Gov. Lots Subdivided by Aliquot Part

@paden-cash Lawyers don't understand Government Lots but they can divide a square into 1/16ths

?ÿ

@williwaw?ÿ

"filing a ROS on each and every one would be a full time job."

?ÿ

Correct - isn't that your function?

@williwaw?ÿ

This is often true. Nothing makes an otherwise sound?ÿ survey easier to dispute than missing evidence that actually was considered, but rejected for some?ÿ unstated reason.?ÿ

@jim-in-az?ÿ

Only if you happen to be re surveying the butchered surveys, or legal descriptions.

There are plenty of screw ups in Alaska, but I didn't realize how good Alaska surveyors have it till I broadened my experience in other states.?ÿ

@jim-in-az That is an interesting question, isnƒ??t it. When the owners of the parcel is not my client, nor asked me to solve the issue at hand. In this particular situation, my client, a utility who is running a fiber optic cable down a public use easement across the said parcel. Now in this particular instance of the four lots resulting from this aliquot part division of a Government lot, one of these public use easements was never recorded and has yet to be found. Could well not exist. All I can do is bring to the attention of my client that they may not have authority to cross that parcel without obtaining an easement. So the question then becomes, what authority do I have, to expose, reveal and make public record of the deficiencies in the survey or description of a parcel, whereby the owner of that parcel is not my client, nor asked for my ƒ??helpƒ???

Hmmm? Were they my client seeking my assistance to resolve some matter, my answer would be very different than some property owner finding I have recorded a Record of Survey affecting their property, without obtaining their consent to resolve a matter they had been blissfully unaware of. That was not the mission I was hired by my client to do. I have filed many over the years, but only in the most serious of situations such as where a parcel does not exist because of a mistake made in allocating an unsurveyed remainder for example or area has changed drastically because of erosion. Fix every defective survey and legal I stumble across whether asked to or not?

I donƒ??t think so. Maybe if they hired me for that purpose and could afford my time.

@aliquot?ÿ

Here in WA it seems that you are required to show evidence that you have found that does not support your conclusion:

Of course, how do you prove what someone found...

?ÿ

RCW 58.09.040(1) It shall be mandatory, within ninety days after the establishment, reestablishment, or restoration of a corner on the boundary of two or more ownerships or general land office corner by survey that a land surveyor shall file with the county auditor in the county or counties wherein the lands surveyed are situated a record of such survey, in such form as to meet the requirements of this chapter, which through accepted survey procedures, shall disclose:
(a) The establishment of a corner which materially varies from the description of record;
(b) The establishment of one or more property corners not previously existing;
(c) Evidence that reasonable analysis might result in alternate positions of lines or points as a result of an ambiguity in the description;
(d) The reestablishment of lost government land office corners.
(2) When a licensed land surveyor, while conducting work of a preliminary nature or other activity that does not constitute a survey required by law to be recorded, replaces, or restores an existing or obliterated general land office corner, it is mandatory that, within ninety days thereafter, he or she shall file with the county auditor in the county in which said corner is located a record of the monuments and accessories found or placed at the corner location, in such form as to meet the requirements of this chapter.

WAC 332-130-020(11) Intelligent interpretation: A land boundary survey capable of intelligent interpretation will provide, either on the face of the document or by reference to other pertinent surveys of record, information that is sufficient in kind and quality to explain the rationale for the boundary locations shown thereon and to allow for the accurate and unambiguous retracement or re-creation thereof without requiring oral testimony for clarification. Includes, but is not limited to, information required in RCW 58.09.060(1) and WAC 332-130-050.

@dmyhill?ÿ

I like this one. Of course as with any recording law or minimum?ÿ standard regulation prosecuting a failure to follow it can be difficult. We often have to assume that a professional will be able and willing to follow the rules. Those that don't usually get away with it for years, but it eventually catches up with many.?ÿ

@jim-in-az and @williwaw

It is our job.?ÿ ?ÿThe filing of an ROS is NOT optional if there is discovery of a material discrepancy, or if it is the setting of a "First Monument" for an unmonumented corner created by deed or subdivision waiver.?ÿ AS 34.65.030 is very specific when it is REQUIRED to file a ROS.?ÿ I don't know why some Alaska Land Surveyors think filing a ROS is optional.?ÿ?ÿ

AS 34.65.030. Records of Survey.

After making a survey in conformity with the practice and definition of land surveying, a land surveyor shall record with the district recorder a record of the survey within 90 days if the survey discloses

(1)?ÿmaterial evidence or physical change that in whole or in part does not appear on a plat of record previously filed or recorded in the office of the district recorder or in the records of the Bureau of Land Management;

(2)?ÿa material discrepancy with a plat of record previously filed or recorded in the office of the district recorder or in the records of the Bureau of Land Management; or

(3)?ÿevidence that by reasonable analysis might result in alternate positions of boundaries from those of record.

?ÿ

?ÿ

@northernsurveyor I have several to prepare this winter once construction season winds down. Iƒ??m familiar with and understand the requirements. Iƒ??ve always considered it a professional courtesy to first contact the surveyor of record to discuss my findings if possible before filing a ROS that might cast them in a bad light and create an adversarial relationship instead of one of mutual support and cooperation. On a personal note, I sometimes find myself threading a gauntlet of sleeping dogs. I see this directive as instructions to give each sleeping dog a swift kick, so I hope that as a professional, I would be allowed to use my professional judgement on when such a kick is appropriate and not just a difference in opinions.

@northernsurveyor?ÿ

John Bennett addressed this issue at the surveying and mapping conference around 1996.?ÿ

"It is also possible that the current law warrants a bit of clean up and rewording
in order to make its intent more apparent. Given the difficulty in revising
statutes, I believe it is unlikely that this will occur in the foreseeable future."

His paper is attached.

?ÿ

@dewam Glad we could get this all cleared up. Thank you for sharing that.