The crew called today and said that the neighbors would not let them access the property.?ÿ
We are surveying a land locked parcel and the property between the public right of way and the parcel was not going to let them cross their property.?ÿ
This is in Washington state; has it ever happened to you??ÿ
First time for me. I told the client that they would need to to provide access for us.
What would you do??ÿ
Thanks?ÿ
Dougie
?ÿ
Showing them the Statute that says land surveyors may cross other lands, with notice to those landowners.
They may complain, but, explaining that an officer of the law will be brought to the site to prevent further delaying tactics may confuse them at first.?ÿ This is serious business, people.
How is the client accessing their property?
there is no right of entry law in WA
That sucks.
Helicopter rental is probably out of the budget limit.
@bstrand You maybe surveying a Prescriptive Easement also. Assuming WA laws allow Prescriptive Easements.
I doubt the budget has anything in it for neighbors being jerks. Call in the lawyers...and move on.
I??ve ran into a similar situation in the past. Ended up walking a 1/4 mile through the dense woods of someone else??s property that gave us permission to access through it, instead of the couple hundred feet through the persons property we wanted to cross. It??s unfortunate that the laws don??t grant us access, but usually there is at least one neighbor that??s nice enough to understand the situation and allow access.
Our proposals/contracts always list in the Assumptions, that the client will grant or secure access to the subject property.
Can't imagine why someone would even want to have a land-locked piece without access surveyed, (if in fact there really is no access).
, but usually there is at least one neighbor that??s nice enough to understand the situation and allow access.
I second that... It may be round a bout, but maybe you can get in somehow.?ÿ
Then again, a court order could get you in.
Keep in mind, it's your clients problem.?ÿ
Another thing, your client will likely prevail, if they pay enough. Just guessing, but there probably is a historic route into the LL parcel.
This will be the first choice for the courts, usually.
N
"there is no right of entry law in WA"
?ÿ
RCW?ÿ47.01.170
Right of entry.
Dougie, Dougie, Dougie,,,,,,,,you need to learn not to take these jobs.?ÿ
Now don't come back and tell me I need to learn it also.
That's just being mean.?ÿ
"there is no right of entry law in WA"
?ÿ
RCW?ÿ47.01.170
Right of entry.
The department or its duly authorized and acting assistants, agents, or appointees have the right to enter upon any land, real estate, or premises in this state, whether public or private, for purposes of making examinations, locations, surveys, and appraisals for highway purposes. The making of any such entry for those purposes does not constitute any trespass by the department or by its duly authorized and acting assistants, agents, or appointees.[?ÿ1984 c 7 ?? 77;?ÿ1961 c 13 ?? 47.01.170. Prior:?ÿ1945 c 176 ?? 1; Rem. Supp. 1945 ?? 6400-3f. Formerly RCW?ÿ43.27.030.]?ÿWouldn't this RCW ensure we have Right of Entry??ÿ Maybe just for WSDOT employees??ÿ I remember twice in 21 years where I have had to have a police escort onto property.?ÿ The irate neighbor even went off on the police officers.?ÿ Nothing makes you work quickly, like being in the middle of a potential stand-off.?ÿ?ÿ
This would only apply to surveys conducted for DOT.?ÿ
Even without a right of entry statute, the courts will grant an order to allow access if there are no other options, but that of course increases cost and time and is a last resort.
there is no right of entry law in WA
Looks like that if they can call it a dispute that "cannot be identified from the existing public record, monuments, and landmarks, or is in dispute....", they can enter by RCW 58.04.011
https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=58.04&full=true
I hassled with a WA landowner over his claim of tideland ownership a few years ago (not as a surveyor) .?ÿ He was correct, but was an a-hole so I ignored him and walked through.?ÿ I thought the courts would probably allow the a-hole defense if enough evidence was brought.
@dave-o?ÿ
I've always thought that we had to have a court order ("Any surveyor authorized by the court and the surveyor's employees may, without liability for trespass, enter upon any land") for 58.04.011 to apply.
Is that not the case?
I hassled with a WA landowner over his claim of tideland ownership a few years ago (not as a surveyor) .?ÿ He was correct, but was an a-hole so I ignored him and walked through.?ÿ I thought the courts would probably allow the a-hole defense if enough evidence was brought.
?ÿ
Whether or not the ownership of tidelands includes excluding access is apparently unresolved. I have also read articles discussing that there are different opinions regarding access through land that is not enclosed and not posted (assuming no damage is done). There is, in common law, something called "freedom to roam," and I believe it is even codified in some countries.
Trespass is not always a simple question, it seems.
@dave-o?ÿ
I've always thought that we had to have a court order ("Any surveyor authorized by the court and the surveyor's employees may, without liability for trespass, enter upon any land") for 58.04.011 to apply.
Is that not the case?
Rover, that is always how I have read that law. I think this would play out in practice in any case. You enter land. Homeowner calls police. Police ask you who owns the land. Whether or not the statute applies would need to be adjudicated, so it seems likely that to keep the peace, the whole matter would be referred to the civil courts. It seems likely that you would be told to leave and come back with a judge's order.
@rover83?ÿ Probably would.?ÿ I think this statute applies specifically to adjacent parcels in dispute, so it'd presume that both property owners know of the reason for a survey - not technically a right of entry law.?ÿ I'd bet even if you produced the statute to the cop who showed up he'd opt for sending you off to get an order just to cover himself.?ÿ But if it was a known dispute between the two, you'd have legal access no matter who's paying for it.
