One piece of simple advice. If you are not comfortable with a question, rephrase it, and answer it.
Do NOT answer any question, until you think about it for about 10 seconds. NO MATTER WHAT.
This gives MORE credibility to your testimony, because the judge will see that you are exercising care. And, it gives you time to give better answers.
Gimme a call. I can tell you a funny story.
Nate
> Hourly at normal rate for preparation and double normal rate with half day minimum for court days whether called or not.
I've briefly considered charging at a higher rate for appearances in court and at depositions, but finally decided that it works better to bill it all at the same rate. It's one of the few times that a client gets to actually see a surveyor at work and (assuming a good outcome) I'd rather they thought that this was the sort of effort that their money bought throughout the project, i.e. it is just more of the same instead of some extraordinary effort. If you offer rates that suggest different levels of effort, doesn't that by implication devalue the one that filled up the invoices for services that probably constitute the majority of your fee?
> Q - did the alleged occupation appear to be in the nature of an neighborly accommodation?
>
> A - I couldn't really tell, I leave that to the court
>
> Q - did the alleged occupation appear to be completely depriving the one owner from any use of the area in question?
>
> A - I couldn't really tell, I leave that to the court
> ...
> Yes, it's all about busting up your credibility and introducing BS in order to make the judge guess the appropriate outcome rather than listen to the expert.
Duane raises a couple of perfectly glaring questions and typical responses designed, on cross examination, to "bust up your credibility." That's the job of the opposing attorney. If s/he does a good job, you can look pretty foolish if you're not prepared or if you don't know answers to simple questions.
Why wouldn't a surveyor know these answers? If the surveyor's duty is to locate the boundary, and the boundary being argued is to be determined by answering these questions, shouldn't the surveyor have already asked and answered those questions in order to determine the boundary?
The courts have consistently "declared that the doctrine of boundary by acquiescence 'rests upon sound public policy, with a view of preventing strife and litigation concerning boundaries'". How can the doctrines "prevent strife and litigation" if surveyors don't apply the legal principles when deriving the boundary location? I guess that would just be another hard question for the cross examination.
Seems that Charles Shultz had the public view of surveyors when it comes to the tough questions.
JBS
I would admit that a surveyor is allowed to offer opinions and would be able to answer those questions in better fashion; I would resist the temptation to transfer title via my boundary survey. I can’t believe that vigilante surveying being the better road to take than a man’s right to his day in court.
Really? Porking your clients in their time of need is “…an excellent opportunity to break the mold…”
When my clients need me in court I don’t charge a dime. I let them know I stand behind my service. In depositions its fun to see the expression of the opposing attorney when he asks how much I am being compensated for my testimony. Others however would say I am charging what my testimony is worth. In either case, the clients I have been in litigation with are my most loyal.
> Really? Porking your clients in their time of need is “…an excellent opportunity to break the mold…”
>
> When my clients need me in court I don’t charge a dime. I let them know I stand behind my service. In depositions its fun to see the expression of the opposing attorney when he asks how much I am being compensated for my testimony. Others however would say I am charging what my testimony is worth. In either case, the clients I have been in litigation with are my most loyal.
I don't recall saying anything about taking advantage of clients. Quite the opposite. I want my clients to get good value from my services.
Note here that I am talking about situations where prospective clients contact me knowing that their situation may well end up in court. I am not talking about a situation where years later someone comes after one of my clients because of my original work. (So far I am lucky to say that has never happened.)
Also note that when I say "break the mold" I mean change your usual procedures. I would think lots of surveyors would see that as not only a good thing; but, a necessary thing. The usual procedures have gotten us where we are today. How many folks think they are doing very well and their future looks really bright? Now balance that against all the folks who are struggling and who wonder about their future. Seems to me the usual procedures are a big part of the mess many find themselves in today.
When what you are doing isn't getting you where you want to go, maybe it's time to change what you are doing.
Larry P
> I would admit that a surveyor is allowed to offer opinions and would be able to answer those questions in better fashion; I would resist the temptation to transfer title via my boundary survey. I can’t believe that vigilante surveying being the better road to take than a man’s right to his day in court.
Gene, The legal process for the establishment of boundary locations don't "transfer title" to property. That common misunderstanding that surveyors have had for decades has interfered with our application of the legal principles which are designed to "prevent litigation." When a man hires a surveyor, the surveyor's decision is "his day in court." When we fail to properly apply the legal principles which establish his boundary, that's when he fails to get his "day in court."
JBS
If you look you will see that the "world famous county surveyor" (aka snoopy) is calling for N91ºW. Maybe that is some of the essence of this discrepency. One might want to see if using N89ºW or S89ºW would prove more harmonious to the apparent political boundaries and other evidences in the field.
But I digress.
“When a man hires a surveyor, the surveyor's decision is "his day in court."
I’m sorry JB, other than some threads on surveyors’ discussion board, that concept is foreign to me. It goes against all I have been taught or studied. You are never going to get me to agree that I have special powers and/or knowledge of the history of title to any property other than my own.
Any fool can see what he owns; he hires me to show him what he should own.
> You are never going to get me to agree that I have special powers and/or knowledge of the history of title to any property other than my own.
>
It doesn't take any "special powers" or "knowledge" other than what the surveyors already possess to determine the location of a boundary between two parcels. We all have what it takes and we do it well the vast majority of the time. We're quite comfortable with making decisions applying the rules of construction for deeds (monuments control over course and distance) or the apportionment rule (simultaneous conveyances) or jr/sr rights (first in time; first in right) laws that govern our placement of a boundary. Each one of those laws, applied by the surveyor to determine a boundary location, amounts to the landowner's "day in court." The surveyor's visitation is rarely challenged, so the only decision they ever get is the decision the surveyor makes. Only when one (or both) of the owners don't agree with the survey do they challenge the surveyor's decision in court and get their "second opinion." Sometimes they don't like that one either and challenge it to the appellate or supreme court and get a "majority opinion."
What confuses our thinking as surveyors is the teaching we've all received that believes the determination of a boundary location somehow requires that we determine "title" to property. That power, we don't have.
> Any fool can see what he owns; he hires me to show him what he should own.
>
Sounds to me like the fool would either be 1) pissed off because he doesn't own what he "should" own, or 2) his neighbor will be pissed off at him for claiming to own something that he doesn't own. Pretty well guarantees that half of the general public will be pissed off at the surveyors, no matter what. Seems like it's more likely closer to 80% in reality. ;o)
JBS
> You are never going to get me to agree that I have special powers and/or knowledge of the history of title to any property other than my own.
>
> Any fool can see what he owns; he hires me to show him what he should own.
Hmmm. It's that special knowledge that is the reason we are licensed. It's our job to apply that knowledge to discern the history and title of the property we are hired to survey. Based on the best available physical, documentary, and other evidence, and in light of current law as interpreted for us by the courts, we are hired and licensed to express our opinion of where the boundary exists at the time we survey it.
Any fool can see what he thinks he owns, unless he's not sure what he owns, or unless his neighbor has a different idea of who owns what. That's usually when the surveyor is called.
Any fool of a mathmagician can stake out a geometric figure described by dimensions recited in a deed or on an older map. It takes a competent surveyor to look at all of the available evidence and discern how it affects the interpretation of the description or possibly represents title in contradiction to the written description.
"it is just more of the same instead of some extraordinary effort. If you offer rates that suggest different levels of effort, doesn't that by implication devalue the one that filled up the invoices for services that probably constitute the majority of your fee?"
Kent, probably because you are good at it, you devalue the effort and knowledge it takes to successfully testify in a court proceeding.
It's one thing to be right, and to put your conclusions on paper via map or report. It is quite another to convince a Judge or Jury you are right, in the face of conflicting expert opinions and adversarial attacks on your own opinion.
It is not enough to be right. I have talked with many surveyors who lost in court when they were in fact correct in their opinion. I have read many cases that illustrate the same. An attorney is necessary but it is the surveyor who will win or lose the case.
So yes, the value of court appearance and testimony is generally regarded as much higher than previous preparation and professional services, and I agree with that value structure. I charge double because that's what Attorneys generally do and so they are comfortable with it and it bolsters their own fee structure justification.
The other side of it is that these elevated costs for litigation can sometimes work to convince a reasonable pre-trial settlement. Although I don't see that happen much.
I also know surveyors who don't charge at all for testimony. They basically use the theory you posted, with the feeling that it's their duty to defend all that valuable previous work. I've noticed they are generally worth the fee.
EDIT - Gene I didn't see your post below. My comment was not directed at you. I'm sure you do a good job whether you charge for it or not.
Yes, the attorneys are not blind to that either.
Q - so you're an expert on boundaries huh?
A - yepper
Q - what if I told you the deed reference on your map is incorrect? the parcel was transfered to the son one week before the date of your map? how does that change your opinion? who has title?
A (bad) - any utterance including the word title
A (good) - the deed reference indicates that which was listed per the county records at the time of my research. I used the description contained therein, along with the descriptions in all the previous deeds to the parcel, back to its creation. My opinion of the lines are in part derived from those descriptions. Subsequent transfers are limited by these original parcel lines.
Q - you didn't answere the question, who has title?
A - I don't determine title, I determine limits of it. Whoever has title owns to the line shown on my map.
Q - you a*&6hole
J - order in the court
Perhaps a fool can see what he owns but doesn't know why he owns it. The surveyor often shows him what he owns or if he already knows what he owns the surveyor explains why.
If a landowner shows me the tagged record monument at his property corner (not uncommon) then do I have to disregard it because eveyone knows Surveyors have to come up with a different answer from the property owners or they won't need us. Does this make sense at all? No of course not but this is the reasoning we see over and over again. It can't be the fence because then what does the property owner need me for? It is what it is, I say.
> So yes, the value of court appearance and testimony is generally regarded as much higher than previous preparation and professional services, and I agree with that value structure. I charge double because that's what Attorneys generally do and so they are comfortable with it and it bolsters their own fee structure justification.
Well, I'll keep that in mind, but I'm not going to lose sight of the fact that the pre-trial preparation is ordinarily by far the bulk of the work. That is where the money is. The odd half-day in court or depositions is usually more of a line item to the effort if you've done what is really needed to prepare. Collecting my usual rate for the time that it consumes from the day is fair enough as far as I'm concerned.
I'd never donate my time, of course. Clients only value what they pay well for.
