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.
?ÿ
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.
@r-leonard Yes it is. I'm not familiar with the scope of work that is called "verifying a boundary". I'm only familiar with doing a boundary survey. You seam to imply that the necessary work to do a boundary survey wasn't done initially 20 years ago and that only by engaging the firm again 20 years later and asking for something "extra" to be done was more evidence found that is now being kept secret from you.
Using Occam's razor, I believe a boundary survey would have been done both times without any secrets being kept from the public. Your inputs necessary for your argument of a survey not being done initially but only a boundary verification, and evidence contrary to your interests being kept from you unethically, I find to be less believable than the surveyor having done his work correctly both times.
Maybe your scenario is correct, but it doesn't ring true to me is all.
@lurker to be clear, boundary surveys were done both times for Simpson and Flanders.?ÿ Both surveys were filed.?ÿ Flanders had the little extra mystery info.
@lurker to be clear, boundary surveys were done both times for Simpson and Flanders.?ÿ Both surveys were filed.?ÿ Flanders had the little extra mystery info.
Now I'm confused. Unless the law is significantly different in your state, if the surveys were both filed, and there was information pertinent to boundary resolution that could result in a different location, it should not be a mystery, because it's required to be shown on the ROS.
Around here at least, on any survey map (regardless of whether it is filed or not) must be shown "any ambiguities, hiatuses, and/or overlapping boundaries". If they're not identified and/or explained (because that's required too), then the surveyor is in violation.
Is that not the case where this conflict is happening?
Reminds me of a current survey project involving a significant disagreement with the prior surveyor.?ÿ The Minimum Standards call for a meeting with the other surveyor to discuss and , possibly, resolve differences.?ÿ The seance is scheduled for midnight Wednesday.
I am 100% sure that if the actual surveyor shared the full facts and evidence that we would all wonder why someone would make a big deal about this.
