1 acre lot next to her actually owned her home and that 1 acre lot belongs to no one. (I know this sounds confusing)
I never mentioned any of this to the seller who hired me to do the survey and they bought the property believing they were buying the full 2.65 acres with the mobile home and barn. They later found out that they in fact did not own the property and when they called me I refused to help them so they went to their neighbors and their neighbors hired their own surveying company. Their survey company came back and said the property in questions (with the barn and mobile home) actually did belong to my client and not the neighbor. So the neighbors fired their survey company annd hired me to do the survey. I completed the survey for the neighbors.
Now my original client has hired a lawyer and is suing the neighbors and taking this to court.
Would this be a conflict of interest on my part? Should I have not surveyed the neighbors property? I dont remember much about the Surveying handbook and I dont have it anymore so I cant look it up, but are there any rules about conflict of interest and if so can you tell me which rule it is?
I'm curious how you came to the conclusion that there exists a 1 acre parcel that has no ownership? It seems odd that a surveyor would claim that a parcel of land in the United States has no owner.
I'm thinking that conflict of interest is the very least of your problems here. Nevertheless, it's not a conflict to survey adjoining properties, as long as everyone knows it and the costs are shared appropriately.
It is all but impossible for 25 years of occupation to end with a neighbor owning your house. An ambiguous deed and 120 year old creek location will almost certainly yield to the actions of the owners. Hopefully the chance to conform the record to a reasonable location agreed by the owners has not passed.
In this case everyone should stop surveying and start helping to solve the problem. If that's not your thing send them to someone with the right expertise.
... I never mentioned any of this to the seller who hired me to do the survey and they bought the property believing they were buying the full 2.65 acres with the mobile home and barn.
I'm not super experienced with this, but how is a survey performed, structures located and presumably a map created (?); and then the substance of the survey - such as where buildings are in relation to the boundaries / setbacks, easements/encumbrances shown or described, any 'possible' encroachments revealed and, in my view, differences in metes to the found/set monuments - not be disclosed to the paying client? Not accusing anyone, I just can't think of a reason that would be the case unless the surveying company didn't feel they could adequately defend their findings. Just wondering if this is at all common and in what scenario.
@wendell this smells like an absolute fishing expedition- pretty much the same post was posted at about the same time (except from the buyer's POV) on reddit, see here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Surveying/comments/1h850m8/conflict_of_interest/?captcha=1
After reading this thread and the Reddit thread linked above, it seems to me that the OP (LC) is out of his or her depth in this survey and now that lawyers are involved, can look forward to at least as much headache and heartache as the landowners have and are experiencing because of these survey results.
LC, you should have stopped your survey immediately when your methods showed the buildings being on properties adjacent to where they were supposed to be. In all reasonable likelihood, you relied on facts which either were faulty in their reporting (bad measurements in the deeds), or facts which have changed since the first cut out deed was recorded. A very likely source of error was in relying on the creek location. Did you premise your results on the creek where it lies now or did you make a reasonable attempt to determine where it was in 1906 (or 1929) when it was first referenced as a natural monument?
When you found a 1 acre supposed parcel that no one owns, you should have known that something was wrong in your results. If that parcel does not exist in the record, it cannot exist on the ground. Lacking any typical survey monumentation placed to mark these parcels when they were created, and absurd results of your survey, you should have reasonably known that simply pushing the deed geometry from whatever you accepted as controlling physical evidence was not going to bring you to the original locations of these boundaries.
As a retracing surveyor, your only function is to find the original locations of the boundaries. Since by no reasonable analysis would the original owners/occupants of these parcels purposely build improvements on neighboring lots, it is clear that you failed in your function as a retracement surveyor.
I'm sorry (partially) to be so direct and a$$holish about this, but we are licensed to protect the public from needless dispute. This appears to be the type of case that becomes the basis of one of Jeff Lucas' articles. Pressing on and applying inappropriate methodology to provide results which cannot stand in court (particularly if it goes to appeal) is an indication of incompetence. If the opposing side has counsel competent in this area of law, hires a better experienced surveyor as expert, and both that lawyer and surveyor are reasonably eloquent in presenting the case, they are going to be able to clearly show the problems with your survey and the whole dispute is going to get pinned on you.
My advice would be to get your own attorney involved ASAP with the goal of trying to undo what you've already done by hiring a surveyor who does know how to approach a boundary puzzle like this. The solution probably will be a boundary line agreement. With an acre of mystery ownership (in reality, what is really part of the other existing record parcels), a proposed solution that benefits all actual landowners involved is likely possible. If you offer to cover the survey by one competent to do it and facilitate a BLA, and the associated costs of recording, etc., you may get out of this without censure from the Board for negligence or incompetence.
To all surveyors who find themselves in what at first seemed like a "simple" project that turned into a convoluted mess beyond your training, experience and comfort. there is no shame in asking a more experienced surveyor for help. It may cost you in that you will need to pay for that help. Either asking for help or backing out of the project and referring your client to a more experienced LS is not an admission of incompetence on your part, but a show of professional integrity.
Again, sorry to come across as a jerk, but better to take the lesson on an internet forum from surveyors than in court and by Board action resulting in a loss or suspension of license.
@eapls2708 I wouldn't worry too much about coming across as a jerk. The original poster registered for the site Dec. 3 and was last logged on Dec. 6. I doubt s/he will read your post and be offended. Even so, my impression from the posted dilemma is that the OP is not an actual registered surveyor, but either a layman or an unregistered hack.