Activity Feed › Discussion Forums › Strictly Surveying › How much does it cost…
“The mineral rights had already been sold and there were natural gas wells that existed on the property, guaranteeing free gas for heating, cooking and other uses.”
That’s a complicated subject, it will be unusual that a landowner will be able to use gas produced off the property through a well. Lots of reason why that’s not allowed, but like anything there are exceptions.
That is only true to a certain extent. One cannot know where the courts will adjudicate the line(s) to be. In NJ, all land dispute cases are heard in the County Superior Court. The judges in that system are the same judges that handle everything (criminal cases, divorce cases, small claims, etc.) and are not versed in boundary law. As experts, we can lay out our findings based on evidence and quote statute law, common law and even reference any relevant case law, but the Judge will rule on their own interpretation of them and that could vary from Judge to Judge.
The wells are on the property and cannot be tapped directly from the wells. The mineral rights sales agreement said, in no uncertain terms, that the utility would provide free natural gas until such time as it ceases to be collected on the parcel.
I never questioned how the connection would work but I certainly would not attempt to connect to a well on my own. How they handled the supply would be up to them to figure out.
Chris,<div>
The PLSS States require the same process as metes and bounds States. We just have an additional underlying fabric and (usually) much shorter history.
Some land tenure systems have developed in ways that limit the function of surveyors, others have not. In the States I practice, boundaries and rights are established the moment the fact pattern is met. It is our duty and quasi-judicial function to recognize relevant fact patterns and ambiguities. We then walk the owners through understanding establishment or solving ambiguity. While we do not adjudicate contested cases, we certainly do go beyond ‘expert witnesses’. When the court does decide the location, they still turn to us to locate, mark, and memorialize the lines and corners.
</div>
Thanks. Goood information for a green horn like me to know.
“When the court does decide the location, they still turn to us to locate, mark, and memorialize the lines and corners.”
I not certain in what context you are using the term quasi judicial. Merium Webster defines quasi judicial as follows:
Partly judicial character
<hr>
The meaning of QUASI-JUDICIAL is having a partly judicial character by possession of the right to hold hearings on and conduct investigations into disputed claims and alleged infractions of rules and regulations and to make decisions in the general manner of courts.
We do not convene hearings, however, we do conduct investigations and gather evidence in the course of our surveys. We do not investigate alleged infractions of rules and regulations, when we encounter them, it is our obligation to report them to the State Board for them to investigate and take action on in the general manner of the courts.
Where we encounter conditions that are in conflict with title lines, we collect the evidence found and present it to the courts, we do not make decisions based on the general manner of the courts. We document lines of possession and use, we do not go beyond that as we are not empowered to adjudicate on conflicts between title lines and ownership lines. Doing so would amount to practicing law without a license.
Chris,
Blacks Law defines a ‘quasi-judicial act’ as ‘A judicial act performed by one not a judge’. This fits the decsription in my post and is no doubt what Cooley was describing in his famous (though now mostly forgotten) treatise describing the duties of a Surveyor.
As an aside, the administrative procedures act in some States allows a licensee to prosecute violations by fellow liensees through the use of an administrative hearing officer. We don’t have to wait on the Board to investigate and prosecute. The recommendations of a hearing officer are enforced (or not) by the relevant Board or Commission.
Please understand that I am not arguing with you but, simply debating the judicial aspect of the conversation. By any definition of the word “judicial”, that leaves those powers outside of our wheelhouse.
The quasi judicial powers of the individual State Boards are defined by State Statute and rules where the Board members are appointed to enforce the rules and regulations.
In what you have said about a hearing, as far as filing charges, you made it clear to me that the hearer of fact must be approved, making that individual also quasi judicial, and both you or I merely being the people presenting the evidence.
I would be interested to read any State statutes, from any state, that give us any sort of judicial powers without being a part of the judiciary. “Quasi is a Latin term meaning “as if” or “similar to”<sup>1</sup><sup>2</sup>. In legal terms, quasi is used to describe situations where an action or decision is taken in a way that is almost similar to a legal or judicial process, but not quite the same<sup>1</sup>. Quasi-legal refers to actions or decisions that are not strictly legal, but are made or enforced by an entity with some legal authority or influence<sup>3</sup>. A quasi contract is an obligation invoked by law in the absence of an agreement<sup>2</sup>.
“Quasi-legal refers to actions or decisions that are not strictly legal, but are made or enforced by an entity with some legal authority or influence<sup>3</sup><font color=”rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)” face=”inherit”>.” This is the key to the legal definition of quasi judicial. What it essentially is saying is that we can form our own opinions based in common or case law and recite either or both, but only the courts can make a ruling that is </font>enforceable<font color=”rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)” face=”inherit”>.</font>
<font color=”rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)” face=”inherit”>We gather and present evidence, we are not the finders of fact. We can state our professional opinions based on what we have found but that is the full extent of our authority an LS.</font>
<font color=”rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)” face=”inherit”>I learned this the hard way when I first sat for my exam back in April, 1992. I was tricked into answering questions based on what the courts would decide and failed a portion of the test based on that when there was an option in the multiple choices to advise your client to consult an Attorney. Once I made an appointment to review my exam and discovered why my answers were wrong, I was licensed on my second attempt in late 1992.</font>
“I would be interested to read any State statutes, from any state, that give us any sort of judicial powers without being a part of the judiciary.”
The phrase, as used by Cooley (If I remember correctly from reading a couple of decades ago), is less that we are specifically given judiciary powers, and more that they are laid upon us in a defacto manner.
If it is the court’s power and place to be the final arbitrator of boundary locations, and the courts do not have the capacity, ability, or desire, to adjudicate every boundary, then the individual surveyors empowered by the state to perform boundary determinations and monument boundaries for the citizen has the duty to make those decisions in a way that attempts to reflect a final result that would mirror the result as if it were adjudicated.
When Harry Homeowner and his neighbor are at odds with each other over a boundary, while the authoritative location of the line in question is in the court’s court (as it were), 99% of the time they don’t have the desire or financial resources to have the question of the location answered in court, a surveyor is engaged, and that surveyor’s decision is (generally) accepted by the landowners as a stand-in for the judicial system.
boundaries and rights are established the moment the fact pattern is met. It is our duty and quasi-judicial function to recognize relevant fact patterns and ambiguities. We then walk the owners through understanding establishment or solving ambiguity. While we do not adjudicate contested cases, we certainly do go beyond ‘expert witnesses’. When the court does decide the location, they still turn to us to locate, mark, and memorialize the lines and corners.
If it is the court’s power and place to be the final arbitrator of boundary locations, and the courts do not have the capacity, ability, or desire, to adjudicate every boundary, then the individual surveyors empowered by the state to perform boundary determinations and monument boundaries for the citizen has the duty to make those decisions in a way that attempts to reflect a final result that would mirror the result as if it were adjudicated.
Amen. This is something that unfortunately falls by the wayside along the path to licensure, and even after licensure.
Ignoring this critical role and defaulting to just overlaying the deed math on the found monuments and improvements (“found capped iron rod with LS####, 0.3′ N x 0.4′ E of calculated corner”) is why a nontrivial segment of the populace sees surveyors as problem-creators rather than problem-solvers.
Let’s not be “Seagull” Surveyors flying in, crapping all over established boundaries, and then flying out again.
“…people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.” -Neil Postman” (“found capped iron rod with LS####, 0.3′ N x 0.4′ E of calculated corner”) “
When a monument is called off like that the surveyor is implying that it is not controlling for one reason or another – there are legitimate reasons for that – or that it has been moved from it’s original location – also very possible. Nevertheless, I agree that this form is used too often and commonly for the wrong reasons. But it isn’t always wrong.
Back in the day, when the only thing that needed a battery was the truck; there were 3 ways to make a measurement:
- On line
- on an offset line
- Triangulation
It was easy to relate to record. (m) for measured (r) for record and that’s what you showed on your survey.
Today, nobody uses 1 or 2, they measure radially and let the device tell them how it relates. Adding R & M to a dimension of a line is misleading; the line wasn’t measured, it was triangulated in a black box. So to get around this, some surveyors show a miss and leave it up to the reader as to if it was accepted or not. Poor practice in my opinion…
I hope everyone has a great day; I know I will!I think it a bit unwise to say triangulation is not a form of measurement. Nor do i believe that in order to measure between 2 points you must occupy them simultaneously. I have no problem with a line marked as measured when the measurements were done with triangulation. Nor should anyone else.
Radar’s old school
Cause he’s old,,,,,,,,,I can relate
Chris,
No worries on arguing. We don’t learn in an echo chamber and I appreciate the discourse.
I know some States push the ‘we are just presenting evidence’ thing hard. After years of walking owners, attorneys, hearing officers, and policy makers through fact patterns I no longer agree with that line of thinking. We should be presenting a package so the Judge or hearing officer can say, “What he said”. Better yet we should be getting the owners to buy into reality or resolve ambiguity through an agreement that will hold up over time.
I guess it’s maybe only the wording we differ on. Walking lawyers and officers of the court through our findings, by my definition, makes us expert witnesses as we can only present the facts that the courts will rule on. If our facts are solid and documented by both us and the record, it’s usually a no brainer, as I keep saying, the decision is not ours to make.
I also agree 100% that it is our duty to walk to potential litigants through our findings and explain how we arrived at them, encouraging them to arrive at a mutually beneficial agreement. As we all know, when it moves to litigation, nobody wins but the lawyers.
A survey given to a client doesn’t just present facts. It should also contain the professional opinion of the surveyor which is given by showing the boundary lines of the property based on the facts the surveyor has ascertained. Just showing the evidence you have found is not a survey and as a client I would feel I have not been given a survey until the surveyor has expressed his professional opinion on where my boundary lies. A good surveyor’s professional opinion of my boundary should coincide with what a court would adjudicate. If you are only going to present evidence, then there is no need to have the professional license.
The facts are presented on the face of the survey. The Professional opinion is rendered by showing the boundary lines, corners found or set as well as all conflicting lines of occupation.
You could have an overwhelming abundance of evidence and information to support your professional opinion but it is virtually impossible to know how the people that you are presenting them to will interpret them.
When a monument is called off like that the surveyor is implying that it is not controlling for one reason or another – there are legitimate reasons for that – or that it has been moved from it’s original location – also very possible. Nevertheless, I agree that this form is used too often and commonly for the wrong reasons. But it isn’t always wrong.
Agreed. My beef is with the ambiguous language, and the (typical) lack of explanation.
If a calculated position was held over a tagged monument, (a) that monument needs to be marked “not accepted: see survey narrative“, and (b) the surveyor’s narrative needs to contain a clear explanation of why certain monuments were accepted or rejected. Avoiding both just muddies the waters, and dodges responsibility.
“…people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.” -Neil Postman
Log in to reply.