I found this note on a survey:
"Boundaries on the plat represent the retracement of those previously described by deed survey. Inconsistencies may be due in part to different survey accuracies and/or environmental impacts and human activities affecting physical evidence relied upon".
Does this relieve a surveyor from the responsibility of making sure he records actual measurements in the field? For example, if an old "deed survey" (performed by compass and pacing), showed two corners 100' apart+/-, and they're actually 102' (or whatever), does this statement allow him to just put down 100' and call it good? The statement seems a bit "broad", in that it could be cover for any discrepancy at all between his survey and reality. Just curious.
I take the statement to mean that deed description may vary from actual measurements and placement of lines.
In fact, I would never expect one survey to agree fully with another on all lines when reporting to the nearest 0.01 feet and one arcsecond.
It could mean 2 things. First, it sounds like the survey could be based on a previous deed or plat and maybe the research beyond that is limited. The second part seems like a note to the layperson as to why there are differences between the field measurements and the record documents.
Gregg
rfc, post: 388400, member: 8882 wrote: I found this note on a survey:
"Boundaries on the plat represent the retracement of those previously described by deed survey. Inconsistencies may be due in part to different survey accuracies and/or environmental impacts and human activities affecting physical evidence relied upon".Does this relieve a surveyor from the responsibility of making sure he records actual measurements in the field? For example, if an old "deed survey" (performed by compass and pacing), showed two corners 100' apart+/-, and they're actually 102' (or whatever), does this statement allow him to just put down 100' and call it good? The statement seems a bit "broad", in that it could be cover for any discrepancy at all between his survey and reality. Just curious.
When you survey, you certify what you did and found. If you measured 102' and the deed says 100' you report both, and report what you found at those corners. In other words you as a surveyor have little to rely upon in following this prior "Survey?"?
You might just consider that survey as anecdotal evidence and no more.
Paul in PA
I agree with Paul. The legal requirement is to state what you found, and you can't certify yourself out of it. But this statement really sounds to me like a complicated way of stating the obvious.
In my experience, no words arranged in any particular order will get the Surveyor "off the Hook".
My opinion has always been if you see a catch all phrase trying to limit the responsibility of the surveyor, then I wonder what it is that he shortcut on or didn't take the time to find out about. I agree with Imbrls doesn't matter much what words you use on your survey to get "off the hook"....you did the work, you are responsible
When you set or accept a monument, you own it and should always be prepared to defend it's location. No note can relieve you of that responsibility.
If you are going to just report a record distance no matter what you actually found, then why does the public need your service? Boundary surveying is not an exercise in engineering calculations. While measurement is a very important piece of boundary location evidence, it is not by itself the single most important piece of evidence. The answer to your question is NO! You need to know what your state law has to say on the matter of the theory of location used to locate a boundary. Some states have very specific requirements in their statutes that may include a requirement to: following the footsteps,apply statutory law and case law to the facts, the deed, the intentions of the parties. It is critical for you to understand your role as a surveyor. In you post, it is clear to me that you are a retracing surveyor in this scenario. In this case your duty is to find the FACTS/evidence are point to the most probable location of WHERE the boundary is. You need more evidence than the fact that you find corner monuments two feet away from the metes call of 100 feet. Boundary surveying concerns itself with obtaining evidence to meet an evidence standard, generally a preponderance of the evidence (51%).
rfc, post: 388400, member: 8882 wrote: I found this note on a survey:
"Boundaries on the plat represent the retracement of those previously described by deed survey. Inconsistencies may be due in part to different survey accuracies and/or environmental impacts and human activities affecting physical evidence relied upon".Does this relieve a surveyor from the responsibility of making sure he records actual measurements in the field? For example, if an old "deed survey" (performed by compass and pacing), showed two corners 100' apart+/-, and they're actually 102' (or whatever), does this statement allow him to just put down 100' and call it good? The statement seems a bit "broad", in that it could be cover for any discrepancy at all between his survey and reality. Just curious.
Our previous board investigator said it best in that, and I'm paraphrasing here, You cannot disclaim yourself out of liability.
Here's a note for you: "Based on a survey by someone else." This plan was based on a previous survey by others: What if the others were displaced? How did you verify that with limited work? You can't blame an error on the previous survey if it's found you've perpetuated it. Also, the plan states clearly that the interior corners are "Set IPs" but the note says that none were actually in the ground at the time of the plan. I haven't found any yet either.
This particular project, like most all the others, involves a dispute over the location of a common boundary. "My line, as surveyed, is over here but it should be over there about 30 feet." There's apparently a no-man's-land in between and this fella thinks he should get it.
I'm wondering if he got his money's worth out of the '94 survey which was then perpetuated by the '96 subdivision of a possibly mis-located parcel of property next to the property I'm surveying. The money he saved can now be invested in an action to quiet title.
You sign, it you own it.
Ran across one done by another surveyor the other day. His disclaimer was, "This is not a complete survey. The owner of Lot 26 would not allow us in his back yard".
There was a problem and it has come back to bit him.
John Harmon