@r-leonard It is simple then. Forget all of the characterizations of the 2 surveys. They are filed. Show them to us. Let these professionals interpret the surveys. Perhaps there is nothing mysterious at all.
@r-leonard It is simple then. Forget all of the characterizations of the 2 surveys. They are filed. Show them to us. Let these professionals interpret the surveys. Perhaps there is nothing mysterious at all.
The OP, IMHO, isn't looking for professional advice. My guess is that he already knows what is "right" and is looking for confirmation by steering the conversation. Perhaps he gave too much info in the first thread he started, so he tried a new one?
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.
There are people I wont work for, nor share anything with. I don't find that odd. It would the odd duck of a professional career where one never had to fire a client, I would be surprised.
@dmyhill You don't have to guess.?ÿ I'm trying to learn what is reasonable to expect to learn from Ajax in this case.?ÿ
Let's change the mystery item.?ÿ Boundary surveyor done for Simpson 20 yrs ago by Ajax.?ÿ Boundary survey done for Flanders today, again by Ajax, but done with expanded search scope.?ÿ Boundaries agree for both Ajax surveys.?ÿ However, the Flander's Ajax survey now identifies a Tree.?ÿ The new survey notes that the Tree may suggest an alternative boundary.?ÿ Simpson learns of this and naturally wants to know more detail.?ÿ The map just says "Tree."?ÿ Is this a bearing tree??ÿ Does it have a blaze mark on it??ÿ Is there any wire stuck in it??ÿ Etc.?ÿ Can Simpson expect to get answers to these questions??ÿ Perhaps this is privileged information that Ajax only will share with Flanders (Ajax knows about the character and meaning of this tree, it's just not detailed on the filed map).?ÿ My impression is that the answer is not clear.?ÿ That Ajax is probably not obligated to share this new info, or work for, Simpson ever again.
you forgot to post the maps?
Anyone else notice a similarity between the the author of this thread and a certain Austinite?
The new survey notes that the Tree may suggest an alternative boundary.?ÿ Simpson learns of this and naturally wants to know more detail.?ÿ The map just says "Tree."?ÿ Is this a bearing tree??ÿ Does it have a blaze mark on it??ÿ Is there any wire stuck in it??ÿ Etc.?ÿ Can Simpson expect to get answers to these questions? Perhaps this is privileged information that Ajax only will share with Flanders (Ajax knows about the character and meaning of this tree, it's just not detailed on the filed map).
Uh, if this story is anywhere near true (I'm leaning towards no) the PUBLIC can expect a full explanation in the surveyor's narrative on the face of the ROS. Simpson doesn't need to ask, that information is required to be on the survey because true ambiguities discovered during a boundary survey are required to be depicted and/or explained.
There's no "privileged information" when it may materially affect adjoiners.
If the surveyor doesn't meet minimum standards, they are in violation. Turn 'em into the board and let it get sorted out.
If there is an adequate explanation on the face of the survey, but Simpson just wants additional info, tough luck.
Surveyors are not advocates for their clients. There's no conflict of interest just because they surveyed the adjoiner. But if Ajax doesn't want to take on Simpson as a client again, that is their prerogative.
?ÿ
Not sure why I am still posting on this thread. I think it's high time I stopped.
