Found while Googling for something else

Interesting article if itƒ??s the part about legal descriptions. (thatƒ??s all I read, so far!)

????

What's that page number??ÿ Is it 4-5??ÿ Didn't see anything too exciting there or on the 45th total page.

I suspect @MathTeacher is referring to the page 45 explanation of who is qualified to write property boundary descriptions:

?ÿ

@holy-cow

try page 2-7

Posted by: @holy-cow

PDF page 45, document page 2-7 discusses who can prepare descriptions, a topic that has recently been chewed on here, and argues that surveyors are best qualified.

Thanks, guys.?ÿ It is interesting how they drew their conclusion.?ÿ The insinuation that engineers don't comprehend the math is a bunch of horse excrement, though.

"Property Mappers Association" - interesting...

I beg to differ, Land Surveyors are not fully trained in property law.

I obtained a first year Law School Real Property Outline and read it.?ÿ Outline is Lawyer speak for an introductory text book-Browns book might be called an outline, it gives you a start and some basic concepts.?ÿ Law School students use outlines like Cliff Notes, they aren't officially assigned but they help them keep up with the fire hose of legal concepts. The title side of Real Property Law is very complex, single words can make a big difference.

Land Surveyors have some modicum of training in basic Boundary Law, certainly vastly more than the average Lawyer (which approaches zero) but there is a lot more to it then the typical text book covers.

Most of the Land Surveyor boundary books cover the first half of boundary law filling in the gaps (for example, no case discusses whether to make the curve non-tangent, vary the radius or hold the radius but move the PC and PT).

@jamesf1

My first acquaintance, too. Here's who they are:?ÿ https://ncpropertymappers.wordpress.com/about/about-us/

?ÿ

@dave-karoly

I wasn't going to say anything given the current company, but I tend to agree with you, at least in principal.?ÿ While our profession may be trained well in the mathematics and history of boundary reconstruction and description, there is far more to be considered at times.

From my point of view most experienced?ÿsurveyors do a far better job at the task than the slew of various para-professionals, but most of us only have experience form the school of hard knocks and maybe a seminar or two.?ÿ Knowing (or at least understanding) what I don't know usually keeps me out of trouble.?ÿ

?ÿ

Knowing what you don't know is absolutely critical.?ÿ Sometimes determining just who it is that might know what it is you don't know can be challenging simply because so many of the presumed experts know less than you do on that specific concern.

Why does an association like this exist? Are they just deed plotters that work for assessors? Seems kinda trivial to me.

@stlsurveyor

I can see a need maybe.?ÿ Especially after seeing what some assessor's offices have done with their on-line records.

trivia:?ÿ A few years back I taught a seminar on "plotting legal descriptions" for an audience that was mainly GIS folks.?ÿ In a Q&A I was asked about what to do with deeds that only gave cardinal directions for the courses.?ÿ I gave some knee jerk answer about the property lines probably being parallel with a section line close by or some other prominently directional line.?ÿ It was little more than a remark.?ÿ

A few weeks later the person that had asked that question called me and thanked me for all I had explained.?ÿ It seems as though it cleared up some long running rule in their department that had caused headaches in the past.

I had no idea the people putting stuff together were so uniformed.?ÿ Maybe an organization is a good thing, no matter how trivial.?ÿ?ÿ

@paden-cash Very true, as long as it isn't the blind leading the blind.

@stlsurveyor

Posted by: @holy-cow

The insinuation that engineers don't comprehend the math is a bunch of horse excrement, though.

Perhaps it should have stated instead something about engineers trying to figure out what page they are on prior attempting to construct a legal description.

Just sayin' ?????ÿ

@flga

You were number one on my list of predicted accusers for not being able to find a page 45 that was not the forty-fifth page. ???? ?????ÿ

@flga

"I just want to make sure we're all on the same page." is doing the rounds again here.

Speaking of engineers, surveying and legal descriptions; I found something the other day I had originally seen about ten years ago...and it still sticks in my gizzard a little:

The engineer that prepared this document is not a licensed surveyor. Yet to me it appears as though he is making assertions that would be more appropriately made by a licensed surveyor.?ÿ I asked the state board if this might be an example of someone working outside their area of expertise...as in surveying without a license.?ÿ I was told it was not.

I then had to ask if I, as a surveyor, had prepared a document for a client certifying to hydraulic calculations I had made of some existing water course or as to the structural integrity of some steel building would I be working outside my expertise...as in engineering without a license?

The answer was "probably".?ÿ And ten years later it still bothers me.