Confused area...wording on a map.

I wouldn't label it anything. Assuming you have all the interested parties agreeing to a single boundary (line or lines), that's all I would show and label those lines as "agreed to by xxxx, yyyy, & zzzz and have the plat attached to a boundary line agreement deed. If everything is so confusing, solve the problem without showing all the confusion.

Generally you need to show the parties the problem and why a boundary line agreement is desirable. I would show my opinion in bold and the others in light line. Then point out the area by way of a note. But I wouldn't use the term "confusion" as I can always form a reasonable opinion. I like "area of historical uncertainty". This confirms that you have an opinion but others have differed in the past. I'm perfectly willing to defend it in court for thousands of dollars, but it may be wise to settle out of court. The agreement will involve extra fees for the final map and descriptions, but nothing approaching court costs. And the outcome of a court case is always uncertain in itself, and may still require additional fees for map updates depending on the outcome.

Perhaps you could prepare a couple of SKETCHES that never leave your possession that demonstrate the complete confusion caused by the multiple potential locations for each line. Show the agreed upon boundary lines in heavy lines and the others in thinner, more faint lines. You may want to show a specific landowner only that portion that represents his area of concern or you may want to show everybody the complete mess. You know which will work best for you.

Present the final plat to all. Then stay involved throughout the paperwork and recording phase to assure that there are no errors in the record documents.

"Area Of Confusion"

You do not want to imply that you are confused byt that the evidence is confusing. Evidence includes ocupation, monuments, plats and deeds.

Paul in PA

> I wouldn't label it anything. Assuming you have all the interested parties agreeing to a single boundary (line or lines), that's all I would show and label those lines as "agreed to by xxxx, yyyy, & zzzz and have the plat attached to a boundary line agreement deed. If everything is so confusing, solve the problem without showing all the confusion.

I agree, Dave. There is no point completing the survey when the boundary hasn't been resolved. Labeling the "area of confusion" accomplishes nothing. There is no reason to document the problem in the form of a survey.

Making an "exhibit" or a "sketch" of the problem will aid the owners in understanding the issue, but be careful to never express your "opinion" when you are assisting the landowners in resolving the problem. I wouldn't recommend showing any "heavy line." The exhibit should inform the landowners of the facts, but allow them the freedom to obtain their own solution to the problem.

Once you've successfully negotiated a boundary agreement between the owners, the final survey should reveal the various "survey lines" in a similar light line type. Then depict the final agreed-upon boundary in a nice heavy boundary line along with the lighter, helter-skelter survey lines.

If you're ever wondering how to describe a problem, you're wasting your time. Solve the problem, then describe the solution instead.

JBS

"Area Of Confusion"

> You do not want to imply that you are confused byt that the evidence is confusing. Evidence includes ocupation, monuments, plats and deeds.
>
> Paul in PA

FWIW -

The term confusion is confusing, especially when a professional uses the term.
You might use terms such as; conflict and ambiguity instead

I would try to let the the drawings & sketches do all the explaining

If your drawings are clear and show in detail the deed lines, areas of gaps & gores, lines of occupation, fences, walls, etc. - The client will obviously understand the confusion. He hired you to sift this out, you are the professional, licensed to handle this type of situation. Don't tell him it's confusing, give him the facts & findings of your survey and present him a way of resolving the problem.

"Area Of Confusion"

In Florida we are required to show other possible boundaries when there are clearly others established. I'd use a term like "Area of alternative boundary possibilities", or some such thing.

I agree.

I will hold a meeting with the lawyers and other parties involved and blow up that area.

They are asking for my final survey, but some resolution will have to take place first.

The "area of confusuin" was how I felt last night after going to bed with out finalizing that area. Not that I'm not still confused, or wondering how many surveyors would climb over each other and call their recorded map a correction of the last surveyors map.

thanks

Good answer JBS. I agree to show the facts on the map.

As to the language, "Confused area" sounds bad and gramatically poor (to me). I suspect the area has no opinion and is not confused at all. "Area of confusion" sounds a little better, but I don't like that much either. I do like John's idea of just showing it like it is and trying to help resolve the situation. I would point out that if they don't resolve it amicably, it would probably take a lot more money than the land is worth to resolve it.

AREA OF CONFLICTING DEEDS

One of the parcels I own says "AREA OF CONFLICTING DEEDS" on the Tax Map. Don't much matter to me though. The logger clearcut right to the old wire fence just before I bought it 10 years ago.

AREA OF CONFLICTING DEEDS

"Area of conflicting deeds" sounds good, if I can't get them to resolve the issues and have to release the map.

thank you

AREA OF CONFLICTING DEEDS

> "Area of conflicting deeds" sounds good, if I can't get them to resolve the issues and have to release the map.

If you "can't get them to resolve the issues," and "have to release the map," then where do you show the "heavy" boundary? Aren't you stepping your foot into the problem by declaring your solution, when you know that one of them isn't going to like it?

I recommend that, if they can't/won't resolve the problem, then try mediation. If that doesn't work, try litigation. That will always "work." If they aren't willing to resolve the problem, then I will bill to-date and archive the file for future resolution. If I can't figure out where the boundary is, I'm not about to commit to a final survey that gives the appearance that my opinion is the correct opinion.

"Area of Conflicting Deeds" or "Area of Confusion" or any other similar notation is simply a way for the surveyor to document the problem and walk away. I've found that it's never the right solution.

JBS

FLS

Funny thing is, I just looked at the Tax Map I was referring to and it says,

"IN CONTENTION"

Don't know where I got the Area of Conflicting Deeds from.

EDIT: I guess you can't read it, but the triangular area says, "IN CONTENTION 3.3 acres"

AREA OF CONFLICTING DEEDS

Not sure how I would solve it by litigation if they are not agreeing to it. The area of confusion was very rough wording that came to mind on an area that has been surveyed everyway possible and not properly resolved.

I would like to help correct the boundary lines in question, if they are willing to do so.

I'm not sure if I would have a problem releasing a map with an area unresolved because land owners won't come to an agreement. The heavy line would just stop along those two lines and I would show my findings in that area. I would have a nice big note stating that the parties did not want to resolve the issues in this area and would spend the $10 to file it in the clerk's office. I would also file a surveyors report if needed.

I would have to think about it some more and will post the progress or lack of.
I'm going to set up a meeting with all parties who would like to attend.

JB and all others, I do really appreciate you posts and pick up a lot from them.

Thanks,

Forrest

AREA OF CONFLICTING DEEDS

I agree that releasing a map with a heavy line and then just recommending to the parties to do a boundary line agreement is a real bad idea. I have seen a few surveys done like this and they create big problems and litigation.

thanks

..."area of historical uncertainty"....

I have those!

Rick

AREA OF CONFLICTING DEEDS

> If you "can't get them to resolve the issues," and "have to release the map," then where do you show the "heavy" boundary? Aren't you stepping your foot into the problem by declaring your solution, when you know that one of them isn't going to like it?

JBS,
I do see your point, and I have a high regard for what you say and your philosophy when it comes to surveying.

I would question one thing, though. I suggest the every boundary you do is subject to opinion. Some are easy to resolve but not 100% perfect. Often times uncalled-for pins are in the ground, sometimes the deed description does not close, and/or does not make calls to adjoiners, alomost always (in my experience), every possible original monument is not in, and we are relying on other interpretations, and I can go on and on. I believe I can find an ambiguity in virtually every boundary I have ever surveyed (except of course Kent's or most surveys in Texas, but I haven't surveyed there). In my opinion, you/we make final lines all of the time because we are confident in our resolution of the 'conflict'. I believe that is why the land surveyor is a "professional"; because the land surveyor makes professional determinations based on incomplete and non-specific data.

AREA OF CONFLICTING DEEDS

> In my opinion, you/we make final lines all of the time because we are confident in our resolution of the 'conflict'. I believe that is why the land surveyor is a "professional"; because the land surveyor makes professional determinations based on incomplete and non-specific data.

I agree completely, Tom. We surveyors are frequently faced with conflicting evidence and ambiguity. We are given rules of law which govern how we treat the evidence and how to resolve the conflicts. Normally, it's simply a matter of doing the research, gathering the necessary evidence, and deriving your conclusion based upon law and precedence.

What I normally see happening is that surveyors, in an effort to finish a job under budget (that's too low to begin with), will use some lame label on their survey to "disclose" the "problem" to their client, and feel good about walking away. I'm not saying that's what's being suggested here. I'm just saying that notes such as the ones suggested have become a too commonly used excuse to not do the investigation needed to properly resolve the issue. The surveyor uses the note as a cop-out from doing the work, and the owner is left in the lurch without any professional guidance or options other than calling the lawyer.

The better way, I've discovered, is to stop work on the project, and don't make a hasty decision or prepare a final map until you're paid to do the work necessary to resolve the issue. If it's truly an issue that only an agreement between the neighbors will resolve (I find that most aren't), then stick it out with them and encourage the resolution.

JBS

FLS

> Funny thing is, I just looked at the Tax Map I was referring to and it says,
>
> "IN CONTENTION"
>
> Don't know where I got the Area of Conflicting Deeds from.
>
> EDIT: I guess you can't read it, but the triangular area says, "IN CONTENTION 3.3 acres"

I'd say the tax map is pretty "in-your-face" about the need for a professional to step up and help resolve whatever problem caused this supposed "contention." Also, if it's really "in contention," why aren't both lines dashed? Seems the assessor has taken sides.

JBS

PS Is it really a "contention," or is it just some ambiguity or conflicting evidence that hasn't been resolved? "Contention" means that there is some build-up of animosity between the owners.