boundaries and rights are established the moment the fact pattern is met. It is our duty and quasi-judicial function to recognize relevant fact patterns and ambiguities. We then walk the owners through understanding establishment or solving ambiguity. While we do not adjudicate contested cases, we certainly do go beyond ‘expert witnesses’. When the court does decide the location, they still turn to us to locate, mark, and memorialize the lines and corners.
If it is the court’s power and place to be the final arbitrator of boundary locations, and the courts do not have the capacity, ability, or desire, to adjudicate every boundary, then the individual surveyors empowered by the state to perform boundary determinations and monument boundaries for the citizen has the duty to make those decisions in a way that attempts to reflect a final result that would mirror the result as if it were adjudicated.
Amen. This is something that unfortunately falls by the wayside along the path to licensure, and even after licensure.
Ignoring this critical role and defaulting to just overlaying the deed math on the found monuments and improvements ("found capped iron rod with LS####, 0.3' N x 0.4' E of calculated corner") is why a nontrivial segment of the populace sees surveyors as problem-creators rather than problem-solvers.
Let's not be "Seagull" Surveyors flying in, crapping all over established boundaries, and then flying out again.
" (“found capped iron rod with LS####, 0.3′ N x 0.4′ E of calculated corner”) "
When a monument is called off like that the surveyor is implying that it is not controlling for one reason or another - there are legitimate reasons for that - or that it has been moved from it's original location - also very possible. Nevertheless, I agree that this form is used too often and commonly for the wrong reasons. But it isn't always wrong.
Back in the day, when the only thing that needed a battery was the truck; there were 3 ways to make a measurement:
- On line
- on an offset line
- Triangulation
It was easy to relate to record. (m) for measured (r) for record and that's what you showed on your survey.
Today, nobody uses 1 or 2, they measure radially and let the device tell them how it relates. Adding R & M to a dimension of a line is misleading; the line wasn't measured, it was triangulated in a black box. So to get around this, some surveyors show a miss and leave it up to the reader as to if it was accepted or not. Poor practice in my opinion...
(R) & (I):
Record and Inversed
I think it a bit unwise to say triangulation is not a form of measurement. Nor do i believe that in order to measure between 2 points you must occupy them simultaneously. I have no problem with a line marked as measured when the measurements were done with triangulation. Nor should anyone else.
Radar's old school
Cause he's old,,,,,,,,,I can relate
Chris,
No worries on arguing. We don't learn in an echo chamber and I appreciate the discourse.
I know some States push the 'we are just presenting evidence' thing hard. After years of walking owners, attorneys, hearing officers, and policy makers through fact patterns I no longer agree with that line of thinking. We should be presenting a package so the Judge or hearing officer can say, "What he said". Better yet we should be getting the owners to buy into reality or resolve ambiguity through an agreement that will hold up over time.
I guess it's maybe only the wording we differ on. Walking lawyers and officers of the court through our findings, by my definition, makes us expert witnesses as we can only present the facts that the courts will rule on. If our facts are solid and documented by both us and the record, it's usually a no brainer, as I keep saying, the decision is not ours to make.
I also agree 100% that it is our duty to walk to potential litigants through our findings and explain how we arrived at them, encouraging them to arrive at a mutually beneficial agreement. As we all know, when it moves to litigation, nobody wins but the lawyers.
A survey given to a client doesn't just present facts. It should also contain the professional opinion of the surveyor which is given by showing the boundary lines of the property based on the facts the surveyor has ascertained. Just showing the evidence you have found is not a survey and as a client I would feel I have not been given a survey until the surveyor has expressed his professional opinion on where my boundary lies. A good surveyor's professional opinion of my boundary should coincide with what a court would adjudicate. If you are only going to present evidence, then there is no need to have the professional license.
The facts are presented on the face of the survey. The Professional opinion is rendered by showing the boundary lines, corners found or set as well as all conflicting lines of occupation.
You could have an overwhelming abundance of evidence and information to support your professional opinion but it is virtually impossible to know how the people that you are presenting them to will interpret them.
When a monument is called off like that the surveyor is implying that it is not controlling for one reason or another – there are legitimate reasons for that – or that it has been moved from it’s original location – also very possible. Nevertheless, I agree that this form is used too often and commonly for the wrong reasons. But it isn’t always wrong.
Agreed. My beef is with the ambiguous language, and the (typical) lack of explanation.
If a calculated position was held over a tagged monument, (a) that monument needs to be marked "not accepted: see survey narrative", and (b) the surveyor's narrative needs to contain a clear explanation of why certain monuments were accepted or rejected. Avoiding both just muddies the waters, and dodges responsibility.
In my state we don't file surveys or include survey narratives. There could be many reasons that a found corner is not accepted and a calculated position is held, unless the found corner is a called for and original corner.
The judges in that system are the same judges that handle everything
(criminal cases, divorce cases, small claims, etc.) and are not versed
in boundary law
New Jersey Superior Courts are divided into Civil, Criminal and Family Divisions. Judges normally work within a division. Although I do agree that most Judges and Attorneys are not well versed in boundary law. In my experience this may be because there are so few boundary cases in comparison to all other civil cases. Of all the boundary disputes that I have been hired to consult on only one has actually gone to trial. And that case was settled when both parties realized that the Judge was in way over his head.
This thread has taken a life of its own. While it has strayed from the original post I cannot say that it is not extremely interesting.
In my jurisdiction a survey is not required to be published if it shows only existing boundaries. It is also not necessary to employ a narrative.
However, professors I have known would, and should encourage both. One would say there should be an operative document for every line determined. That is what I believe. That every survey needs to be published for the benefit of the client, the public, and other surveyors that may follow. That there is plenty of room on the map for a narrative of the condition and reasoning for the evidence found or set.
I've never believed in minimum standards (minimum effort) surveys. If my clients do not understand the results of my survey then I haven't done my job correctly.
I know this thread went sideways, but I just had this today...and the answer for me is typically Angie's list or some equivalent has indicated that the cost of a survey is $800. I remember when they called me and asked me to pay to be on their list. I told them that they were give bad info to their "clients" and I wanted nothing to do with them.
