Who checks up on the Kiowa County Register of Deeds ?

A subject of much debate

Kansas Senate Bill 112 was a massive updating and overhauling of all sorts of items related to the County Surveyor, the County Engineer and surveyors in general. Even the state surveyor's association was closely split on the major issues.

The item focused on in the newspaper article is the big issue. Earlier statutes were drafted at a time when nearly every county had a County Engineer who was also trained/experienced in land surveying. As the counties matured, the need for a full time County Engineer/Surveyor lessened, in the opinions of many laymen. The creation of most all county roads had happened along with the erection of bridges, culverts and related roadway structures. Maintenance became the primary function of the road and bridge departments. The departure of the county engineers/surveyors opened the door to consulting firms offering their services for individual projects with no local authority available with training/experience to evaluate their work. Many of the rural counties are still completely dependent on their favorite consulting firms.

The early survey statutes pre-dated the licensing act. Those statutes placed the responsibility of ALL surveys made in the county under the designated county surveyor. Anyone other than this individual doing a survey was basically operating illegally unless deputized by the designated county surveyor. Roughly 10 years ago a movement came along to put some teeth into the old statute by dictating to the counties that they must have someone reviewing all surveys performed in the county. Confusion was added by the ongoing question of "all surveys" or only surveys where a new property description was involved. All of this was dumped into the laps of the Register of Deeds in all 105 counties with no input from them. Suddenly, they had to get knowledgeable about the practice of land surveying, minimum standards and numerous related issues. Some saw this as a way to increase recording fees and supplement their departments. Others realized what a headache and longterm expense was being incurred by filing "in perpetuity" randomly sized plats on different media with differing text sizes and some hand drafted documents. The Register of Deeds association demanded clarification, simplification and help in trying to comply with the surveying recordation statutes.

One paragraph of the 12-page bill states that the County may opt out of the survey review function. Those counties who had found a good reviewer who would pretty much handled 95 percent of the hassle and charged directly the surveyor needing to record a survey with the Register of Deeds are choosing to maintain the review function. Those counties who did not do this, or have a very minimal need due to maybe receiving five or fewer survey plats per year, are most likely to vote to ignore the recordation/review issue.

Kiowa County has a total population in 2010 of 2553 brave souls, with 777 of those residing in the county seat, Greensburg. The county area totals 723 square miles for only 2 to 3 people per square mile average in the rural area. In 2007, an EF-5 tornado nearly blew Greensburg off the map. Volunteer surveyors from all over the State came together in a unified effort to re-establish block corners and other critical locations throughout the town to allow reconstruction to proceed in a timely fashion.

Kiowa County is similar to many of the counties in the sparsely populated Great Plains area of Kansas. Boundary surveys are far more rare than they are in the more densely populated areas of Eastern Kansas. The number of surveyors working any of those counties routinely is very small. They either have very good surveyors or bad surveyors, but, how would they know the difference. This is why some of those counties feel they should employ a survey reviewer (licensed land surveyor) despite the few survey reviews needed. On the other hand, the reviewer has the ability to brutalize a competitor through repeated bashing of any survey plat produced, even if it is prepared identically to one that was finally approved recently. Accusations of such abuse have been made and claims have been made about exorbitant review fees, sometimes matching or exceeding the survey fee charged to the client by the surveyor.

A subject of much debate

Wow, Cow,
What an insightful and knowledgeable commentary on the subject. I really feel a lot more informed on the whole issue which, by the way, is fascinating and IMPORTANT, thanks,

Don

Slightly off topic, well okay, totally off topic. Happy Canada Day!

> Slightly off topic, well okay, totally off topic. Happy Canada Day!

Don't you mean "Happy Canada Day, eh!"

Bring me a moulson you hoser! 🙂

A subject of much debate

> The early survey statutes pre-dated the licensing act. Those statutes placed the responsibility of ALL surveys made in the county under the designated county surveyor. Anyone other than this individual doing a survey was basically operating illegally unless deputized by the designated county surveyor. Roughly 10 years ago a movement came along to put some teeth into the old statute by dictating to the counties that they must have someone reviewing all surveys performed in the county. Confusion was added by the ongoing question of "all surveys" or only surveys where a new property description was involved. All of this was dumped into the laps of the Register of Deeds in all 105 counties with no input from them. Suddenly, they had to get knowledgeable about the practice of land surveying, minimum standards and numerous related issues. Some saw this as a way to increase recording fees and supplement their departments. Others realized what a headache and long-term expense was being incurred by filing "in perpetuity" randomly sized plats on different media with differing text sizes and some hand drafted documents. The Register of Deeds association demanded clarification, simplification and help in trying to comply with the surveying recordation statutes.
>
This is a great example of why retracement surveys should always be kept separate from the title record. A surveyor's opinion regarding the location of an existing boundary is just that, an opinion. It is not binding on the client or their neighbor. The surveyor's opinion on a retracement does not "move boundary lines" and has no reason for review. They should simply be filed, adding to the pile of evidence regarding boundary locations.

Once a retracement survey is placed in the title record, it falls under the statutory notice provisions which, after the passage of some time, become prima facie evidence. As such, they need assurances that they are "correct" which precipitates a review process. That's where the dilemma is started. Couple that with the general perception that no two surveyors can agree, and you've got the need for a two-surveyor review process.

We don't mind that process at all when we're making a subdivision plat. There are usually an extra pair of eyes on the plat before it goes into the record. Plats which create boundaries are intended to be binding on the purchasers. That's why the system requires their review. When we attempt to treat retracement surveys as also binding, then the review is necessary.

JBS