Hi,
In the State of California suppose Property Owner A and an adjoining land owner (Property Owner B) have questions on where their property boundaries are located.
Property Owner A hires land surveyor XYZ to provide a survey (boundary survey and corner record) for their property.?ÿ I believe that survey gets filed with the County Recorder & then becomes public record.?ÿ Since land surveyor XYZ?ÿ just performed a survey in the vicinity, Property Owner B then contacts land surveyor XYZ & wants a survey of their property.
In the State of California are there any Code of Ethics or professional restrictions (ie, conflicts of interest, etc.) for land surveyors that would prevent land surveyor XYZ from then performing a separate land survey for Property Owner B given that Property Owner A & Property Owner B have questions on where their property boundaries are located?
It doesn't say you can't work for each of the individuals, but you are required to give them written notice.?ÿ See below.
California Code of Regulations, Section 476(b)(1):?ÿ Conflict of Interest: If a licensee provides professional services for two or more clients on a project or related projects, the licensee shall disclose in writing to those clients and property owners or their authorized representatives his or her relationship to those clients.
Ethically, it would be prudent to let your original client know and make certain a future litigation regarding the boundary or unwritten rights is not pending.?ÿ I would want to give them the option to retain you as an expert and to preclude you from working for the other side.?ÿ I'd make it a non-refundable retainer.
?ÿ
Mr. Stevens
I am curious how you (a surveyor) can be an "expert" for one of your clients against another of your clients both of whom you performed surveys for and also they being adjoining properties.
Thanks to all for your input.
In California can a property owner hire a land surveyor and have a clause included in their contract that the land surveyor can not work for adjoining property owners for a specified period of time??ÿ Does this ever happen?
Would that type of provision in a contract be acceptable to most surveyors??ÿ
Each and every surveyor is ethically bound to survey any property and decide upon monument locations that are correct in placement for all adjoining properties.
I would never sign a binding agreement that I could not survey the neighbor's properties without being compensated for an amount of the cost of surveying the neighbor's properties.
Exclusive rights come with expensive price tags.
0.02
What am I missing? How could there be a conflict? When it comes to boundaries surveyors are not advocates for their clients. A boundary survey reflects a professional opinion of where the boundary is. If XYZ surveyed property A the line between A and B has been surveyed. If there is a conflict, property owner B already knows what XYZ's opinion is. XYZ would likely be a good person to hire to determine B's other boundaries because XYZ already has knowledge of the area and has already surveyed at least one of B's lines.?ÿ
?ÿ ?ÿ
Had a similar situation first year in business (1996).?ÿ Did B with their full knowledge I had just done A, and despite my advice that he may want a second opinion rather than mine.?ÿ It was a mistake.?ÿ B turned out to be an attorney specializing in litigation.?ÿ Called once a week for months with different theories trying to change my mind about the boundary, then hired an attorney specializing in real property who proceeded to do the same for another few months.?ÿ Finally told him I was sending back the fee and he needed to stop calling.?ÿ Both attorneys called and said I did an excellent job and don't send the fee back; they were finally convinced.?ÿ But, it wasn't worth the time, unless I figure in the experience at cross examination I received via phone and letters.?ÿ They were good too; convinced me my name was Bob for a few days before I came back around. Ethical question: should one surveyor do this to another even though it's themselves?
I agree with A Harris.?ÿ As a Land Surveyor our responsibility is to determine the correct location of the line or corner, to the best of our ability, no matter who pays the bill.?ÿ I've had clients that got MAD at me because what I determined to be the corner was not where they wanted it to be.?ÿ I've also had clients pull up a corner that I had set because they disagreed with the location.?ÿ If the adjoiner wanted me to reset that corner, and was willing to pay, I'd reset it in a heartbeat.
Andy
It seems to me that if A and B have a disagreement on where the line is, then one (or both) of them aren't going to be happy with your survey. This opens up a lot of potential scenarios based on where they each think the line is vs. where you establish it to be.
?ÿ
It seems to me that if A and B have a disagreement on where the line is, then one (or both) of them aren't going to be happy with your survey. This opens up a lot of potential scenarios based on where they each think the line is vs. where you establish it to be.
In a lot of your surveys the client won't like your results.?ÿ That's the nature of it.?ÿ In this case you are assured that one will be unhappy.
I've never been an expert for a neighbor of a survey I have completed. I have always been retained by my first client if litigation was be pending.
However, it could certainly happen if the current client wanted to litigate a boundary or easement location. Who else is going to educate the attorney.
In my state, you can not be an expert witness if it is your work being questioned.
A third party surveyor would have to be called in.
Thanks to all for your input.
In California can a property owner hire a land surveyor and have a clause included in their contract that the land surveyor can not work for adjoining property owners for a specified period of time??ÿ Does this ever happen?
Would that type of provision in a contract be acceptable to most surveyors??ÿ
Why would you want a clause like that. If you are happy with your survey you should want the surveyor to survey B's land. That way you would be assured that B would be told the same thing you were.?ÿ
?ÿ
If B wants to hire the same surveyor that A used, then B is tacitly accepting the boundary opined by the surveyor for A, and the contract might even state that particular line to be accepted by B "as if it has now entered repose," and thus not subject to any change or liability.
No surveyor in their right mind would sign a contract like that; doing so would give the impression that they're biased.
