A few weeks ago I got a call from a fella about staking a line. He wanted the line of an easement staked and he showed me the "corners" I told him that the items he pointed to were not likely the proper corners and that the only way to confirm it and certify to it would be a to perform a complete and proper survey. He held out that those "points" were his corners and wanted me to stake a line between them, about 1000 feet so he could put up a fence.
I said, OK I can stake a line between two points and make a little money doing it. So I prepare a written estimate and forward it over to him with the simple fact that I am not certifying to a bloody thing and I am simply staking a straight line between two points that he pointed out and represented as the corners.
Oh he did not like that I put in writing his very words. He started squalling that he needed me to confirm that those points were the corners, at which point I simply said, "Well I can do that for a fee a lot higher than what I quoted you for".
I just voided the contract.
"She never says what she really means" it's an old song and dance.
You can't fix stupid, it's a conscious decision to do something you know isn't right.
?ÿ
You can't fix stupid, it's a conscious decision to do something you know isn't right.
?ÿ
You seem to be implying that I was "stupid" and what I did was to consciously do something I knew was wrong and if that is what you are attempting to do I would submit that they fella who asked me to do this was told firmly and clearly the need to perform a proper survey and he was the one who insisted on staking a line between the two points he identified. I will not walk away from an opportunity to make easy money and any surveyor would be foolish to turn up his nose at easy money however I also recognized that I had to protect myself and that is where I used his very words in the contract and stating very clearly that the client did not want a proper survey and that he identified the points to place stakes between. It is not an uncommon thing to be asked but he balked after I put it in writing what he asked.
The "Lost in Space" reference will be lost on those too young to know what a slide rule is.
The "Lost in Space" reference will be lost on those too young to know what a slide rule is.
"Lost in Space" describes the last time I got up to pee at 2 AM and the bathroom light was burned out.
The "Lost in Space" reference will be lost on those too young to know what a slide rule is.
Cow those of us that know what a slide rule is and how to use it just are not current with "Lost in Space 2018" on Netflix.
You are correct!!! (ala Ed McMahon to Carnac the Great)
You can't fix stupid, it's a conscious decision to do something you know isn't right.
?ÿ
You seem to be implying that I was "stupid" and what I did was to consciously do something I knew was wrong and if that is what you are attempting to do I would submit that they fella who asked me to do this was told firmly and clearly the need to perform a proper survey and he was the one who insisted on staking a line between the two points he identified. I will not walk away from an opportunity to make easy money and any surveyor would be foolish to turn up his nose at easy money however I also recognized that I had to protect myself and that is where I used his very words in the contract and stating very clearly that the client did not want a proper survey and that he identified the points to place stakes between. It is not an uncommon thing to be asked but he balked after I put it in writing what he asked.
I didn't take jitterboogie's comment that way.?ÿ I took it as a comment about the landowner who you attempted to educate, then he went ahead and proved himself ineducable.
Seems to me that you handled it well.?ÿ I did something similar several years ago.?ÿ The pipes I was shown seemed to be the same as those shown on a previous record map, but I couldn't say for certain that they were those, or that they were still in the original locations without more extensive boundary work.
Nope, client simply wanted intervisible stakes placed along the line.?ÿ In that case, he was fine with the statements in the contract that I was making no representations whatsoever as to the iron pipes' relationship to the boundary.?ÿ If the points shown to me looked too suspicious, or if the client had made any resistance about the "no representations" provision, I would have told him to find someone else.
Firstly, a land surveyor is an agent of the person who hires him/her.
Secondly, the person who hires you has to have an interest in the land that you are asked to survey.
In this instance it is acceptable to stake the line between the two points that the owner says that are his corners (a land owner is presumed to know his property corners)?ÿ Because of the above when asked to do a survey I plat everytime I survey.?ÿ I would have staked the line between the two points and mentioned on the plat in the "surveyors notes" Joe Blow who owns Lot whatever requested a staked line between two points which he said where his property corners.?ÿ That's all folks. ?ÿ
In the Oregon case of Satchell v. Dunsmoor a surveyor was asked (c.1936) to determine a section line so fences could be built. He gave the property owners an estimate, reasonable for the times, to do a proper job. The owners gagged on that price. Eventually he was persuaded to run a compass line in a direction named by the owners on each side of the line for about 1/10th the original estimate - providing the owners cut the line ahead of him - on the understanding that this was to be merely a convenient line for a fence and not a boundary line. The work was done on a weekend with practically every member of all the families involved - plus a few hired hands - present, axes and machetes in hand.
Well, I'm sure you can guess what happened.?ÿ Twelve years later the participants were all in court arguing whether the line run was a boundary?ÿ line or not. The surveyor was required to give testimony and answer for himself. Ultimately the state Supreme Court ruled that the line was not a boundary. Nevertheless I'm pretty sure the surveyor rued that day in 1936 when he didn't stick to his guns and accepted little more than gas money to do just exactly what the clients were willing to pay for.?ÿ?ÿ
In the Oregon case of Satchell v. Dunsmoor a surveyor was asked (c.1936) to determine a section line so fences could be built. He gave the property owners an estimate, reasonable for the times, to do a proper job. The owners gagged on that price. Eventually he was persuaded to run a compass line in a direction named by the owners on each side of the line for about 1/10th the original estimate - providing the owners cut the line ahead of him - on the understanding that this was to be merely a convenient line for a fence and not a boundary line. The work was done on a weekend with practically every member of all the families involved - plus a few hired hands - present, axes and machetes in hand.
Well, I'm sure you can guess what happened.?ÿ Twelve years later the participants were all in court arguing whether the line run was a boundary?ÿ line or not. The surveyor was required to give testimony and answer for himself. Ultimately the state Supreme Court ruled that the line was not a boundary. Nevertheless I'm pretty sure the surveyor rued that day in 1936 when he didn't stick to his guns and accepted little more than gas money to do just exactly what the clients were willing to pay for.?ÿ?ÿ
California has a similar case...the boundary was run and blazed by a Union Lumber Co. unlicensed surveyor as a side job using data he got from his boss, Thorne W. Holmes. The Court held the owners to that line a couple of decades later.
the cases are probably distinguishable, the boundary in our case was run as the boundary for the lumber company's grantee strengthening the resultant physical boundary.
I at first kind of agreed with eapls2708's synopsis of jitterboogie's remark, but after reading Mark and Dave's posts, maybe you are stupid.
I at first kind of agreed with eapls2708's synopsis of jitterboogie's remark, but after reading Mark and Dave's posts, maybe you are stupid.
I may be "stupid" as you say, however I go to great lengths to protect myself with a clearly written contract, which in this case exposed the landowner as being a possible duplicitous fellow who is now permanently on my "Do no Work for list". And yes, I do have such a list.
I at first kind of agreed with eapls2708's synopsis of jitterboogie's remark, but after reading Mark and Dave's posts, maybe you are stupid.
I may be "stupid" as you say, however I go to great lengths to protect myself with a clearly written contract, which in this case exposed the landowner as being a possible duplicitous fellow who is now permanently on my "Do no Work for list". And yes, I do have such a list.
You were protecting the landowner from himself. Your contract would be evidence that the fence is just a fence. You offered him the best of both worlds, he could have his fence and if it ever came to light the boundary is really on the other side of his fence he could rightly say that is just a fence, not the boundary.
Dave is right in theory, but what are the chances that information will be known or remembered several years down the road after the property changes hands?
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/i8iyRZXG2-0" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
The point I was attempting to make is that the corners where on the land owner, not you.
Another point I'd like to make.?ÿ Very often I get requests to just stake a line or a lot.?ÿ I ALWAYS PROVIDE A PLAT.?ÿ The plat is paper evidence of the survey.?ÿ Very important to protect ME.
Why not show him the simple way to create a line between two fixed points using four ranging poles and sighting between them?
Then he can do it himself and all the responsibility is his.?ÿ You simply said there is a way to do it.
I think I could figure out how to do that, but maybe don't understand completely.?ÿ Why 4??ÿ
Doesnt the number range from 3 upward depending on terrain??ÿ You need to see 3 at once from any point on line, and extra hills and valleys could need more.