Unauthorized changes to survey record book

It messes with anyone else who cites a particular record on their own survey. The question being was it cited prior to or following the insertion of additional information.

Does he put revision dates on them? Document the discrepancies and report to the board. That simply is not right no matter who you are.

> I can't quite put my finger on why this is not right...

Uhhh... probably because it is illegal if the document is actually recorded.

I'm sure the law varies from State to State. You need to look up your specific local laws.

This is from the State of California Superior Court (just because it was the first one that popped up on my search) :

It is a Felony to remove files and documents from the Clerk’s Office and any of its facilities. It is also a criminal act to steal, destroy, mutilate, deface, alter or falsify any files or documents, Pursuant to G.C. 6200/6201.

edit: In one of the surrounding counties there was a surveyor that use to put his ball point pen notes on the actual recorded plats. It always pissed me off, too. I'm not mentioning any names....(Billy, you know who you are!!)

I'd think at a minimum he needs to place a revision note on the record stating what was changed, when and why. I see these kind of revision notes on older plats occasionally where they got away without filing an amended plat or record. Occasionally things do come to light that require a correction be made to the official record, but there does need to be some documentation associated with it. I've narrowly averted egg on face by grabbing a copy of an older document without realizing it had later been amended.

Most jurisdictions I am familiar with note changes in the margins. Changing the original Al after recording should be a felony and a revocation of all licenses...

"I can't quite put my finger on why this is not right..."

I bet your County Attorney can!

Well, it depends

Does that sound familiar?

It depends on the purpose of the record book. Is it the MANDATORY compilation of survey work done in the county or is it a collection of courtesy copies provided to enhance the resources available to future surveyors? Is he making changes and obscuring the original data? Is he only adding notes to surveys he has conducted? Is he adding information that would be helpful or is it what he believes to be corrective?

In our local case, official survey plats are to be filed for permanent maintenance with the Register of Deeds Office. A copy of those and other surveys conducted in the county can normally be found in a collection of books in the County Surveyor office. Those are reference items only.

Years ago it was fairly common practice for additional information to be written/drawn in on these courtesy plats. The majority of those were surveys conducted by the County Surveyor in the days prior to licensing of land surveyors as we know it today. One example is where a survey had been done on one lot in a block in a small town, then a few years later he did another two or three lots down the block. The entire block was already drawn out so the addition consisted of penciled-in lines and monument symbols of the second survey with notes written in the margin explaining the date and such of the later survey. The important part was that the second set of information was being provided as a courtesy on a page the future surveyor should be accessing because of the first survey.

In cases where a survey had been contested in court I have found a note in the margin stating the court had set aside the survey in favor of some other judgement. That was a great addition to the plat as it explains why certain monuments came into existence, yet should not be used, thus helping to alleviate confusion based on findings during the field work.

Well, it depends

Regardless of reasons it might be good....if this sort of stuff is done, they should keep the original intact, and make a copy of it. That copy could be a "live" or "working" copy that has additional or helpful, or corrective notes. Then there can be the original. The fact is, if there is an error on the original plat, there could be boundaries that have been laid out off of that error and property rights that could have ripened based off of that error. A person has to know what the original recorded document looked like.

> Uhhh... probably because it is illegal if the document is actually recorded.
😀

> edit: In one of the surrounding counties there was a surveyor that use to put his ball point pen notes on the actual recorded plats. It always pissed me off, too. I'm not mentioning any names....(Billy, you know who you are!!)

Old maps with old notes are worth more money, so do these notes increase the value of those plats? Someday they could be in a museum with some guide stating "These marks are known as notes and are from when people used their hands to write with ancient devices known as pens."

> "These marks are known as notes and are from when people used their hands to write with ancient devices known as pens."

You're probably right Spleed ol' buddy...

I kinda look at it in a different light, though. From an archeological view, hen scratchin' on a recorded document might compare better with something like teeth marks on bones... "Look, here's where hoomin' bee-uns used to actually eat animal tissue..with ancient devices known as teeth." :pinch:

However, I do agree that historic note scratched on the old goat skins in the Registrar's office can be very informative. But we're soooo much more advanced nowadays. File a new document with your findings!

I mean..if you're in the middle of the high-income residential with the manicured Bermuda, do you go ahead and cut a huge blaze and scribe refs in a high-dollar imported specimen of a Lebanon Cedar?

I'd like to think we've evolved a little since Meriweather Lewis and Roy Clark boated up the Mizzou...;-)

I know that it is illegal to change or alter public records.

With that said, I have had no problem with seeing penciled in corrections on public records.

:-O

"Meriweather Lewis and Roy Clark"

Once an Okie, always an Okie. Made me grin, but I can't pick.

It's probably illegal, but I'd have no ethical problem with useful marginal notes. Particularly notes pointing to court records or later filings. Leave the original data alone, though.

This surveyor merely makes additions to his previous plats so he doesn't have to file a new one.

After reading everyone's posts, I did further research. We have a statute that says once a document is placed in the book, it is a public record.

We also have another statute that deals with "tampering" with public records whether it be removal, alteration, changing, etc.

So much for the hand written notes in the margin.

Thanks to all for your responses.