bump of surveyors associated with fraud post

>If the low bid surveys are deficient and/or fraudulent and it cost the title agencies big bucks

Agreed.

But the original story seemed to have the slant that they were going after anybody who did anything even slightly wrong, even if that wasn't the cause of a loss. Don't make the surveyor responsible for losses due to the buyer's inability to pay, which is by far the bigger problem in the housing market.

HAH! $700 for an ALTA. Be comforted that the client got what they paid for and the surveyor left $4k on the table.
I am of the opinion that State boards no longer go after bad surveyors to 'protect the public' but rather spend their time mediating complaints about contracts and poor customer service, and in our state, going after those who fail to record surveys in a timely manner. Yet I see a real problem with surveyor on surveyor crimes. Who is to say it is a bad survey? There are many things to consider in laying a boundary and I would be very upset were my board to come after me because of a difference in opinion. These are for the court to resolve and the board needs to stick to obvious lack of judgment or procedures--the stuff which is certain, definable, and defensible.
Regarding your example, I would be wary before passing judgment on the results of a perfect rectangle. We had a similar scenario in our office just last month. At first glance, we too thought something was amiss and that the surveyor 'cheesed out'. After spending an hour or so researching the area, the survey was discovered to be in line with historic surveys, descriptions in the area, and other factors. Granted, there would end up being problems for properties (eventually) to the north which will require some hair-pulling. Lets hope someone charges enough to do those, or someone will get screwed.
My point is made though, that I do think boards need to spend more time scrutinizing low-ball surveys in which too many corners were obviously cut. Yet I surely don't want to dance on the red carpet every time another surveyor fails to do his research and reports me instead.
We all need to cost our jobs in a manner which allows us the comfort of spending time to do it right. We should not bid them, just for the sake of getting the work. Our services have value. If a client does not recognize this, then let them do it and screw themselves. If a surveyor does not recognize this, he screws all of us. Value of services, people, value of services. Value above and beyond the actual cost of work performed. Half the work for twice the money. That should be the motto for us all.

"If title agencies are facing significant losses as a result of their low bid survey regardless of quality policy it will force title agencies and attorneys to raise their survey standards."

I didn't read where title companies are suffering significant losses because of low bid surveys. Losses are from the oranges...we can't compare the apples of surveying to the oranges of banking.

If anything the title agencies and attorneys will raise their rate. But lets not get ahead of ourselves here.

The defaults and losses have nothing to do with the price of the survey.

I have avoided commenting on that thread but my impression of the link is someone is fishing for clients.

I'm not sure the numbers now, but a few years ago one of the most common complaints at the MA Board was the 'outrageous' fees charged by surveyors.

Woolley seemed to send the title insurance companies after the surveyors for not recording a plan. Perhaps there were damages on some properties due to the lack of notice, but it seems pretty weak. Of course, why didn't they record their plans in accordance with the regs?

I consistently see a similar issue with the municipalities and Conservation 'Orders of Conditions'. Town Counsel in one town actually advised the department head to not record the orders. While it makes it difficult to reference, amend or otherwise use the document officially, there is no real harm.

In certain circumstances, California Statute requires filing of a Record of Survey map with the County Surveyor for checking and ultimately it will be filed at the County Recorders office. These maps do not carry constructive notice; one reason for this is they don't necessarily get indexed into the chain of title. The Surveyor's Statement has a "surveyed for" statement but that doesn't necessarily have to be the property owner.

Bill93, I agree! If the survey made a mistake you can't go after him(in this situation, damages are different). On the flip side if the surveyor committed fraud you can go after him. Surveyors are allowed to make mistakes(liability is still there) but we can not produce surveys with a such a low standard of care that they are/might be considered fraudulent. In Florida I do believe that there is a large number of fraudulent surveys being prepared. In my opinion there is a HUGE HUGE difference between a bad survey and a fraudulent survey. We all make mistakes and prepare a bad survey but we should never prepare a a fraudulent survey!!!

Going after title agencies for knowingly ordering sub par surveys and the surveyors preparing them seems like a good thing to me.

Just,

You are right that there may not be any damages but as soon as the word fraud comes in there doesn't need to be damages. Wooley is stating that the title agencies have committed constructive fraud. In my area all title insurance insures against fraud. Hence the big bucks statement.

To the forum: I am not trying to be a pain in the a**! I am young surveyor who is very interested in learning from others opinions.

> my impression of the link is someone is fishing for clients.

Based on posts by the referenced author in another forum, that's my impression as well. He seems to do a good deal of business assisting lawyers in pressing claims the public benefit of which is not at all clear to me.

On the flip side, if his business development efforts result in the closing of some ALTA mills, that would be a positive outcome.

Tangent,
I suspect that the board looks into all legitimate complaints. I don't think it's their job to hunt down possible offenders of lowballing. A surveyor has every right to loose all the money he can and many exercise that right. Your other option is to find one of these lowball-surveys and find out what is wrong or fraudulent about it and then report that surveyor.

That's a little harder to do. They'll go down, when something goes wrong on the landowner's side based on the bad survey. I suspect most surveys don't end up being questioned. THe fact is that they can often get away with it.

so there is no harm in not recording the plan? how can the insurance companies sue for the millions in E&O if there were no damages?

Really so what if it's just a marketing tool.

I see no reason why if one were to conclude that the article was JUST A MARKETING TOOL, that would constitute grounds to dismiss the article and refuse to consider the commentary on it's merits.

The reason folks are "experts" is not because they think they are "experts", but rather because they have special knowledge, skills, education that sets them apart from the general public.

The article demonstrates clearly that it was prepared and an EXPERT. I like the approach. It sure as hell beats the Craig's list approach of "I'm not busy on Saturday. I can slam your ALTA out. I'm fast and cheap."

" It only takes one false representation of a material fact [encroachment] to create a case for fraud."

I've got a problem with that and maybe the registereds know better. An error discovered in a survey is a matter of negligence, possibly gross negligence depending upon the circumstances. Isn't there a considerably steeper burden of proof in a case of fraud ?

You know, and if a registered is employed by one of the larger title companies, and performing surveys at the direction of these title companies, doesn't that title company bear some.....nm i've read enough on the subprime saga to answer these questions.

If you ever get a chance, talk to a lawyer about fraud.

In the course of 40+yrs, I have never been able to pin a lawyer down that would tackle fraud. Their spidey sense comes out and they can spurt out so much data that contradicts any idea of what you think fraud is before you can answer.

It is very obvious when fraud has been committed, however, it is one of the hardest things to prove. I truly think that lawyers refuse to make it into court with a case of fraud because if one lawyer ever wins a case for someone, it would set a precedence that would open the gates of hell for the larger than expected crowd headed that way.
😉