The wisdom to pass a recording statute...
AMEN
You are right and I was at some of those MARLS Conventions when it was being debated and Tiny was adamant about getting it done. And I think for the most part, he was responsible for getting Montana to have a recording law.
I cannot see a valid reason why every State to not have a recording statute.
Keith
AMEN!
Keith,
Here's a valid reason. When trying to establish a record of survey statute, the title companies were emphatically against it. Why? They were worried about all the screwed up surveys and legal descriptions i.e. erroneous lowballer survey/descriptions that they insured against for the LENDER. They did not want the gotcha's evident and as far as they are concerned screw the grantee.
Pablo
Pablo
That is a valid reason for non-recording?
Keith
I think the town clerks around here would have a cow if CT went to a mandatory recording..
> Keith,
> Here's a valid reason. When trying to establish a record of survey statute, the title companies were emphatically against it. Why? They were worried about all the screwed up surveys and legal descriptions i.e. erroneous lowballer survey/descriptions that they insured against for the LENDER. They did not want the gotcha's evident and as far as they are concerned screw the grantee.
>
> Pablo
That's the reason that surveys should NOT be recorded in the title record. They are evidence of boundaries and they reflect the surveyors OPINION regarding boundary locations. They aren't binding, and they should have no affect on title to property.
That's not a valid reason for surveys to NOT be recorded, however. Surveys should be filed in a separate repository as public record, but not part of the title record.
I post this knowing that there are several states that record surveys as part of the title record, including the state of Montana, where Rankin is from (as am I).
Other than that, I definitely concur with Rankin... AMEN!!
JBS
Why not thank Charles R. Swart instead?
Actually, my colleague Charles R. Swart was instrumental in shepherding the Corner Record Act through the Montana legislature. At the time, he was teaching at Montana State University.
As a funny bit of trivia: he tells me that Ira "Tiny" Tillotson was dead against Montana's adoption of the State Plane Coordinate System because he thought that surveyors wouldn't bother with setting monuments!
Charles said that the impetus for the Corner Record Act was the fact that there were so many original government corners that were what Tiny called "thread-hangers", corners for which the original evidence was in such a state that it was unlikely to last much longer. His vision was a way to perpetuate the positions of those remains of the original surveys, not to dignify every PK nail or railroad spike subsequently driven into some road pavement somewhere.
So, you're saying that we shouldn't record subdivision plats either? Jeez!
Why not thank Charles R. Swart instead?
KENT:
We have a whole load of PK nails set at centerline intersections
aka section corners on the other side of the river in Illinois.
In the courthouses, there are corner records describing a original
PK nail set at the section corner. Was Parker and Kalon around
150 years ago?
In NH we have a recording law for Subdivisions and B.L. adjustments which is a wonderful thing.
But if I want to hire a surveyor to find my lines, why should I be forced to pay the extra cost to make public, something I alone paid for?
Why should I be forces to pay the additional plat requirements that will redoubtably grow more and more extensive as time goes by?
Why should I pay the additional cost and delay when some plat-checker (who is trying to justify his existence) doesn't like the font size in the title block?
Why not thank Charles R. Swart instead?
> In the courthouses, there are corner records describing a original
> PK nail set at the section corner. Was Parker and Kalon around
> 150 years ago?
LOL! That's what I call a pedigree.
Surveys in California are filed, not recorded.
As far as I can tell the difference is the Recorder copies the instrument into the various books (they are all combined into Official Records since the 1920s). They used to actually copy by hand or typewriter the actual document then mail the original back to the address in the upper left hand corner of the document. Then for years they filmed the documents and now they scan them.
The map original is filed meaning they keep the original and file it in the various map books (and now they put a letter sized map information sheet in the O.R. book too). Of course now they scan the maps too but they still keep the originals. Some Counties have all maps in one book (for example Mendocino) and some break them out into Subdivisions (NorCal) or Tracts (SoCal), Parcel Maps (sometimes Minor Subdivisions) and Records of Survey (for example Sacramento and Placer).
> So, you're saying that we shouldn't record subdivision plats either? Jeez!
Of course not! Subdivision plats aren't retracement surveys. they are title documents which create property estates. Retracement surveys only express the surveyors opinion of an existing boundary. Two entirely different products.
Sorry I wasn't more clear the first time.
JBS
Because it is useful to future generations 50, 100 and 150 years from now to know what was intended by that capped monument that you find there.
It is pretty cool to get a R/S that is 100 years old and actually find the monuments on it. With no map filing statute that map would probably be long gone and I wouldn't know to look for the monuments and if I find them I wouldn't know what they represent unless they are called for in Deeds or something like that.
> Why should I pay the additional cost and delay when some plat-checker (who is trying to justify his existence) doesn't like the font size in the title block?
I would suggest that the [retracement] survey repository not be reviewed or policed by anyone. other than having a few basic title block information sufficient for indexing the surve6, the rest should be left to the discretion of the professional.
The point of filing is to make it inexpensive and painless.
JBS
That's right, whatever you do, don't do it the California way.
Why not thank Charles R. Swart instead?
I frankly do not know about Charles Swart and his efforts on the Montana recordation act. I do know that Tiny Tillotson was very instrumental in bringing it to a fact of life.
I have no idea about this: As a funny bit of trivia: he tells me that Ira "Tiny" Tillotson was dead against Montana's adoption of the State Plane Coordinate System because he thought that surveyors wouldn't bother with setting monuments!
Keith
Why not thank Charles R. Swart instead?
> I have no idea about this: As a funny bit of trivia: he tells me that Ira "Tiny" Tillotson was dead against Montana's adoption of the State Plane Coordinate System because he thought that surveyors wouldn't bother with setting monuments!
Well, now you do. I've heard Charles relate that bit of information several times. You're welcome.
Reality Rears Its Ugly Head
> I would suggest that the [retracement] survey repository not be reviewed or policed by anyone. other than having a few basic title block information sufficient for indexing the survey, the rest should be left to the discretion of the professional.
That would work great if every licensee were truly a professional. Unfortunately -- at least in California -- there are enough licensees willing to ignore their professional responsibilities in the interest of increasing profit margins that the repository would quickly become worthless as a source of reliable boundary information. The California legislature recognized this early on and required that Records of Survey be reviewed by the County Surveyor for adherence to minimum standards.
The cost of that review is an issue, with the review charges much higher in some California counties than in others. However, in the last dozen projects I've done that required a Record of Survey, that cost has averaged somewhere around 12% of my fees. Significant, but generally not a killer.