Leon
from what I understand, it is "OK" to take care of the overlap (by the Surveyor) but a Surveyor must never ever never never ever ever ever "close" a gap if they don't want to get torpedoed by their fellow professionals in the area not to mention the title company and the law firms.
I have tried to get someone to explain the logic of why it is OK to figure out one type of conflict but not another; it hasn't been explained satisfactorily to me yet other than resolving gap type conflicts could be a bonanza for an aggressive law firm. True that is a risk concern but doesn't answer the question of what is right.
This is on good authority.
Leon you pretty much hit the nail on the head.
I have never signed an ALTA but I know a lot make a chunk of their income from them. It's good in the sense the compensation is pretty good for mapping buildings and parking lots.
Dave
Seems that in the application of junior/senior rights most are comfortable to give the overlap to the senior and short the junior, I suppose the logic is they both can't own the overlap. I've read case law about the excess going to the junior but can't cite a case right now.
I suppose that the logic is that the excess must still belong to the original grantor. But I believe that the junior takes the loss in an overlap and also gets the excess when that is the case. That's fair and doesn't create this gap owned by some long gone grantor where there was no intent to keep the excess.
It all makes perfect logical sense to me but I seem to be in some sort of minority.
As soon as surveyors start making their own rules and ignoring what the courts have given us then you have these problems. Nerd logic doesn't always align with common sense. Common law is long term well though out and developed common sense.
I hear it's worse in some states than others but I've got problems with the "system" here in Utah also. I don't even want to think about surveying in California or worse Texas.