Ajax confirms the 20-year-old recorded boundary location, but finds some mysterious underground remnants that may suggest an alternative boundary theory. Simpson asks Ajax to identify what they found. Ajax refuses to tell.
Is something amiss here?
Yes something is amiss. It makes no sense that you were made aware of something secret. You say they wont tell. Yet somehow you want us to believe they told you, "We have a secret but we aren't going to tell you what it is." The scenario you paint does not make sense.
Of course it matters, I find underground stuff all the time. I might mention to my client that I pulled out some type of iron from the ground off-handed and the inference by the other party is that's it's relevant to a boundary location.?ÿ
Did Ajax actually tell you that they found other boundary monuments or credible evidence and it would change the boundary?
Or is that hearsay?
?ÿ
?ÿ
I don't see an issue, especially since Ajax has held the original boundary.?ÿ Flanders paid to acquire boundary information and he and the PLS have no obligation to share anything beyond where the boundary is and what was set or held to monument it.?ÿ Information is valuable (just ask Google and Facebook) and the refusal to share it with others is not an implication of wrong doing (review the Bill of Rights in light of the Federalist Papers if you're confused by this concept, hint: all our founding fathers were traitors plotting to overthrow the government).?ÿ Boundaries and public knowledge concerning them are of great importance, but not greater than the right of an individual to refuse to be a witness against himself.?ÿ Particularly when Simpson is in no way denied the ability to purchase the knowledge through another PLS.?ÿ
I make it a point to ask my clients what beyond the minimum they're willing to share with abutters.?ÿ They often tell me I'm free to share all aspects of my research.?ÿ On rare occasions they say the opposite and who am I to judge??ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
@ric-moore I guess that what I was getting at is that Ajax was refusing to divulge to the original client additional evidence found in performance of the survey performed for the second client, presumable based on the argument that the second client paid for additional investigative work that uncovered new evidence.
One can logically conclude that the new found evidence indicates that there is a problem with the first survey completed 20 years ago.?ÿ If the new found evidence supported the 20 year old survey it wouldn't really be worthy of mentioning.?ÿ If my conclusions are correct, not adjusting the 20 year old boundry and fixing the potentially wrong boundry line not only causes title issues but is unethical.
Keep in mind that when is comes to errors and omissions, the clock starts running from the date of discovery, not the date of the 20 year old survey.?ÿ If I were Ajax, I think I'd want to meet with both the current and former client to either explain any issues with full disclosure to both parties or show the confirmation to the original 20 year old common line location and orientation.?ÿ ?ÿ
@ric-moore I guess that what I was getting at is that Ajax was refusing to divulge to the original client additional evidence found in performance of the survey performed for the second client, presumable based on the argument that the second client paid for additional investigative work that uncovered new evidence.
One can logically conclude that the new found evidence indicates that there is a problem with the first survey completed 20 years ago.?ÿ If the new found evidence supported the 20 year old survey it wouldn't really be worthy of mentioning.?ÿ If my conclusions are correct, not adjusting the 20 year old boundry and fixing the potentially wrong boundry line not only causes title issues but is unethical.
Keep in mind that when is comes to errors and omissions, the clock starts running from the date of discovery, not the date of the 20 year old survey.?ÿ If I were Ajax, I think I'd want to meet with both the current and former client to either explain any issues with full disclosure to both parties or show the confirmation to the original 20 year old common line location and orientation.?ÿ ?ÿ
I believe you and I are basically on the same page.?ÿ Errors and omissions generally only apply from a civil litigation perspective.?ÿ From a licensing disciplinary perspective, there usually is no timeline which is enforceable.
Thanks for insightful discussion
Additional investigative work.?ÿ In my career I've never had a client request I do additional investigative work when contracted to do a boundary survey.?ÿ I have always done the investigative work I deemed necessary to do the survey. I'm curious if anyone has had a request to do additional investigative work.
Considering the 20 years stretch between the two surveys and further considering it is highly likely that no one involved with the first survey is still around for the second one, odds are strong that the current management of the firm does not want to rock the boat for fear of getting soaked.?ÿ Most newby-types look at an ancient drawing (hey, they were in diapers 20 years ago) with disdain as it is probably not nearly as pretty or standardized as what they produce today.
We have plenty of people who have revised their opinion on the proper method of re-establishing section corners over the past 20 years, for example.?ÿ Some have learned, from experience, how to properly survey in city additions that were created over 100 years ago.?ÿ "It depends." has become part of their thought process now.
So you had a survey done 20 years ago and recently the neighbor contacted the same company (different surveyor) to perform their survey.
Said survey company comes to the same conclusion in regards to the location of the property line and now you want to dispute its location?
Am I missing something here?
If Flanders has retained counsel then Ajax??s work may be privileged. This is just a guess.
The parties in litigation aren??t supposed to talk to each other directly but especially the experts. Also just a guess this may apply here. If Ajax is Flander??s expert then they can??t work for you.
On the other hand, you apparently haven??t been notified of litigation. The ??map? with the Xs may constitute a lis pendins.
Apparently Flanders has some document which is not in the public records or known to anyone else?
The whole thing sounds like bluffing to me.
Fence the record boundary determined 20 years ago, I doubt anything will happen.
good, accurate summary.?ÿ In defense of Ajax, the 20-year-old scope of work was to simply verify the boundary for Simpson.?ÿ However, the recent work for Flanders was to re-verify the boundary PLUS the extra looking around 100 feet away from the verified boundary.?ÿ The looking around part was never part of the original scope from Simpson, and Ajax cant be blamed for not finding or disclosing what they werent asked to look for 20 years ago.
The problem is that Simpson wants to know what was just found by Ajax, Ajax senses a problem, and clams up.?ÿ Furthermore, Ajax now wont engage Simpson to share or even do more work.?ÿ That's the odd part of the story...?ÿ apparently trying to protect either Flanders or themselves from sharing the info.
@lurker Simpson was made aware that something was found that may suggest an alternative boundary, but Ajax refuses to share details.?ÿ Is that difficult to believe?
@mightymoe not hearsay.?ÿ the mysterious item(s) were noted on a filed map, but Ajax will not share any detail and refuses to engage Simpson, for a fee, to return to the site and measure the exact location of "findings," provide pictures, or provide a detailed description, say, a couple of buried bricks versus a buried concrete masonry unit.
If the surveyed line has been treated as the boundary for 20 years, a buried stone wall or whatever in a different position is probably irrelevant under the doctrine of acquiescence.
https://www.wisbar.org/NewsPublications/Pages/General-Article.aspx?ArticleID=5867
It would be best to post a screen shot of the filed map showing the offending information. It's public so that's not a problem redact out names.?ÿ
Even so, I've been doing this a long time and this sounds like so many other boundaries where a party want's to gain because of nebulous or irrelevant information on the plat. Without seeing a public map you want everyone to comment on it?
But two important questions:
1. There is a note or something on the plat about a location or something.........what's there on the ground at that location, what do you see there?
Understand, good boundaries are made up of materials that can be seen and touched, stone walls, fences, monuments, blazes on trees, streams, roads and monuments set by surveyors or landowners that anyone can find.?ÿ
2. If the other party want's to pay Ajax why not pay a different surveyor to get a second opinion?
It doesn't make sense.?ÿ
My guess is that Ajax is weary of this boundary, has answered questions about it and wants it to go away, so they are finished with it.?ÿ
I'm guessing most surveyors have had some like that.?ÿ
Amen, Brother Moe
?ÿ
@murphy I accept the fact that Flanders has paid for the new information and is entitled not to share it, certainly.?ÿ It just seems a little odd that Ajax is reluctant to share given how I always hear about the tendency towards serving the public vs the client.?ÿ Further, the relationship with Flanders is now over.?ÿ Finally, its especially strange to me that now Ajax refuses to work again for Simpson.?ÿ Why must it be a different PLS altogether to work for Simpson?
@mightymoe I may at some point share the Flanders survey & notation.?ÿ 1) Simpson maintains the area, nothing above ground.?ÿ Ajax was probing around with a pinfinder and found the new treasures, buried.?ÿ 2) I think that Ajax may have gone a little overboard for Flanders in their deliverables and may just want to be done with it.?ÿ I dont know.?ÿ And youre right, could easily hire another PLS.