Conflict?

Is the nature of the “conflict”:

a) We don’t know the location of the monumented corners; or
b) We disagree with the location where the monumented corners were set

In the latter case I personally would be a little uncomfortable if I didn’t inform Owner 2 that my firm was the surveyor who set the monuments in question, since they probably believe they are getting an independent check of the work previously performed.

none whatsoever. You are not an advocate for the client. Your previous surveys do not prevent you from forming an unbiased opinion of the boundary.

I agree with JF.

There's no conflict with you taking the neighbor as a client, just because the first person declined your services.

But there may be an appearance to deceive if you don't inform the neighbor that you surveyed and set (or found and accept) the monuments that they may be disputing.

I agree wholeheartedly that you should disclose your previous work to your new client

The nature of their conflict isn't with the location of the corners. They both know where the corners are. A dispute has arisen from a wall that one built "on the line". Is it on the line or over the line?

Sounds like a good chance to mediate. If they are not ready to sue just yet and want to know if it is or if it isnt maybe they would split your fee.

Cliff-

I agree with the slight addition ...........................

If I may please:

"I agree wholeheartedly that you should disclose your previous work to your new client"

One might add: " that we had established this common boundary in #### "

Cheers

Derek

Disclose...or brag. Tell them you have already surveyed the neighbor's lot, and have a good handle on the property lines in that area. Having done a survey of the adjoiner already seems like it would give you a "leg up". Just make sure you don't disagree with your previous survey work is all....;-)

Would courts consider it a conflict of interest? I would hope that they would think exactly the opposite. If you did a survey for each party (or property) and came up with the same results for both, it seems like you would be considered more "unbiased", than if you were getting paid by one client, and disagreeing with the adjoining survey.

I see no problem as long as they are aware that you will only serve as an expert and not as their "advocate". Their advocate is their attorney.

(If you did a survey for each party (or property) and came up with the same results for both, it seems like you would be considered more "unbiased",)

Good point Adam

Do not be like some of the large Eng/Surveying companies around here , on the second survey would show a complete different bearing and distance on the common line and then you could fight your self in court .

> Just make sure you don't disagree with your previous survey work is all....;-)
>
>
That's Funny.

I see no conflict.

I'd tell them I was cheerful to do the job.

Nate

While I agree that there's no conflict, I don't see how you can be "unbiased" here?

You already established/recovered/monumented the common boundary line. Unless you're going to do it again, with some other method, then you already know where it's located, and by definition, are biased as to its location.

Am I misunderstanding something here?

DISCLOSE

There is conflict and apparent conflict.

Right or wrong, the lawyers will point to the conflict.

If the solution remains the same, good. If you change your opinion fomr the previous survey, it can be tough.

In California, the regulations state that you would need to provide written notification to both owners that you had previously provided boundary services on the common line to one of them.

May seem redundant since it appears the neighbors discussed your new fee and the other contacted you to discuss hiring. But, it may be the prudent course of action to protect not only their interest, but your license as well.

This also appears to be in line with the other responses you have received along with the chance to mediate the situation for the common good as others have also stated.

Hope it goes well for you,
Ric

> While I agree that there's no conflict, I don't see how you can be "unbiased" here?
>
> You already established/recovered/monumented the common boundary line. Unless you're going to do it again, with some other method, then you already know where it's located, and by definition, are biased as to its location.
>
> Am I misunderstanding something here?

Hmmm....I'm not sure if you're serious or not, but seeing no smiley-face, I will assume you are. If you review all of the facts and come up with a conclusion, and then re-review all of the facts and come up with the same conclusion, I would say yes....that's unbiased. I would suggest that surveyors are generally unbiased. They should be like scientists, and review all of the data, and come up with the best solution based on that data.

Biased, to me, would be having conflicting evidence, and picking the data that will best benefit your client. And if you change clients, you arrive at a different conclusion. That's an attorney's job in my mind. If you're saying "biased" toward your own conclusion based on the facts....well, then I guess everything you do is biased and there should be no need for the word to exist.

I'm serious. It's bias - meaning that you already know where the line is, having done it prior on the abutter's lot. You're not apt to come up with a different location based on the same facts/evidence as before.

I'm not saying that you're fudging anything - just that your location isn't a new or independent determination.

Unbiased, to me, would be someone else performing the survey and arriving at the same conclusion/location as you.

I would offer to recover the monuments for them for a small fee. That should be all that is needed, with the monuments, a string line and a measuring tape would show all and they can both see what is what and choose to live with it, cause some legal document to be filed with an agreement or go to war. You don't need to get involved at all unless the courts ask you to locate and show the fence location in respect to the boundary on a drawing. When a survey is not required, don't do one and expect to get payed, you would only be looking out for yourself, not your client.
jud