Informal Action for Land Surveying, as reported in the Spring 2011 issue of the Washington Board Journal. Bolding is mine. Faulty punctuation is theirs.
Case No. 10-01-0002
This investigation was opened based on a complaint alleging the respondent relied on a section corner that had been re-established by proportionate measure; used the bearings and distances in the deed of record; and, used a section breakdown prepared by another surveyor.
After reviewing the investigation file, the Case Manager concluded that the respondent did not violate any rules of the profession in the course of his survey and that the surveyor is required to survey the "deed boundary" and not to determine ownership by other evidence. The fact that a physical feature does not agree with measured distance is not unusual. It does not mean that the current survey is wrong if such a conflict occurs. One would have to know the exact circumstances of the deed construction which would very well be faulty, to make any assertion of an incorrect survey today. The Case Manager recommended that this investigation be closed with no further action.
So it would seem that the Washington State Board does not expect a surveyor to identify unwritten boundaries.
At least the decision didn't include wording that placed importance on the "..county GIS mapping..."
Oi vie... I think it's happy hour down the street
cheers beerleggers
> Informal Action for Land Surveying, as reported in the Spring 2011 issue of the Washington Board Journal. Bolding is mine. Faulty punctuation is theirs.
>
> Case No. 10-01-0002
>
> This investigation was opened based on a complaint alleging the respondent relied on a section corner that had been re-established by proportionate measure; used the bearings and distances in the deed of record; and, used a section breakdown prepared by another surveyor.
>
> After reviewing the investigation file, the Case Manager concluded that the respondent did not violate any rules of the profession in the course of his survey and that the surveyor is required to survey the "deed boundary" and not to determine ownership by other evidence. The fact that a physical feature does not agree with measured distance is not unusual. It does not mean that the current survey is wrong if such a conflict occurs. One would have to know the exact circumstances of the deed construction which would very well be faulty, to make any assertion of an incorrect survey today. The Case Manager recommended that this investigation be closed with no further action.
>
> So it would seem that the Washington State Board does not expect a surveyor to identify unwritten boundaries.
The way that sounds to me is that there was not sufficient information in the complaint file to determine if the circumstances warranted that the surveyor deviate from deed dimensions, and thereby make a definitive determination whether or not the survey was in error. I'm not sure about WA, but the CA Board does not have the resources to conduct a real investigation and go beyond the information provided with a complaint. They can request additional information from the subject of the complaint, but have no real teeth or subpoena power to compel one to provide the information requested. Normally, the opinion will be based solely on the information initially provided with the complaint. If that info is insufficient to support the charges, usually the case is closed.
Most jurisdictions consider determining boundaries based upon unwritten rights to be beyond the surveyor's authority. That's not to be confused with recognition of boundaries under various establishment theories, which are locative of the originally established deed lines and not indicative of transfer of title by unwritten means.
As to unwritten rights, surveyors locate and report (depict) evidence of such rights and may, depending on the court and its recognition of the extent of the individual surveyor's expertise in such matters, testify as to one's opinion on the existence of such rights based upon the evidence observed.
Depending upon the nature of the possible unwritten right and the level of conflict or animosity (or lack thereof) between the parties, the surveyor may serve to facilitate a remedy to bring written title into agreement with occupancy/use. But if the situation is such that the surveyor would be unable to facilitate such a remedy but must file a map, he should locate the boundaries of written title according to the best available evidence, which may or may not place the boundaries according to the deed dimensions, and then also depict any evidence of unwritten rights that may exist.
Note that this Board opinion is not stating that a surveyor must adhere to deed dimensions, but is charged with locating the deed boundary. There is quite often a very significant difference between those two practices.
The surveyor cannot adjudicate the boundary by unilaterally declaring that the unwritten rights have ripened into valid title. Only the landowners have the authority to settle the issue by agreement, or to turn that authority over to a court of competent jurisdiction to answer the question of title. So as far as that goes, the Board opinion is correct.
>
> So it would seem that the Washington State Board does not expect a surveyor to identify unwritten boundaries.
Well, from http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=332-130-050
it says that:
Give the location and identification of any visible physical appurtenances such as fences or structures which may indicate encroachment, lines of possession, or conflict of title.
So we should identify evidence of possible unwritten boundaries, but are not required to determine ownership.
IMHO
Someone is in BIG trouble
"Oi vie... I think it's happy hour down the street"
At least one or more P&R fanatics will soon drop by to inform you on the proper spelling of the Yiddish phrase you attempted to use above. Or they may tell you that there is no one, precise spelling.
I have to say that I agree with eapls who has given a good discourse on this subject.
It is not up to any state board to be the "surveyor of last resort".
Someone is in BIG trouble, NOT!
The Board did not say he did not show such encroachments, merely that he was not totally wrong in not accepting them as parcel boundaries. It takes more than a survey today to say that an encroachment meets the test of long possession.
Paul in PA
Someone is in BIG trouble, NOT!
I think Mr. Cow was replying to someone else above... I don't think I used any Yiddish phrases or words in my reply.
🙂
"One would have to know the exact circumstances of the deed construction which would very well be faulty, to make any assertion of an incorrect survey today. The Case Manager recommended that this investigation be closed with no further action."
Well, you boys in Washington State should thank your lucky stars at least YOUR state board has a slight idea of what they are doing. I read this part as essentially saying, without knowledge of ALL the evidence of the boundary determination, we, the board cannot litigate this matter.
Too bad other boards aren't as realistic in their "reach".
I'm not the P&R Fanatic holycow mentioned, actually I leave it off... but just to let you know, Wayne
"Oy vey (Yiddish: ?? ??), or just oy, is an exclamation of dismay or exasperation meaning "oh woe."
My wife's jewish, so I figure i have a right to inform 🙂
Amen!
I don't think it helps anyone to Survey the boundary where it isn't located (such as the so-called Deed line which isn't really the Deed line if you understand common law) but I agree the license board probably won't get involved unless 1) the Surveyor really badly pumps the puppy and 2) refuses to own up to it and make amends with the injured party.
The property owner has two remedies, one is to try to get the license board to issue a violation (usually for procedural things like not filing a Record of Survey map when required or for very obvious incompetence) or the second is to sue the Surveyor for negligence.
