These bills may have the effect of curbing adverse possession/unwritten rights type claims, etc?
The idea that all surveys should be recorded is novel and still needs to be assessed in full considerations of the power it gives to Planners and Review Officers to continually raise rates and add more and more and more requirements to be met as a condition of approval.
Only subdivision plats are reviewed in recording states (or in my state anyway); random parcel surveys are recorded without review.
Anything that creates a new description is to be reviewed in my State.?ÿ Most go ahead and record every survey anyway so that we all have a level playing field and to avoid the tendency to pincushion simply because we have no idea someone has already been there before us.
@jon-payne I agree there is a little bit of disconnect between the legal idea if notice and the practice idea of notice. The practical effect of recording requirements on "secrete surveys" though is far from zero.
When a land owner discovers a new monument, or other survey activity on their boundaries in a recording state they can easily find the survey (at least they should be able to), in a non recording state they have to beg their neighbor (assuming the same neighbor still owns the property) or if they can figure out which surveyor to contact they can beg the surveyor. Who may or may not share their information and may only share their information if they are paid for the same work again.
@stephen-ward you have identified the opportunity for an intermediate step. Requiring counties to record surveys that are voluntarily submitted by surveyors.
This could have been avoided if Tennessee land surveyors didn't have the the self defeating idea that surveys shouldn't be recorded
I think you have this backwards, no one is saying that plats shouldn't be recorded. The resistance is to a new rule which must then be enforced. The idea that all surveys should be recorded is novel and still needs to be assessed in full considerations of the power it gives to Planners and Review Officers to continually raise rates and add more and more and more requirements to be met as a condition of approval.
I would only push for mandatory recording if the board of licensure for PLSs was solely in control of the criteria for what is considered a recordable plat. Even then it diminishes the a PLS by turning him into a quasi-administrator.
The term "secret survey" is just silly. Nothing ever prevents a person for paying a knowledgeable person for sharing their knowledge. While it may be true that within the PLSS an erroneous corner has the potential to harm more land owners than in the Colonial system, I still don't see this as a reason to preclude people from coveting knowledge of what my be their most valuable asset.
Requiring surveys to be recorded is just that. You are confusing two issues. A recording requiremnt gives planners and reviewers no authority at all. A minority of states that require recording also require reviews. I am not un favor of that at all.
A majority of states have very reasonable fees for recording surveys ($20 is a common number). The states with ridiculous fees usually aassociate the fees with a review, not the recording. If you are concerned with out of control country fees in TN the legislation could set a recording fee.
Two objections to your Secret Survey argument:
1. That "knowledge" generally disappears when the surveor dieshy.
2. Why should a land owner have to pay a surveyor for work that the surveyor already did that affects their own property? Requiring access the information for all interested parties increases the value of the surveyors produce for both the purchaser and the neighbors.
I don't understand the argument against sharing. Recording I get, especially with fees involved. Here we are required to file surveys with the County Surveyor's Office. No fees. In my county this has really turned out to be a cool and helpful thing. Now to file a survey you simply send a pdf to "Survey Submit" and its all done. Then it's placed in the mapping application "Plat Finder" a completely searchable app with color coding that shows any filed surveys that can be downloaded and saved/printed free. No need to go into any project blind anymore.
@aliquot The gold and political capital to make it happen are the issue.
To be clear, I am only talking about retracement surveys and not subdivisions.
Mandatory recording provides the impetus for future exploitation. The two issues are separate only in that one agencies enacts the recording requirement. Planners and reviewers have have more political power than surveyors, so it's best not to tempt them in the first place.
My main objection stems from my interpretation of the reasoning behind the fourth and fifth amendments and a deep appreciation for the right to privacy. I find it immoral to force a person to record an instrument that may cause them harm. I've heard the argument that a PLS in a recording state can wink and nod and simply hold onto the survey to give their client more time to deal with a given boundary issue. I view this as tacit acknowledgment of the perverse nature of denying a US Citizen the right to be secure in their persons, by which I mean the knowledge of their boundary location and any consequence thereof.
Most would still agree that it's better to let 10 criminals walk rather than send a single an innocent man to prison. I extend this line of thinking to someone trying to do the right thing by hiring a surveyor then having to share the unfavorable results with their well monied neighbor. Making someone pay for a professional opinion, then requiring them to share it, without compensation and no matter what the results, runs against the spirit of Bill of Rights. It also diminishes the trust that can be placed in the PLS.
I won't argue against mandatory recording being a net benefit to the majority, in terms of time and money. I just use different weights on my scale of justice.
I don't understand the argument against sharing. Recording I get, especially with fees involved. Here we are required to file surveys with the County Surveyor's Office. No fees. In my county this has really turned out to be a cool and helpful thing. Now to file a survey you simply send a pdf to "Survey Submit" and its all done. Then it's placed in the mapping application "Plat Finder" a completely searchable app with color coding that shows any filed surveys that can be downloaded and saved/printed free. No need to go into any project blind anymore.
I think we are talking about the same thing. The distinction between filing and recording only exists in some states. Many states' recording process for a survey is similar to what you describe for filing. The import thing is to create a permanent record available to the public. I don't advocate any kind of review of a surveors work for a survey that does not create or move any boundaries or any fee beyond a minimal fee to cover basic immediate costs (like the fee to record a deed).
Maybe I should start calling it mandatory filing.
The other argument I’ve heard against recording or filing is that it lowers the value of the proprietary interest of the surveyor whether they produced the work or purchased the records.
I hope I’ve never violated surveyor/client privilege by freely sharing information with other surveyors.
The Tennessee Association of Professional Surveyors had a group, me included, that spent yesterday on Capitol Hill meeting with legislators. I'd say that it's a very good sign that we couldn't find anyone that actually supports this bill, other than the House sponsor. The bill was put on notice yesterday afternoon, but I fully expect it to die in the committee.
We have also recently found out more background information. It appears that someone on the state Farm Bureau board, which is pushing the legislation, is upset that a surveyor "stole" 18 acres from him. He think the land was stolen from him because the survey of the adjoiner contradicts the tax map.
Thanks for the update.
