A good example of one of the many pitfalls. And a good reason to keep things "at arms length".
If I remember correctly from what I heard from interested parties, they let him present his survey and testimony in court. To begin with, his opinion/survey wasn’t very sound and persuasive about the interpretation of the deed but it was very favorable for his client (partners). I think the municipality’s lawyer and surveyor just fed him rope to hang himself.
It was after they pretty much successfully rebutted his survey opinion, that they put forth the conflict of interest issue. It was like giving him 2 black eyes in court.
Thanks for the feedback - I didn’t expect such different viewpoints; I am curious how owning a percentage of the property changes it from no conflict to conflict of interest. Another direction with this question – Years ago I had a contractor friend try to get me to partner with him in land development, I was going to do the planning, surveying, layout etc. and he would do roads, utilities. It didn’t happen due to lack of funds but at the time I knew other surveyors doing this and they had no conflict in their mind.
Anytime we're paid, and the client is only on one side of the boundary, we have some appearance of conflict of interest. The same is true where there is some sort of past relationship/friendship with a client. We cannot be advocates, but the appearance may be there as such.
That appearance is elevated when we have a vested interest in the land being surveyed.
We must keep our boundary determinations impartial of how much we're being paid, whether we're being paid in cash or land, and who we're surveying for.
If one has an elevated interest in a survey, and if the survey uncovers an alternate solution, conflict between title and location, or evidence of acquired rights outside of the written conveyance, then discussions should be held with all affected parties regarding the evidence, the laws governing the situation, and whether an outside, independant analysis is warranted or desired.
That being said, I have no problem with the size or type of payment received for a survey. Nor do I have a problem with who one retains as a client. As long as the boundary determinations can stand on their own feet and any boundary issues discovered are vetted through involvement by all interested parties, one might be able to avoid letting the appearance of conflict arise to the level of an accusation of impropriety.
I have had adjoiners in boundary disputes raise the question of conflict of interest before for various reasons. I have been successful in quashing that spector by making sure the affected parties are fully educated on the evidence and laws which governed my decision making process and the various remedies that could be pursued. If the adjoiner is still hesitant, I offer that they retain a surveyor to go over my findings. Usually they like this idea as opposed to hiring a full survey on their own dime, and it gives them an independant view of the issue.
In response,- I am regularly a subcontractor on construction projects and I realize that if the contractor doesn’t complete the project they don’t get paid and I don't get paid. I have a vested interest in this project coming to completion so according to your line of thought I have a conflict of interest in that situation.
Right on Jim.