Activity Feed › Discussion Forums › Strictly Surveying › Neighbor to Client
-
-
This is what I’d do.
JB, post: 403056, member: 346 wrote:
From 21 NCAC 56.0701, Here in NC it’s not just a good idea, it’s law.
I would argue that going back and remarking a line is a different project. I’d like to see a court citation where the surveyor was sanctioned because he marked a line for an owner and didn’t tell the adjoiner about it, who he originally surveyed the line for 15 years prior.
-
The law barring compensation from multiple parties on a project can certainly be interpreted to cover this case, but I wonder if it was originally just meant to ban double-billing for the same services.
. -
I agree with Bill and Tommy. Coming back out and restaking a line you surveyed before, seems like a new job, and not milking the same job by charging two different clients.
-
If your initial client hired an attorney because of possible trespassing/damages, it seems to me the first step from the attorney is to recommend rehiring you to verify the damages.
How can anything be proved without a second survey and plat?
-
Ken,
Take a look at WAC 196-27-020-4(b) which interestingly enough looks just like what JB inserted above.
From a practical point of view, I have never had a negative reaction from one of my clients when I telephone them to let them know I will be on their property in order to verify my work for their neighbor. Sometimes, it takes a while for them to understand but that is my fault for not stating my purpose clearly and accurately (to both).
When I have issues that I am unsure about, I have a couple of local surveyors, an attorney and a writer that I can call and talk about it with. Thanks for posting this. I need to work on my Christmas cards this week thanking those folks. -
JB, post: 403056, member: 346 wrote:
From 21 NCAC 56.0701, Here in NC it’s not just a good idea, it’s law.
Like Tommy, I don’t iterpret this as the same project since the original survey was finalized and certified in the past. 6 months prior and a fee was collected from the owner.
If he had collected a fee from neighbors at that time without written agreements, then a violation would occur.
This is to prevent the surveyor from
double dipping or unfairly profiting from the public. Billing separate clients for the same hours is the violation.
There are other examples such as public or a private surveyor working on a project for a firm and billing that work to a third party. -
As an update, I did contact my client to get permission to use the survey control on her land. She knew exactly why, as she had her attorney mail the letter a few days ago. I told her that he wanted me to check that portion of the line on the bluff. She had said that since I’ve done the survey he’s crossed the line to lop off some tops of trees for viewing purposes. This of course angered her and thus the notice letter from the attorney.
She had said that both parties looked at the line after the survey and he still felt the line didn’t do what I staked going down to the beach. He feels the line goes perpendicular to the beach, which it doesn’t.
I told her my intention was just to check that line and educate her neighbor as an effort to help both parties. I would do this at no fee just to help both move forward, and explain the plats intention and how I retraced that line. This will also allow me to check the line as a verification.
I had told him if he had a list of things for me to do, such has additional staking or Mapping that it would be another project in my book and therefore a fee would need to be charged, etc.
I know my decision here is against some of you that have given their two cents, but l will see how things go. If things get crazy or chippy I’ll just suggest he hire his own surveyor. Thanks for all the replies to this, it’s sometimes not easy in our field!
-
ken, post: 403260, member: 1548 wrote: As an update, I did contact my client to get permission to use the survey control on her land. She knew exactly why, as she had her attorney mail the letter a few days ago. I told her that he wanted me to check that portion of the line on the bluff. She had said that since I’ve done the survey he’s crossed the line to lop off some tops of trees for viewing purposes. This of course angered her and thus the notice letter from the attorney. She had said that both parties looked at the line after the survey and he still felt the line didn’t do what I staked going down to the beach. He feels the line goes perpendicular to the beach, which it doesn’t. I told her my intention was just to check that line and educate her neighbor as an effort to help both parties. I would do this at no fee just to help both move forward, and explain the plats intention and how I retraced that line. This will also allow me to check the line as a verification. I had told him if he had a list of things for me to do, such has additional staking or Mapping that it would be another project in my book and therefore a fee would needed to be charged, etc. I know my decision here is against some of you that have given their two cents, but l will see how things go. If things get crazy or chippy I’ll just suggest he hire his own surveyor. Thank for all the replies to this, it’s sometimes not easy in our field!
Thank YOU for posting this here.
Let us know how it goes out there.
Outstanding in someone else’s field.
-
Brad Ott, post: 403261, member: 197 wrote: Thank YOU for posting this here.
Let us know how it goes out there.
Outstanding in someone else’s field.
As an update, I went out today. My previously set marks looked good. I set a few more points to make it very clear. I brought the neighbor out to show him and he completely could not see how it lines up from the ROW to the beach front.
Before I came out he told me he agreed that the points up on top of the bluff to the road made sense, it was just going down the bluff. I showed him from the beach looking up the hill and it clearly lined up, but he declared that if that were true then the line would go through my clients garage. Even with a good eye, I told him I couldn’t tell how anyone could tell how it lined up because of the thick trees that are in the upland portion.
At the apex of the bluff, I extended my 8 foot rod towards the road and it lined up to the points going down hill. He didn’t agree or admit that it was. I made him get his eye on the middle of the rod to look but he kept turning the rod off line to where he wanted it. Holy cow!
At any rate, did my best to explain and he said he didn’t buy it. I’ve done my part and tried to reach out. In the end, I told him that I wasn’t going to agree with him, he wasn’t going to agree with me…maybe he should hire a surveyor to give him a different opinion. We shook hands and that was it.
Now I’m going to take a sip of my favorite bourbon and hit the hay. I just went to the twilight zone and back.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Reminds me of the client I had in 1994-95 who was extremely displeased with how I marked the critical line as my line was something like 70 feet from where he had bulldozed a path that he had decided must be the true location of the line. He insisted I had bent the line. Set up the total station directly on line, focused in on a point at the far west end that clearly lined up with the intermediate flags, had him look through the eyepiece to verify where it was pointed, then carefully inverted the scope so as to clearly show I was not rotating anything sideways and had him look through the eyepiece at the far east point and the intermediate flags. He got red in the face and vehemently declared, “I ain’t gonna believe no dammm machine.”
-
Bill93, post: 403010, member: 87 wrote: Why would it be a conflict of interest? The surveyor doesn’t advocate for (either) client. He just gives his opinion on where the line is. I see nothing about the situation that would tend to bias his opinion in favor of either party.
With all due respect, it is not about whether the land surveyor believes there may a conflict of interest, it is about what the property owners think that matters. The laws and regulations governing the practice is not about protecting the land surveyor, they are all about protecting the public FROM the land surveyor.
Like NC, these are stated very clearly in our regulations and don’t allow discretion. Someone else posted asking if someone was ever disciplined for this and I can answer in California unequivocally yes.
-
Holy Cow, post: 407880, member: 50 wrote: Reminds me of the client I had in 1994-95 who was extremely displeased with how I marked the critical line as my line was something like 70 feet from where he had bulldozed a path that he had decided must be the true location of the line. He insisted I had bent the line. Set up the total station directly on line, focused in on a point at the far west end that clearly lined up with the intermediate flags, had him look through the eyepiece to verify where it was pointed, then carefully inverted the scope so as to clearly show I was not rotating anything sideways and had him look through the eyepiece at the far east point and the intermediate flags. He got red in the face and vehemently declared, “I ain’t gonna believe no dammm machine.”
Nice technique!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
We had run a traverse around a huge thickit, and brish pile. Developed the plat, and all.
Client not happy.
He called us back. “You never did run that line”.
He then hired us to run true line. We worked from the ends, and when the lines actually met in the middle, he got out his checkbook, and paid us. -
Wow Ken, wow. That is a beautiful story, better you than me. Other people suck.
-
It is amazing that some people think they can stand on top of a hill and know where the projected line goes on the other side of the hill. Some property owners are so convinced that they will not allow facts to influence their opinion.
-
lmbrls, post: 407916, member: 6823 wrote: It is amazing that some people think they can stand on top of a hill and know where the projected line goes on the other side of the hill. Some property owners are so convinced that they will not allow facts to influence their opinion.
It is. He’s a retired doctor. My chainman said that he’s probably never been wrong.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Ken,
Usually with a little care and baby steps in explaining to laymen (like many of you above have demonstrated) we can show most people enough information such that they can conceive of the concept of a straight line. I tell them that their eye is just as good as any piece of equipment I have in the truck if they can look through two points on a line.
That’s most people. Just remember there’s a bell curve out there and every little bit of it is occupied by someone. You handled it well Ken and I’m glad you didn’t let it get the best of you.
-
dms330, post: 407922, member: 2118 wrote: Ken,
Usually with a little care and baby steps in explaining to laymen (like many of you above have demonstrated) we can show most people enough information such that they can conceive of the concept of a straight line. I tell them that their eye is just as good as any piece of equipment I have in the truck if they can look through two points on a line.
That’s most people. Just remember there’s a bell curve out there and every little bit of it is occupied by someone. You handled it well Ken and I’m glad you didn’t let it get the best of you.
I told myself that my father, who was a pretty hard headed surveyor for 45 years, would have handled it with care. Alas, I don’t think he’ll ever see it any other way…even if a judge decreed it. This isn’t over I have a feeling.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Bill93, post: 403010, member: 87 wrote: Why would it be a conflict of interest? The surveyor doesn’t advocate for (either) client. He just gives his opinion on where the line is. I see nothing about the situation that would tend to bias his opinion in favor of either party.
Adding to what Ric already said, not only is there the possibility of a perception by landowners, judges, and juries of a potential conflict, if a surveyor with a less than average ethical standards, and possibly a little incompetence thrown in for bad measure, the potential conflict can turn real pretty easily. It might seem far-fetched, but there are unscrupulous surveyors around who would make their opinion favor who ever is paying most or latest, or try to hide an actual mistake in their work rather than be truthful and take responsibility.
Like so many laws, this one is written for the rather small minority of individuals who would be inclined to abuse the trust put in them by the public. It was not enacted as an insult to you, me, or other surveyors whose ethics would guide them to take the right course of action in absence of the law. It provides guidelines by which the unscrupulous can be kept in check, but adds no burden to the rest of us because we would almost certainly just do what that law prescribes because it’s in our nature.
Log in to reply.