This is the craziest bill ever. In Tennessee we are already required to let an adjoiner know if there is a discrepancy. This bill deletes that. Now it would require a certified letter be mailed to all adjoiners within 5 days of completing a boundary survey. So you sign a confidentiality agreement. What can you tell the land owner.
Ring Ring You surveyed the property next to me? Yes sir. What did you find? Sir I can't tell you? What's it for? A boundary that is all I can say. Who hired you? I can't say.?ÿ?ÿ
And this thing already passed the Senate
Is TN a mandatory recording state?
Every survey has discrepancies.
Some 10 or so years ago one of our legislators introduced a bill to require registration of machetes. Thank the wiser members of the General Court that one died in committee.
I was unable to find the actual text of the bill, but below is the caption from the link provided above.?ÿ From the sounds of that alone, it appears that notification must occur regardless of what is discovered.
Surveyors - As introduced, expands notice requirement for land surveyors conducting boundary surveys by requiring them to notify all adjoining landowners of the survey rather than just when the surveyor discovers or reasonably should have discovered discrepancies between the deed descriptions of the adjoining owners. - Amends TCA Title 62, Chapter 18, Part 1.
Just to the north in Kentucky, we're supposed to make a "reasonable" effort to notify.?ÿ Reasonable is sometimes too open of a concept.
I actually like the required notification, but think it would be better to happen before the survey is conducted in order to be in a better position to gather any helpful information from those adjoiners.
I was unable to find the actual text of the bill, but below is the caption from the link provided above.?ÿ From the sounds of that alone, it appears that notification must occur regardless of what is discovered.
Surveyors - As introduced, expands notice requirement for land surveyors conducting boundary surveys by requiring them to notify all adjoining landowners of the survey rather than just when the surveyor discovers or reasonably should have discovered discrepancies between the deed descriptions of the adjoining owners. - Amends TCA Title 62, Chapter 18, Part 1.
Here it is
SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 62-18-124(d), is amended by
deleting the subsection and substituting:
A licensed land surveyor conducting a boundary survey shall notify all adjoining
landowners that the boundary is being surveyed. Notice of the survey to such persons,
including nonresident and absentee landowners of the adjoining land, shall be sent by
certified mail to the current address used for mailing property tax notices within five (5)
business days of the completion of the survey.
SECTION 2. This act takes effect July 1, 2023, the public welfare requiring it
?ÿ
Looks like the average price for a boundary survey in TN is about to go up...
I mean, I understand the idea behind this.?ÿ But aren't there, better, ways to serve public notice to the landowners than this?
Is TN a mandatory recording state??ÿ If not, maybe that is a better way.
Every survey has discrepancies.
?ÿ
We fought this about 15 years ago.?ÿ Back then some surveyor staked a line across where the adjoining farmer thought the line should be, and didn't tell the farmer about it.?ÿ The farmer got mad and got the Farm Bureau to push legislation identical to this new legislation.?ÿ The surveyors neogiated with the Farm Bureau and the result was the "apparent major discrepancy" law, where the surveyor has to notify the adjoiner of an apparent major discrepancy between the line the surveyor comes up with, and the possession line, and/or deed line of the adjoiner.?ÿ
This new legislation was ignited by a surveyor doing exactly what the other surveyor did years ago, only this time he violated an existing state law by doing so.?ÿ In this situation, the farmer should have filed a complaint.?ÿ The tools exist for the surveyor to be punished, but we can't make the people use them.
?ÿ
...where the surveyor has to notify the adjoiner of an apparent major discrepancy...
?ÿ
Makes me wonder what the threshold is for "major discrepancy"?
The absolute last thing I want to do is send notice to a half dozen out-of-state landowners who are already wasting our local resources by letting the land go to waste while they show up five days per year to kill the trophy buck who has been living and eating off all the neighbors for the past 12 months.
What a joke.?ÿ As if anyone has time to speak with a dozen people after, hopefully, being paid for the survey.?ÿ My letter will consist of the text of the law, the PIN and in bold large text, the land owner's contact information.?ÿ I'll have to let clients know they'll be charged for any calls or emails forwarded to me though there's a fat chance they'd pay so I'll probably just price myself out of more work while lowballers just ignore the whole thing.
I do not accept certified mail and I'm sure I'm not the only one?ÿ ...so there's that
Flip side for some, this may be some good marketing in an area that you have already solved a part of the puzzle.
We've had to do something similar in Idaho for a few years now, mainly dealing with access rights.?ÿ We work on very large and sometimes very small projects.?ÿ I have sent out thousands of letters and received only a handful of calls.?ÿ It's not that much of an issue.
@jflamm No, Tennessee is not a mandatory recording state. Usually recording of surveys is only mandated by mortgage companies, title insurance companies, and regulatory commissions.
@wa-id-surveyor But what about costs to send out those letters. We are not talking about first-class usps mail here. The wording in the bill is certified. Thousands of certified letters becomes expensive.
...where the surveyor has to notify the adjoiner of an apparent major discrepancy...
?ÿ
Makes me wonder what the threshold is for "major discrepancy"?
?ÿ
Everyone has their own opinion, but you better hope yours is more strict than the board.
?ÿ