Real life example:?ÿ Simpson hires Ajax Surveying 20 years ago to locate and mark boundary line.?ÿ Today, next door neighbor Flanders hires the very same Ajax Surveying to re-do the survey, with some extra investigative work.
Ajax confirms the 20-year-old recorded boundary location, but finds some mysterious underground remnants that may suggest an alternative boundary theory.?ÿ Simpson asks Ajax to identify what they found.?ÿ Ajax refuses to tell.
Simpson then asks Ajax to do some additional work for hire on the property.?ÿ Ajax again refuses, claiming the appearance of a conflict of interest with Flanders.
Is there anything amiss here?
?ÿ
?ÿ
Maybe the conflict of interest originating with the contracting with Flanders after first performing a survey for Simpson??ÿ In California, this can be avoided by the surveyor alerting both Simpson and Flanders in writing before commencing with the contract for Flanders.
Not enough info to even speculate.?ÿ
Is there anything amiss here?
Sounds like it. Surveyors are not advocates for their clients. Having done work for an adjoiner is not a conflict of interest.
Ajax confirms the 20-year-old recorded boundary location, but finds some mysterious underground remnants that may suggest an alternative boundary theory.?ÿ Simpson asks Ajax to identify what they found.?ÿ Ajax refuses to tell.
Is this a mandatory recording state? If so, and there's a material discrepancy and/or monumentation out of tolerance, it's a moot point. The record of survey better show what they found if it is significant.
Regardless, a licensed surveyor hiding information that could potentially affect public boundaries is sketchy as hell.
Sounds like a retread of this thread.
https://surveyorconnect.com/community/surveying-geomatics/fence-remnant/
Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get me.
If you paid Ajax and they won't give you information you paid them to find. Ask for your money back and hire Beta.
@williwaw close, the conflict of interest aspect is the twist
the new discovery/information goes to client Flanders.?ÿ Ajax won't tell Simpson.?ÿ Simpson offers to pay Ajax for additional field work in order to obtain the discovery.?ÿ Ajax still refuses, claiming "appearance" of conflict of interest.
@mightymoe sometimes situations are as simple as this.?ÿ what else do you need to know?
He never employed Ajax.
Homer, a prior owner did 20 years ago.?ÿ Now the neighbor(Ned) uses Ajax but adds extra requests and gets slightly different results than what was shown 20 years ago.?ÿ This is the current owner of Homer's land asking for information about Ned's recent survey.
Ajax can smell that something is rotten in Springfield.?ÿ Ajax realizes they are in a no-win situation when this all goes to court.
A totally independent surveyor, who does not know Homer, Ned, or the new guy in town, needs to be hired specifically to search out the history of the situation and the surveys with full knowledge that there is an ensuing battle.
.
.
.
.
?ÿIt appears I have one of those types of jobs on my to-do list.?ÿ Large tract has had various tracts cut out of it since about 1990.?ÿ All descriptions, except one, commence at the southeast corner of the original large tract.?ÿ The oddball commences at the southwest corner.?ÿ A difference on the order of 17 feet comes into play.
What was found? A chunk of sidewalk, some buried barbed wire, old fence posts, the list is endless.
The first survey was 20 years ago, is this even the same company, have the old surveyors retired?
Did Ajax actually say it had bearing on the first survey or that they found some extra material and rejected it. Do you really want to show old found metal that you reject as survey monuments on a plat? Found buried coke can and rejected it.?ÿ
Maybe they are acting unprofessionally but this is very vague.?ÿ?ÿ
Sounds like a retread of this thread.
https://surveyorconnect.com/community/surveying-geomatics/fence-remnant/
Let me save four pages of thread and post the final word from that (exact same question) thread...
"but want an official opinion."?ÿ The answer is to retain a local surveyor, or all you will have is endless conjecture.
Ken
?ÿ
I??ll sit this one out. ?ÿTime is to precious!
Not me, this is too much fun. Ajax Surveying made a boo boo and won't admit it. ?????ÿ
It seems suspicious to me that after more investigative work was done Ajax refuses to divulge the additional evidence discovered to the other party when it may materially have an effect on the neighboring boundary.
Actually Homer still owns the land, always had.?ÿ Homer just wants to know what Ajax just found for neighbor Ned.?ÿ Homer thinks since Ajax worked for him 20 years ago, that Ajax would share info, and if not, at least do some more work for.?ÿ Ajax has worked for both now, and you're right - Ajax senses something isnt quite right.?ÿ Its a unique situation.
What was found??ÿ Does it matter??ÿ is sharing or not sharing that information depend on what was found??ÿ It is the same company, but not the same surveyor.?ÿ Property line and corners verified from 20 years ago, but a little extra, secret material away from the line not sharable, apparently.
@ric-moore what does one have to do with the other??ÿ?ÿ
?ÿ
Based solely on the information provided by the OP, it appears that Ajax is refusing to disclose boundary evidence to the first client (Simpson) which for apparent reasons, should had been recovered and disclosed to that client during the first survey performed 20 years ago. Additionally, since it appears that Ajax is surveying the location of a common property line(s) between the first client (Simpson) and the second client (Flanders), there is an inherent "perspective" of conflict of interest in regards to the true intentions of Ajax relating to the results of the survey(s).
As we all well know, the only truth is where the property evidence leads the surveyor to the determination for the location, regardless of which property owner is paying the bill and regardless of who benefits/suffers from that determination.?ÿ The rationale Ajax is using to support why the additional services could not be rendered to Simpson is the same rationale against Ajax in accepting to perform services for Flanders.
Ajax should be considering the fact that withholding the discovery of evidence to Simpson, which could had been reasonably available at the time of the first survey, could lead to a determination that Ajax was negligent, at minimum, in performing the first survey.?ÿ Best course of action would had been to 1) reveal to both Simpson and Flanders that Ajax had performed the first survey 20 years ago and 2) offer to meet with both afterwards to assist with a proper and reasonable resolution of the matter.