Land vs. Property
> A surveyor who certifies that a map truly and correctly represents a "property" while omitting the easements and other servitudes to which the property is subject has in effect offered the professional opinion that no such easements or servitudes exist.
I'm sure you have a source for this assertion?
By the way, land IS property
Blacks Law, 4th edition: Here are some interesting snippets found under "LAND".
"In its more limited sense, "land" denotes the quantity and character of the interest or estate which the tenant may own in land. Holmes v. U. S., C.C.A.Okl., 53 F.2d 960, 963. "Land" may include any estate or interest in lands, either legal or equitable, easements, incorporeal hereditaments. Reynard v. City of Caldwell, 55 Idaho 342, 42 P.2d 292, 297; Jones v. Magruder, D.C.Md., 42 F.Supp. 193, 198; Lynch v. Cunningham, 131 Cal. App. 164, 21 P.2d 154; Petition of Burnquist, 220 Minn. 48, 19 N.W.2d 394, 401; Cuff v. Koslosky, 165 Okl. 135, 25 P.2d 290."
"Technically land signifies everything which may be holden; and the term is defined as comprehending all things of a permanent and substantial nature, and even of an unsubstantial, provided they be permanent. Reynard v. City of Caldwell, 55 Idaho 342, 42 P.2d 292, 296."
""Land" includes not only the soil or earth, but also things of a permanent nature affixed thereto or found therein, whether by nature, as water, trees, grass, herbage, other natural or perennial products, growing crops or trees, mineral under the surface, or by the hand of man, as buildings, fixtures, fences, bridges, as well as works constructed for use of water, such as dikes, canals, etc. Reynard v. City of Caldwell, 55 Idaho 342, 42 P.2d 292, 296; City of Newport News v. Warwick County, 159 Va. 571, 166 S.E. 570, 580; Morris Plan Bank of Fort Worth v. Ogden, Tex.Civ.App., 144 S.W.2d 998, 1002; 2 Bl.Comm. 16, 17; Sox v. Miracle, 35 N.D. 458, 160 N.W. 716, 719; Wynn v. Margate City, 9 N.J.Misc. 1324, 157 A. 565, 566. It embraces not only the surface of the earth, but everything under or over it. Gas Products Co. v. Rankin, 63 Mont. 372, 207 P. 993, 997, 24 A.L.R. 294; Garnsey Coal Co. v. Mudd, C.C.A.Ala., 281 F. 183, 184; Jones v. Vermont Asbestos Corporation, 108 Vt. 79. 182 A. 291, 303; Holloway's Unknown Heirs v. Whatley, Tex.Civ.App., 104 S.W.2d 646, 648. It has in its legal signification an indefinite extent upward and downward. Reynard v. City of Caldwell, 55 Idaho 342, 42 P.2d 292, 296; Bituminous Casualty Corporation v. Walsh & Wells, Mo.App., 170 S.W.2d 117, 121. It may include a franchise connected with land. Delaney v. Lowery, 25 Ca1.2d 561, 154 P.2d 674, 679."
[sarcasm]OOPS. I guess we better come up with something other than land huh?[/sarcasm]
Land vs. Property
> > A surveyor who certifies that a map truly and correctly represents a "property" while omitting the easements and other servitudes to which the property is subject has in effect offered the professional opinion that no such easements or servitudes exist.
>
> I'm sure you have a source for this assertion?
Had you bothered to examine the definition of property in the sense of real property, you would have found that Black's Law Dictionary (5th Ed.) defines "real property" as :
>Land, and generally whatever is erected or growing upon or affixed to land. Also rights issuing out of, annexed to, and exercisable within or about land.
> BA: By the way, land IS property.
Actually, (again per Black's)
>In the most general sense, [the word land] comprehends any ground, soil, or earth whatsoever; including fields, meadows, pastures, woods, moores, waters, marshes, and rock.
It does appear that in Idaho law there is some failure to distinguish between the land itself and the tenements and hereditaments attached to it. Black's notes that in Idaho the word "land" is synonymous with "property", so since you're in Idaho I can see how you might not make any distinction yourself.
Land vs. Property
> Had you bothered to examine the definition of property in the sense of real property, you would have found that Black's Law Dictionary (5th Ed.) defines "real property" as :
>
> >Land, and generally whatever is erected or growing upon or affixed to land. Also rights issuing out of, annexed to, and exercisable within or about land.
>
Doesn't that last sentence include easements and other rights??
Hmmm. It would seem you have just re-enforced my position.
Actually, I did look at the definition of property, wherein I found what you did: "Land, and generally whatever is erected or growing..."
That is one of the reasons I focused on "land". Also I found this: "a general term for lands, tenements, and hereditaments..."; property which, on the death of the owner intestate, passes to his heir. Ralston Steel Car Co. v. Ralston, 112 Ohio St. 306, 147 N.E. 513, 516, 39 A.L.R. 334.
So, by your own statements, apparently by using the word land you are also insuring any estate or interest in land, etc., just as if you used the word "property". I'd rethink that line of "logic" if I was worried about that. Land is property.
> It does appear that in Idaho law there is some failure to distinguish between the land itself and the tenements and hereditaments attached to it. Black's notes that in Idaho the word "land" is synonymous with "property", so since you're in Idaho I can see how you might not make any distinction yourself.
You need to re-read what has already been posted. Also, the references quoted are from jurisdictions other than just Idaho. I'm still waiting for a Texas source in which "land" definitively does not include more than just the dirt, rocks, mesquite, and armadillo carcasses.
Land vs. Property
> > Had you bothered to examine the definition of property in the sense of real property, you would have found that Black's Law Dictionary (5th Ed.) defines "real property" as :
> >
> > >Land, and generally whatever is erected or growing upon or affixed to land. Also rights issuing out of, annexed to, and exercisable within or about land.
> >
> Doesn't that last sentence include easements and other rights??
> Hmmm. It would seem you have just re-enforced my position.
Uh, that is exactly the reason why a surveyor would not want to describe the subject of a survey which is essentially a survey of the boundaries of a tract of land as a surveyor of "property" unless he or she is undertaking to represent all of the easements and other matters to which the "property" is subject.
> So, by your own statements, apparently by using the word land you are also insuring any estate or interest in land, etc., just as if you used the word "property".
Hardly. Everywhere other than apparently Idaho, the common distinctions between land, improvements, appurtenances, and servitudes is fairly obvious. In Idaho, you may feel comfortable describing a tract as containing 45.36 acres of property, but in Texas that would standardly be 45.36 acres of land.
Likewise, in Idaho, you may label what in Texas is known as a "post and barbed wire fence" as a "post and barbed wire property" (since it is affixed to the soil, but I don't think you should expect much company.
I take it that it is standard practice in Idaho to label all improvements affixed to the soil as "property", including what in Texas would be labeled in a way to describe the thing.
The obvious point remains that where "property" as generally used has an all-embracing meaning when applied to land and "land" actually does not (vide Black's), then it is usually a misrepresentation to describe what is merely a land boundary survey as a "property survey". If one considers the whole question from just the standpoint of the customary meanings of words, instead of their legal and technical senses, I think that the point holds as well or better.
Bull-oney or more urban legends in surveying
I just say SHOWING A BOUNDARY SURVEY OF X.XX ACRES IN THE SOMETHING SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. XX, CHEROKEE COUNTY, TEXAS, AND BEING THE SAME TRACT/PART OF THAT TRACT CALLED X.XX ACRES FROM SOMEONE TO SOMEONE ON SOME DAY AND RECORDED IN VOLUME SOMETHING, PAGE SOMETHING OF THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF CHEROKEE COUNTY, TEXAS. Then in the notes I say that Surveyor did not abstract tracts for easements or ownership. This is on the plat. I also say see written description.
That said, I don't care if you say see field note description, see legal description prepared of even date or whatever. You have to note the multiple parts thereof and I don't see where I'm taking liability by have a thesaurus to choose words from, regardless of what I'm used to typing.
Land vs. Property
As expected you have obfuscated the issue.
You have quite clearly said using the word “property” instead of “land” in the preparation of the maps and descriptions in conjunction with performing a boundary survey means that the surveyor is “warranting the title to that estate”, insuring “real property estates”, and/or “offering some assurances as to the existence and nature of the property estate that the deed purported to convey”.
Further you have stated “In particular, since "property" implies the whole bundle of sticks, rights and servitudes, if you certify a map of a "property" that doesn't show all of the easements to which the land in which the real property estate exists is subject, you've in effect offered to help some title insurer pay a claim arising from damages resulting from their research failing to disclose the existence of those easements”, explicitly implying that if we merely used the word “land” instead of "property" we would not be taking on those liabilities. All of which is patently false and misleading.
As I’ve previously provided, the definition of “land” also includes “quantity and character of the interest or estate which the tenant may own in land”, “any estate or interest in lands, either legal or equitable, easements, incorporeal hereditaments”. As you have posted, the definition of "property" includes "land".
I have provided authoritative sources from many jurisdictions which indicate you are either intentionally misrepresenting the facts, or are ignorant of them. In either case, for you to continue confusing the issue and hurling your patented form of insults is a disservice to those who read this forum for the purpose of obtaining valuable information.
Please, at least act like a professional and refrain from using your childish insults.
Land vs. Property
> You have quite clearly said using the word “property” instead of “land” in the preparation of the maps and descriptions in conjunction with performing a boundary survey means that the surveyor is “warranting the title to that estate”, insuring “real property estates”, and/or “offering some assurances as to the existence and nature of the property estate that the deed purported to convey”.
Yes, and for the obvious point that the term "property" when applied to a tract of land embraces also the easements. So a map of a "property survey" would be reasonably expected to show those easements, but the usual reality is that the surveyor is not investigating the public records to identify any and all easements. He or she is surveying the boundaries of the land.
> Further you have stated “In partilular, since "property" implies the whole bundle of sticks, rights and servitudes, if you certify a map of a "property" that doesn't show all of the easements to which the land in which the real property estate exists is subject, you've in effect offered to help some title insurer pay a claim arising from damages resulting from their research failing to disclose the existence of those easements”, explicitly implying that if we merely used the word “land” instead of "property" we would not be taking on those liabilities. All of which is patently false and misleading.
Apparently the distinction between land and property is not recognized in Idaho. Elsewhere, it all doesn't run together into one big jumble so much and we recognize the distinction between, land, improvements, appurtenances, and servitudes.
While you may not like to have the mish-mash you claim to find normal carried out to its logical end, if you don't make any distinction then the structures, fences, and whatevers can all simply be labeled "property" on your maps. :>
Land vs. Property
> Yes, and for the obvious point that the term "property" when applied to a tract of land embraces also the easements. So a map of a "property survey" would be reasonably expected to show those easements, but the usual reality is that the surveyor is not investigating the public records to identify any and all easements. He or she is surveying the boundaries of the land.
How's this:
Also, and for the obvious point that the term "land" when applied to a tract of land embraces also the easements. So a map of a "land survey" would be reasonably expected to show those easements, but the usual reality is that the surveyor is not investigating the public records to identify any and all easements. He or she is surveying the boundaries of the real property.
Can you not see how absurd your assertion is?
> Apparently the distinction between land and property is not recognized in Idaho. Elsewhere, it all doesn't run together into one big jumble so much and we recognize the distinction between, land, improvements, appurtenances, and servitudes.
Again with the childish attempt to insult? Apparently you are unable or unwilling to read case cites; included in the Black's Law cites are several other states and even a few FEDERAL cases. I'm still waiting for any cite from you backing up your assertions.
While I understand you apparently cannot tolerate anyone pointing out that you are mistaken in your absurd assertion that a surveyor merely using the word "property" is somehow insuring title, easements (or the lack thereof), and other interests in real property; and merely using the word "land" absolves you of all liability is irrational, especially when you consider the widely recognized definition of land. Unless of course you consider multiple state supreme courts and federal courts as not being as authoritative. :-/
> While you may not like to have the mish-mash you claim to find normal carried out to its logical end, if you don't make any distinction then the structures, fences, and whatevers can all simply be labeled "property" on your maps.
Please try not changing the subject, I have not said it is appropriate to label everything found as "property". Labeling items shown on a survey is not the issue at hand, your unsupportable assertion of a surveyor warranting title by merely using the phrase "property description" or "property boundary survey" is the issue.
Nice try.
Land vs. Property
> > Yes, and for the obvious point that the term "property" when applied to a tract of land embraces also the easements. So a map of a "property survey" would be reasonably expected to show those easements, but the usual reality is that the surveyor is not investigating the public records to identify any and all easements. He or she is surveying the boundaries of the land.
>
> How's this:
> Also, and for the obvious point that the term "land" when applied to a tract of land embraces also the easements. So a map of a "land survey" would be reasonably expected to show those easements, but the usual reality is that the surveyor is not investigating the public records to identify any and all easements. He or she is surveying the boundaries of the real property.
So, I take it that you don't see a problem of logical consistency in wanting to claim that "property" and "land" are absolutely synonymous when most standard definitions for "real property" embrace more than land? It seems pretty obvious to me that "land" is less inclusive.
When you claim to have surveyed a "property", you would have to show every object affixed to the soil, whether fences (a given in Idaho if they determine the boundaries), timber, improvements of any character, appurtenances, and the uses to which the land is subject. If you want to do that, I'll stand back and watch.
For someone who wants to know the shape and location of a tract of land, a "property survey" would be overkill on a grand scale.
Land vs. Property
> So, I take it that you don't see a problem of logical consistency in wanting to claim that "property" and "land" are absolutely synonymous when most standard definitions for "real property" embrace more than land? It seems pretty obvious to me that "land" is less inclusive.
>
Yes, it is obvious that "real property" isn't equivalent to land in all respects. Land is real property, but not all real property is land. If you want to argue with yourself, go ahead. I certainly haven't said anything to the contrary.
However, your unsubstantiated claim that "land" doesn't include anything other than dirt and rocks, and is exclusive of easements and other interests is completely false.
> When you claim to have surveyed a "property", you would have to show every object affixed to the soil, whether fences (a given in Idaho if they determine the boundaries), timber, improvements of any character, appurtenances, and the uses to which the land is subject. If you want to do that, I'll stand back and watch.
>
> For someone who wants to know the shape and location of a tract of land, a "property survey" would be overkill on a grand scale.
Just where is it written that a property boundary survey MUST include "every object affixed to the soil, fences, timber, improvements of any character, appurtenances, and the uses to which the land is subject? I certainly haven't found it. Once again quit bloviating and post your authoritative sources.
All I've done is debunk your erroneous assertions (with authoritative sources):
1) That "land" doesn't include "the quantity and character of the interest or estate
which the tenant may own in land", "any estate or interest in lands, either legal
or equitable, easements, incorporeal hereditaments", "everything which may be holden, all things of a permanent and substantial nature, and even of an unsubstantial, provided they be permanent", "not only the soil or earth, but also things of a permanent nature affixed thereto or found therein, whether by nature, as water, trees, grass, herbage, other natural or perennial products, growing crops or trees, mineral under the surface, or by the hand of man, as buildings, fixtures, fences, bridges, as well as works constructed for use of water, such as dikes, canals, etc.".
2) That merely using the word "property", a surveyor is somehow insuring title.
It seems your only argument is that the decisions of many state and federal courts are not authoritative and surveyors should ignore them, based only on your ill-conceived notions. Does your insurance carrier and your state board know of your irresponsible beliefs? Do these look familiar?
§663.17. Monumentation.
(b) When delineating a property or boundary line as an integral portion of a survey (survey being defined in the Act, §1071.002(6) or (8)), the land surveyor shall set, or leave as found, an adequate quantity of monuments of a stable and reasonably permanent nature to represent or reference the property or boundary corners...
§663.19. Survey Drawing/Written /Description/Report.
(e) Boundary monuments found or placed by the land surveyor shall be described upon the survey drawing. The land surveyor shall note upon the survey drawing, which monuments were found, which monuments were placed as a result of his/her survey, and other monuments of record dignity relied upon to establish the corners of the property surveyed.
§663.1. Ethical Standards.
Inasmuch as the practice of the land surveying profession is essential to the orderly use of our physical environment, and inasmuch as the technical work resultant thereof has important effects on the welfare, property, economy, and security of the public, the practice shall be conducted with the highest degree of moral and ethical standards.
I could keep going, but I think you are embarrassed enough. Good night Kent.
Land vs. Property
> > So, I take it that you don't see a problem of logical consistency in wanting to claim that "property" and "land" are absolutely synonymous when most standard definitions for "real property" embrace more than land? It seems pretty obvious to me that "land" is less inclusive.
> >
>
> Yes, it is obvious that "real property" isn't equivalent to land in all respects.
And that is *precisely the point you've been arguing, i.e. that "land" is synonymous with "property", which is obviously not the case, thank you.
> Land is real property, but not all real property is land.
Again, you finally realize the point you've denied for more iterations of this thread than are seemly. "Property" includes categories of things that are not land, such as rights of use (incorporeal hereditaments), whether servitudes or appurtenances.
So, a surveyor who produces a map certifying that it represents the *property* rather than the land necessarily represents that the map depicts all those other categories of things, which most surveyors would not in fact wish to do. This is pretty much a no-brainer.
So, if a surveyor is producing a map of the land, rather than warranting the nature and existence of any and all incorporeal hereditaments merely attached to or burdening the land, or of the mineral estate once attached to the surface of the land but now severed from it, but part of the "property" depicted on his or her map, then why would he or she not make that fact known to the user of the map by referring to it as other than a "property" survey? No reason at all? Right.
> However, your unsubstantiated claim that "land" doesn't include anything other than dirt and rocks, and is exclusive of easements and other interests is completely false.
Actually, you need look no further than Black's law dictionary to find that real property is "a general term for lands, tenements, and hereditaments". Likewise, the idea that land is something distinct from the more general category of real property is found in many works outside of Black's, the standard concept being that which I've described, i.e. that the land and the uses to which it is subject may be separated for purposes of description.
Not to recognize that the description of the boundaries of some tract of land is a task separate from detailing all of the uses to which that same land and its various parts may be subject and the appurtenant rights attached to them - all of which consitute the full real property estate - just seems strange, frankly, because in practice that is exactly what land surveyors do every day, if apparently not in Idaho.
Land vs. Property
> And that is *precisely the point you've been arguing, i.e. that "land" is synonymous with "property", which is obviously not the case, thank you.
>
No, I haven't been "arguing" that. Please Kent, enough with the intentional misrepresentation. Being intentionally dishonest is very unprofessional.
> > Land is real property, but not all real property is land.
>
> Again, you finally realize the point you've denied for more iterations of this thread than are seemly. "Property" includes categories of things that are not land, such as rights of use (incorporeal hereditaments), whether servitudes or appurtenances.
>
Again Kent, please at least make an attempt to be honest. I fully understand your MO in debating, and I guess I was too naïve to believe maybe, just maybe, you would leave the insults and intentional misrepresentations out. Yep, I was wrong.
Enough is enough. The readers of this thread are now fully aware of how wrong and ridiculous your first position was and still is. They are also fully aware of your propensity to obfuscate, insult and lie, none of which are traits any professional should possess, let alone be proud of.