Activity Feed › Discussion Forums › Business, Finance & Legal › Mississippi
When anyone draws lines on paper, screen, maps or whatever and insists they represent boundary lines, that is surveying.
- Posted by: Tommy Young
Am I to understand that some posters are arguing that the bank does not assume any liability if the property goes into foreclosure and the house is not entirely on the lot?
Bump for an answer.
- Posted by: Tommy YoungPosted by: Tommy Young
Am I to understand that some posters are arguing that the bank does not assume any liability if the property goes into foreclosure and the house is not entirely on the lot?
Bump for an answer.
The bank will have to deal with the property if it goes into foreclosure – the may or may not turn into an expense (they don’t assume any debt at this point). The bank will likely have to pay to fix the problem if it can’t find a buyer who will deal with it – worst case scenario, bank or purchaser tears down the house.
As I understand it, the lendee (purchaser who was foreclosed on) is still responsible for the difference between what the bank gets for the property when sold and the outstanding balance on the mortgage (plus legal & other fees & interest – and the cost to tear down the house if that’s what it takes to make the property marketable). The bank will probably be unable to collect that difference and will probably lose money on that transaction but the purchaser ends up losing everything they put into the house (down payment, cost of improvements, etc.) and their credit takes a big ding. The bank adjusts it’s lending fees to cover these expenses. So yes the bank does assume risk.
At the end of the day – the line drawing company is performing a service that suggests to the unaware buyer (and maybe the bank – but they should know better) that there are or aren’t boundary problems. This service does neither of these.
Only a person well qualified in interpreting title documents (deeds, easements, condemnations, etc.) and who has examined the property (recovered corners, looked for evidence of trespass, etc.) can provide a legitimate opinion as to where the boundaries are and whether or not they contain the improvements being purchased. Each state’s survey statutes attempts to ensure that the person doing that is appropriately qualified.
The purchasers best defense against acquiring properties with boundary problems are title policies and as-built surveys that have been done competently and explained to the purchaser.
- Posted by: thebionicman
The definition is actually pretty simple.
I don’t see it as simple at all. What does the the, ”and in particular” clause mean?
This one (Nova Scotia) is much clearer and I think it would include Vizaline’s acivities:
“professional land surveying” means the advising on, the reporting on, the supervising of or the conducting of surveys to determine the horizontal and vertical position of any point and the direction and length of any line required to control, establish, locate, define or describe the extent or limitations of title;
The ‘in particular’ is after the operator ‘and’ between a list (denoted by the ‘or’ in ‘or report’) and the separate activities listed after.
- Posted by: JKinAKPosted by: Tommy YoungPosted by: Tommy Young
Am I to understand that some posters are arguing that the bank does not assume any liability if the property goes into foreclosure and the house is not entirely on the lot?
Bump for an answer.
The bank will have to deal with the property if it goes into foreclosure – the may or may not turn into an expense (they don’t assume any debt at this point). The bank will likely have to pay to fix the problem if it can’t find a buyer who will deal with it – worst case scenario, bank or purchaser tears down the house.
As I understand it, the lendee (purchaser who was foreclosed on) is still responsible for the difference between what the bank gets for the property when sold and the outstanding balance on the mortgage (plus legal & other fees & interest – and the cost to tear down the house if that’s what it takes to make the property marketable). The bank will probably be unable to collect that difference and will probably lose money on that transaction but the purchaser ends up losing everything they put into the house (down payment, cost of improvements, etc.) and their credit takes a big ding. The bank adjusts it’s lending fees to cover these expenses. So yes the bank does assume risk.
At the end of the day – the line drawing company is performing a service that suggests to the unaware buyer (and maybe the bank – but they should know better) that there are or aren’t boundary problems. This service does neither of these.
Only a person well qualified in interpreting title documents (deeds, easements, condemnations, etc.) and who has examined the property (recovered corners, looked for evidence of trespass, etc.) can provide a legitimate opinion as to where the boundaries are and whether or not they contain the improvements being purchased. Each state’s survey statutes attempts to ensure that the person doing that is appropriately qualified.
The purchasers best defense against acquiring properties with boundary problems are title policies and as-built surveys that have been done competently and explained to the purchaser.
Some States such as California do not allow deficiency judgments on a purchase money mortgage.
I’m not sure what happens if the mortgage is refinanced.
- Posted by: thebionicman
The ‘in particular’ is after the operator ‘and’ between a list (denoted by the ‘or’ in ‘or report’) and the separate activities listed after.
It is giving more importance to the activities that come after it, but it is not clear what the extra importance implies.
See O’Connor v. Oakhurst Dairy for a similar issue.
If they had used a phrase like “including but not limited to”, or “as they pertain to” the meaning would have been clear.
The list in this case enumerates activities separately. If you do anything on the list the definition is met. There is no ‘or’ issue as in the case above. Any other interpretation would render the list meaningless which courts are loathe to do. The examples that follow do use the phrase of including but not limited to and again, would not hold meaning with only those activities after the ‘and’.
I suspect the Mississippi courts will tell us what they think it means, rendering our opinions even more meaningless than they are now….
I don’t necessarily think you’re wrong. I just think it’s very confusing. Your interpretation makes sense, and may be the only way to save the entire statute, but then we are not giving the words “in particular”, and the activities it modifies, any particular meaning, and extra words are rarely added to statutes for no reason. It will be interesting to see what the court says. If the court rules against Vizaline there will be some new opportunities for surveyors.
I don’t get the free speech angle though.
What does this mean for other licensing boards? Surgery by those who are educated via YouTube?
Ok, nurse. Fire up the tablet. Search for appendix removal. Let’s hope the wifi isn’t lagging today.
What about the fact that this company has to use professionals licensed by the bar association to further their cause? Why not just represent yourselves if you believe what you’re shoveling.
If they lose, will it make it to the scotus id they feel it is a free speech issue?
To me, it sounds like a group of people too lazy to put in the required work to do it the right way.
Even if they were required to have an LS for their product, I would never sign off on it.
How does one think that GPS can solve all the boundary issues? Do they even grasp the concept that what they are doing doesn’t even represent the location on the ground?
This is why uneducated engineers make horrible surveyors. Boundary is not a complexcmath problem to be solved by some complex routine. Boundary is a matter of law. Period
Part of me wants them to win so that the surveyor can charge to fix the problem.
I don’t get the free speech angle though.
Matal v. Tam is, on the surface a trademark case, but it can be read establishing that commercial and expressive activities are often inseparably linked, such that the government??s attempt to limit one results in a limitation of the other.
Some of us survived a decade of a recession economy, to now have to confront a longtime ally that has been swayed to go to the other side, TECHNOLOGY
We are being reduced to little more than a glorified paralegal for the real estate attorney. Nobody wants to call the surveyor and wait a few days for results, they want it NOW and if you can manage to localize with your cellphone, why bother calling an overpriced surveyor.
One other aspect that has managed to keep us afloat are the preservation and interpretation of older maps, so I suppose we could apprentice with a historian or an archeologist.
If someone was going to buy 1000 houses on subdivision lots would they spend $25000 in due diligence (not just surveying, but detailed analysis back to the beginning of time in case something is lurking back there) on every one or just assume a certain failure rate and build that into their business model? Also assume 90% of the failures will never come to light thus causing no trouble at all. In fact 750 of the houses will have been flipped and exchanged for 1000 new ones before anything ever appears.
Asking for a friend.
The tech angle is a complete red herring. These people are selling an opinion related to boundary questions. They are in the first of 4 stages of competence, unconciously incompetent. They don’t even know they don’t know anything.
Anyone who sells a boundary opinion should be a Surveyor. Anyone who sells opinions like these needs to go away. The Board is there to protect the public. That is what they are doing in this case.
What the article describes is not surveying, it can’t be.
The only way to survey a boundary is go out there and find the monuments and other evidence because that controls over the words on the paper.
What these guys are doing is flipping centuries of boundary law upside down by plotting the Deed geometry without any regard to the relative importance of conflicting elements (surveyors have been doing this for at least 100 years but in a more painstaking way and tied to more localized control).
Skelton told us in 1930 that we should be establishing control networks and tie-ing everything to that so that we have a much more efficient boundary determination system so people like this could never get a foothold but we have refused to do it or even lead the way. You can get bad information for $10 that might be right some percentage of the time or you can get maybe good information that costs $5000.
This article kinda aligns with my view on this.
I realize this might appear inconsistent with what I previously expressed regarding the somewhat recent action by our own board here in Oregon, but I’ve revised my view on that.
Oops. I see Wendell already posted the article in a separate thread.
Did you see that? I evolved right in front of your very eyes 😉
Dave,
Two issues.
While this ‘service’ doesn’t constitute any sort of acceptable survey, webster isn’t part of this fight. The statutory definition and it’s defensibilty is the question on the table.
Second, many states do have a great control network with all land titles tied to it. It’s called the PLSS. Where the professionals have maintained it things work very well. In places where it has fallen into disrepair I would be reluctant to fund building another network…
- Posted by: thebionicman
The tech angle is a complete red herring. These people are selling an opinion related to boundary questions. They are in the first of 4 stages of competence, unconciously incompetent. They don’t even know they don’t know anything.
Anyone who sells a boundary opinion should be a Surveyor. Anyone who sells opinions like these needs to go away. The Board is there to protect the public. That is what they are doing in this case.
Not only that, gps falls second to last on importance of calls because it is coordinates at it’s core and nothing more.
My view on this has evolved again… I was directed to an example of one of the reports, https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4598541-Viza-Plat-Example-Report.html.
As I see it, when they express an opinion, e.g., “we believe it is the intent…”, that expression of opinion crosses the line to where a licensed surveyor should be required.
- Posted by: Tim V. PLS
My view on this has evolved again… I was directed to an example of one of the reports, https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4598541-Viza-Plat-Example-Report.html.
As I see it, when they express an opinion, e.g., “we believe it is the intent…”, that expression of opinion crosses the line to where a licensed surveyor should be required.
I could not get your link to work.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4598541-Viza-Plat-Example-Report
Log in to reply.