Colorado State Exam

I assume that the study guide that you refer to is the "CO State-Specific Professional Land Surveyor Exam Candidate Handbook" that is available on the AES Board's web site.?ÿ It appears that they are referencing subdivision exemption plats under Title 30, County Governments (i.e. Part 3. Establishment of Subdivision Exemption Plats for the Purpose of Correcting Legal Descriptions 30-28-301 through -313)?ÿ They may not have updated the Article title.

?ÿThe answers to your last two questions appear to be addressed on pages 9 through 11 of the Candidate Handbook.?ÿ It appears that you cannot register until you receive an eligibility email.?ÿ I cannot offer you any more advice as I took the exams in 1984 when the Board took care of the examinations.

Andy Nold posted here about his experience.?ÿ Perhaps he will see this and post about his experience.?ÿ His posts indicated a general frustration with getting approval to sit for the exam.?ÿ Best of luck.

?ÿ

/s/ Old Codger

?ÿ

Edit to Add:?ÿ Warren just posted some Colorado sample situations you may wish to review before sitting for the exam.?ÿ ??ÿ

K -?ÿ

Title 30 Article 28 is a fairly extensive part of the statutes dealing with county government.?ÿ

The specific cite for use of a "Subdivision Exemption" for the correction of "Legal Descriptions", is important, because it means that in Colorado, two or more willing landowners may record the movement of a known line through the county planning process. there are three specific ways that a licensed surveyor may resolve a disputed boundary, and this is one.?ÿ

This is just one cite in a larger topic - you actually need to read all of 30-28, starting from 30-28-300. In Colorado, a landowner may not partition a tract of land resulting in an area less than 35 acres, without regulation and oversight by the county or municipal "Planning Commission". In all county-regulated subdivisions, the survey and plat must be prepared by a licensed professional land surveyor, who must comply with all aspects of article 38 title 51. In Colorado, if it is not signed by the county commissioners, the county planning department, and the licensed surveyor when recorded, then it is not technically a subdivision. A landowner my divide his property into tracts of land greater than 35 acres and record it - but that process is in no way regulated by the county (unless the landowner asks the county to regulate).?ÿ

In short - the County Planning Commission contemplated by 30-28-300 must assure the public that all subdivided lots that get recorded are buildable, accessible, and free of legal problems. The term "Subdivision Exemption" generally refers to a "minor subdivision", where a landowner splits his property into 2 or 3 lots, and is not required to provide utilities. It is somewhat rare, but not unheard of, for the process of a "Subdivision Exemption" to actually be used for the correction of legal descriptions.?ÿ

Good luck!?ÿ

?ÿ

Posted by: warren ward PLS CO OK

in Colorado, two or more willing landowners may record the movement of a known line through the county planning process. there are three specific ways that a licensed surveyor may resolve a disputed boundary, and this is one.?ÿ

What?ÿ are the three ways to correct legals and where can I review?

I see plenty of recorded "as surveyed descriptions" in the records.?ÿ I'm just not convinced it solves any issues, maybe makes more chaos.?ÿ Just about anyone in Utah can cook up and record a description, been doing it since the beginning.?ÿ It's a real mess!!

?ÿ

I searching for a way, maybe try to get some legislation.?ÿ How about a landowner authorized ReSurvey, signed, notarized and then recorded by adjoining landowners based upon a surveyors opinion that the line has been established by operation of law? Get an actual binding, proper description in the record instead of some half baked description that was never good from the beginning.

?ÿ

?ÿ

There are three statutory ways for two landowners to resolve a disputed or uncertain boundary:

1. "Outright Exemption", as defined in 30-28. this procedure allows the county to facilitate certain types of "non-subdvisions" between willing landowners, and it must be surveyed according to 38-51, signed by the county commissioners, and recorded.?ÿ

2. "Line of Agreement" pursuant to 38-44-101. This can be done without a surveyor. If a surveyor is involved, it must comply with 38-51 and be recorded.?ÿ

3. Court appointed county surveyor pursuant to 38-44-104.?ÿ

I do not consider suing in court to be an option. there is no such thing as winning in court over a land dispute.?ÿ

Counties, and county planning commissions, only have the legal right to facilitate a major or minor subdivision (subdivision exemption) of KNOWN perimeter boundaries.?ÿ

A surveyor may record a "surveyor's affidavit of correction" pursuant to 38-51-111, to fix typos.?ÿ

Some counties facilitate and sign off on "Correction Plats" to correct survey errors in the DRAFTING of a duly recorded subdivision plat.?ÿ

It is technically illegal for a surveyor to set pincushions around the parent tract of a subdivision. since counties only have the legal right to subdivide known properties and record new lots that are free of legal conflicts, the illegal act by some surveyors of setting pincushions all around a subdivision actually result transforming a known, certain boundary into a lot of unknown, legal conflicts that by definition can not be approved by the county. Despite it being illegal, and absurd, some surveyors set pincushions anyway.

It is technically illegal for a county to "fix" disputed boundaries with a "subdivision exemption". And, the winner of absurdity, coming a close second to the nonsense of setting pincushions, is the phenomenal abuse by some counties of "rejecting" Lines of Agreements, and forcing the poor landowners to process a "line of agreement" through the planning commission subdivision process. Sadly, sometimes they do it, and get away with it.?ÿ

Posted by: warren ward PLS CO OK

?ÿ

There are three statutory ways for two landowners to resolve a disputed or uncertain boundary:

?ÿ

What about the common law boundary agreements. Does the counties, title folks, etc. fight or oppose this.?ÿ Utah has those that got a statute passed that a boundary line agreement acts like a quit claim deed.?ÿ Then further that a boundary line agreement had to have grantors and grantees.?ÿ Left the common law out in the cold, tried to put it in the closet.?ÿ The Utah courts still go along as usual, in fact I think the Utah courts are sort of on the leading edge as far as acquiescence and establishment by operation of law is concerned.?ÿ Then there is a statute that defines a boundary line agreement as essentially a boundary adjustment.?ÿ Then recorders and title folks want everything to be a conveyance and anything not per the math is a disaster, get out the quit claim forms.

Sounds like you fight a similar thing.?ÿ If if isn't per the math of the deed, it needs to be fixed and requires an application to the planning commission and government approval.?ÿ Now we got all this precision GIS stuff available, which is great, it's just that many or most of the deeds math does not fit together on the map.?ÿ So how do we sort out all the apparent conflict (settled mostly be common law in my opinion).?ÿ Part of the problem is the common law doesn't update or repair the record. You must read the record according to the common law and most can't or won't do that. Are we going to adapt to the common law or throw the law overboard and move everybody's boundaries.?ÿ A absurd as moving all the boundaries to fit the math appears to me, that's a lot of what is happening and being pushed for.?ÿ This isn't a new argument either, been around for centuries.?ÿ Settled by the courts, fought, ignored and abused everywhere else.

?ÿ

Heck, I've argued this in surveyor forms for almost two decades.?ÿ Even surveyors disrespect the common law.?ÿ I really won't argue or debate it much anymore, it's poison like religion and politics, never ending debate with no end.

In my observation, people are generally fine buying, selling and improving their property under common law recognition. The original line of agreement statute predated the official Planning Commission laws which were enacted as of July 1, 1972. Most line of agreements occur when two landowners have a valid overlap of record data - when two surveyors arrive at differing locations.?ÿ

The worst line of agreements are when two landowners do their own agreement, make their own drawing, and record it. There is no way a surveyor can understand a layperson's attempt to draw a retraceable diagram.?ÿ

The worst of the worst happens when planning commission bureaucrats start looking at numbers on a piece of paper on a perfectly good line of agreement plat, and decide that the landowners have created an illegal subdivision! (I usually weep when county people start looking at numbers on paper and drawing conclusions about property rights)(note to laypeople: just because the numbers on documents aren't exactly the same, does not mean the property lines on the ground have moved). I am aware of at least two counties that PROHIBIT line of agreement - intended to be a simple means for landowners to settle valid disputes - and force those poor, wretched landowners to go through the whole, expensive and long bureaucratic process of a "subdivision exemption", which is technically illegal, and the county has no right to force this on landowners, but they do anyway.?ÿ

Did I mention pincushions? Pincushions ruin everything. Pincushions blow all the most carefully enacted laws and professional standards out of the water, and make us all look silly.?ÿ

Looks like that whole statutory procedure as shown by:

Colorado 38-44-101......

Is related to resolving boundaries.

Is this used very often in Colorado?

Leon,

Sorry, I cannot help myself here.?ÿ The statute is fairly restrictive and only affects section corners and quarter corners that are in dispute.?ÿ It gives the county surveyor authority to set a pin cushion and then call it the legal corner.?ÿ ??ÿ

The language of the statute is a bit convoluted.?ÿ The first part says that it is only for section corners and quarter corners, but "the county surveyor shall proceed to establish the corner monument in accordance with section 38-51-103, C.R.S."?ÿ That section deals explicitly with the subdivision of a section, not with the reestablishment of section corners and quarter section corners.?ÿ Dealing solely with mineral surveys, I cannot recall the last time that I had a section corner or quarter corner that was a controlling corner in one of my surveys.?ÿ If memory serves me correctly the answer is, "never".

It has a very authoritative sounding title, "Establishment of a Legal Corner Monument".?ÿ Of course, the affected land owners can appeal the county surveyor's survey.

A Line of Agreement is provided by 38-44-112, not 38-44-101 - as mistakenly posted earlier. The county surveyor statute cited previously is correctly 38-44-104- the court may appoint a county surveyor.?ÿ

38-44-101 is in the statutes, but I did not intend to mention it as one of the three statutory means for two landowners to resolve a disputed boundary.?ÿ

Of the three I meant to state, 38-44-112 (Line of Agreement), 38-44-104 (court appointed county surveyor - any disputed boundary), or "Outright Exemption", "Outright Exemption" is the most common statutory procedure used, Line of Agreement (38-44-112) is second most used, and court appointed county surveyor 38-44-104, is quite rare. I have been retained by the court twice as a county surveyor (neither time to establish a section corner or quarter corner, I have prepared 5 Lines of Agreements, and dozens of "Outright Exemptions".?ÿ

I am not aware of any county surveyor in the State of Colorado who has been lobbied by the landowners to establish a quarter corner or section corner pursuant to 38-44-101.?ÿ

In my capacity as county surveyor, I have been directed by my county commissioners to produce over 500 specific jobs, ranging in size from very small to quite complex, and I would estimate that dozens of these requests were initiated specifically in response to problems and conflicts with boundary information brought to the commissioners by one or more landowners. In my capacity as county surveyor, I have taken hundreds of calls from landowners?ÿ with complaints about local surveyors and their work. Most of the time, these complaints are not founded on any substandard work - just lack of understanding of the terminology of surveying, but a significant amount of these complaints are justified.?ÿ

I have to apologize for my misstatement of the difference between 38-44-101 and 38-44-112 - a difference I am quite aware of but still managed to botch!! Ooops!

Gene and Warren

?ÿ

I sort of look at it as a whole procedure 38-44?ÿ 101 thru 111.?ÿ Its a statutory procedure to have disputed or lost boundaries established and further blessed by the court.?ÿ Some other states have something similar.?ÿ Utah doesn't have this in our code.?ÿ I look it at and wonder if maybe Utah might benefit from something like this.?ÿ That's why I ask how often it it used.

I read 38-44-101 more generally than just for section corners.?ÿ I think it could be used for any lost or disputed line.?ÿ Looking at the case law cited there it's been tested by the courts.?ÿ 101 is just the firs step in the procedure which ends at 111 the, right to appeal.

I don't work in Colorado so maybe I just don't understand your law.

the statutes enacted for the establishment of disputed boundaries are very helpful to the public because it gives two landowners a relatively simple means to resolve a dispute outside of court -?ÿ

The LINE OF AGREEMENT (30-44-112) is by far the most effective and simple to use.?ÿ

Here are the problems with our statutes that should be addressed by any State wishing to serve the public with a means to resolve disputes outside of court:?ÿ

The term "Outright Exemption" and "Subdivision Exemption" grants a duty to counties that go way, way, way too far. Invariably, counties HIJACK the efforts of two landowners wishing to resolve their disputes in good faith and force them to comply with the endless red tape of a county regulated "subdivision exemption". This means that county people will sit around a table and make observations and decisions about two landowners property rights - none of which they understand at all. But, since they are county people, they decide that they MUST intervene. They look at numbers on a piece of paper, "rule" that you have to have the county attorney decide whether you can or not proceed with a "line of agreement". the county attorney will "rule" that no - this is a "subdivision exemption" so the poor, wretched landowners then go through the process of a county regulated "subdivision exemption", which in 1972 was very simple, but in 2018 has fed itself into an overgrown, all too powerful county bureaucratic nightmare. The simplest of procedures now take 4 to 5 months of waiting for the county to go through its series of red-tape "approval" processes.?ÿ?ÿ

The main problem with "Line of Agreement" is that despite the good intent of allowing two landowners to resolve a valid dispute without the cost of attorneys or surveyors, they end up recording a drawing that no future surveyor can decipher. I know siblings that now hate each other because the saved on the cost of a professional survey.?ÿ

The other pitfall with "lines of agreements" is that they can be abused: Some landowners record a "line of agreement" as a means to move a known line to a new position that they both prefer. This is illegal - you can only resolve a disputed boundary when that line is in fact - uncertain.?ÿ

Good luck!

Warren,

I'd agree that any such statute to help land owners resolve problem boundaries should keep the government out of it as far as possible.

With regards?ÿ to boundary line agreements, Utah in the last few years has enacted code that places these things out of the realm of planning and zoning because of problems such as you speak too.?ÿ Landowners can't violate zoning regs (use the procedure to subdivide land or move existing boundaries, the abuse you refer to).?ÿ Counties had decided?ÿ boundary agreements fell under their subdivision ordinances and thus the county was in control.?ÿ Boy did that cause problems!

A few years ago, our county planning department held a meeting with our state's chief BLM cadastral surveyor, and solemnly informed him that the BLM had violated the county's subdivision regulations - and unfortunately, they would have to begin fining the BLM x dollars per day until they brought their "small tracts" Township Plat recently approved and recorded, into compliance......

I have many stories like this.?ÿ

How much did they collect?

I'd guess zero!

?ÿ

Here is what Utah did to fix problem:

Boundary Line Agreement

Parcel Boundary Agreement

about zero is pretty close -

I often sit in roomfuls of county people, explaining how boundary lines, as they exist on the ground, are depicted by surveyors on documents - then listen helplessly weeping when they insist something like: "but, you moved this guy's property?ÿ x feet! (pointing to a piece of paper) you can't do that unless you go through a county regulated subdivision!"?ÿ

?ÿ

Well,

If they treat you like I feel I get treated much of the time, the surveyor knows less than any other person in the room when it comes to boundaries.?ÿ They might suffer through what you are trying to explain to them, but after you leave the room they go about what they want anyway.?ÿ I think surveyors are one of the least respected professions in the country.?ÿ Why?

BUMP - As someone studying for the Colorado exam and one who will take the exam very soon...I thank you all for adding, explaining and discussing the Exemption Plat and 30-28-300 in general.

Cheers @warrenward @gene-kooper @ridge @kdixon