In PLSSia the section lines and aliquot lines set out by the land surveyor MUST be such that anyone else dependent on that line can rely upon it fully. What the client might prefer is irrelevant.
The same should hold true in platted subdivisions. Surveying one lot should produce a result no different from that obtained by surveying abutting lots.
We all, as land surveyors, must be able to find existing monumentation with which we can agree.
BOUNDARY LINES SHOWN AND CORNERS SET REPRESENT DEED LOCATIONS; OWNERSHIP LINES MAY VARY. NO GUARANTEE OF OWNERSHIP IS EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED.
I wonder if the client is aware when he hires this person that no guarantee of ownership is going to be implied by the stakes that will be set around his property.
Well, I don't make any claims with respect to title. Whether or not someone has a particular right to something falls under title law, not boundary law.
But I do survey boundaries. Not deeds. The verbiage in that disclaimer makes it sound an awful lot like someone is just slapping the math on the ground. While that might not actually be the case, it's poorly worded.
In PLSSia the section lines and aliquot lines set out by the land surveyor MUST be such that anyone else dependent on that line can rely upon it fully. What the client might prefer is irrelevant.
Amen. I'd argue that holds true for all surveyed boundaries, even outside of PLSS states. No use in hiring surveyors if their work cannot be relied upon.
@hi-staker losing land or gaining land has nothing to do with it. We don't alter title lines. If I have completed a survey and certified it to my client, then my client transfers title to the same property, both parties are put on notice that my liability does not extend to the new holder of title and they have no right to rely on it.
Surveys on file are reference materials. If they were good for anything else there would be no need to resurvey properties.
@rover83 protection of the public and loyalty to a client are the same thing. Being loyal to the client does not change the results of the survey and therefor does not impede the safety of the public.
A much more effective disclaimer (than that recited in the OP) would be something like this:
This survey was made for Mr. Bob Jones for the purpose of supporting the construction of boundary fences. Use by other persons for other purposes is not contemplated.
This would (probably) limit the surveyors liability when someone relies on his survey to construct some $50million facility up to the line. But we cannot disclaim our professional obligations. Just state the facts.
My point is that if you are performing the duties of your license to the best of your ability, that work should stand alone and no disclaimer should be needed.
Why shouldn't your survey be used by others? If you're the first surveyor to completely break down a section, shouldn't all current and future landowners be able to rely on that breakdown? Shouldn't surveyors that come after you be able to rely on that same breakdown?
Disclaimers that state that no other person or entity can use the information on the survey are nothing but a crutch for those that do a less than thorough job.
None of us survey in a vacuum. Every boundary has adjoiners. Every site plan has adjoiners. Every easement affects more than one piece of property.
That's my opinion, and everyone knows what they say about opinions ....
... work should stand alone and no disclaimer should be needed...
True, but mistakes happen. If you do a little job for a homeowner to build a fence should you be held liable for millions in damages when, ten years down the road, the homeowner's neighbor sells to a developer who constructs a multi-million dollar facility? The fact is that the proper professional standard of care is different when the property is urban or rural, when the property is valued by the acre or by the square foot, and if the job is a pasture fence or a zero-clearance hi-rise.
I saw a disclaimer once, a long time ago, that eluded to the fact that the surveyor's liability only extended as far as the cost of the survey, or something to that effect...
you only get what you paid for, I guess...
If I have completed a survey and certified it to my client, then my client transfers title to the same property, both parties are put on notice that my liability does not extend to the new holder of title and they have no right to rely on it.
Do you know of a case where this kind of disclaimer has successfully protected the surveyor from liability? To what extent can they not rely upon the survey? If pins were set can they not rely on the pins after the property changes hands? That doesn’t make much sense
While that might not actually be the case
It is. But at least this surveyor makes it clear on his plats that is what he is doing
the fact that the surveyor's liability only extended as far as the cost of the survey
That would be a legal opinion offered by a person unqualified to offer legal opinions of that sort. The act of writing the disclaimer does not limit the surveyors liability. The circumstances of the case may.
a fool and his money are soon parted
@norman-oklahoma I remember a case in Arizona a few years ago where the contract limited the liabilitiy to the cost of the engineering design, and it was upheld.
I remember a case in Arizona a few years ago where the contract limited the liabilitiy to the cost of the engineering design, and it was upheld.
The contract would be the place to attempt to limit liability, not a post hoc statement on the deliverable.
Many surveys are filed and the grantee is the
Wait for it
the
PUBLIC
ALTA's are a weird, strange, odd subset of surveying, it's not valid to thrust that process onto other types of surveying.
You can't "certify" only to the client when you file a Subdivision, ROS, CR COS, well plat, water right, ect.
Like it or not, those are PUBLIC documents.
The secret lil process that is an ALTA is a standalone thing.
You can't disclaim liability on your surveys. Your state laws regarding discovery and repose will not be changed by whatever you want to write on the map. It just makes you look unprofessional.
If you are sued, the plaintiff's attorney needs to show the client had a right to depend on your survey. If you certify it to that client the attorney can skip that step. Otherwise I don't think the certification changes anything.
So the issue here is whether the disclaimer prevents them from showing they had a right to depend on the survey.
The disclaimer would appear to make it harder for them, particularly in a case where the topo was wrong or became invalid due to later physical changes.
But statutes and board rules may still make the disclaimer invalid regarding boundaries.
The fact that we as a profession are expected to certify our work makes us appear unprofessional. Not to mention it is often required by boards made up of our peers.
I have a Professional license and am bound to comply with state laws and board rules and regulations and that should be enough.
Why shouldn't your survey be used by others? If you're the first surveyor to completely break down a section, shouldn't all current and future landowners be able to rely on that breakdown? Shouldn't surveyors that come after you be able to rely on that same breakdown?
I think the issue is more about topographic surveys, I would think.
The part about intended use will hold some water, the part about limiting your liability to your immediate client may not.
Regardless of who you certify to and try to limit it to, you will have liability to anyone who reasonably should be able to rely on it. That will typically include future grantees, tenants, and certain agents of your client, as long as other conditions have not changed and they are using it in accordance with the originally intended use.
Federal and many, if not most state courts have tossed the requirement for a contractual relationship in favor of reasonable reliance standard many years ago.
Btw one of the surveyors I spotted using that also uses this:
BOUNDARY LINES SHOWN AND CORNERS SET REPRESENT DEED LOCATIONS; OWNERSHIP LINES MAY VARY. NO GUARANTEE OF OWNERSHIP IS EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED.
I wonder if the client is aware when he hires this person that no guarantee of ownership is going to be implied by the stakes that will be set around his property.
That is a useless geometric exercise and certainly not a boundary survey. To tie in with another thread I was just reading, this is part of what keeps surveyor wages lower than they should be: lack of professional training and lack of understanding of what professional service is.