I am aware of a plat that was done a little over ten years ago. The PLS?ÿ that issued the plat identifies it as a "plat of survey of the Joe Bleaux Family partition", identifies the bearing base that he used, states the standards the "survey" was done to and makes the piece of paper look like a survey was done of a piece of property that divided a tract into two tracts.?ÿ
This plat was sent to the parish for approval and it was approved.
At the bottom of the "notes" section is a statement that basically says that no field work was done to produce this "survey".
The state board can't do anything about the minimum standards issues because it can only act for five years after the work was done, however, in cases of fraud it can act for two years from the date of discovery, which was two months ago.
I am of the opinion that this is fraud.?ÿ
Is this fraud?
Terrible practice??ÿ Yes!?ÿ Fraud, I don't think so.?ÿ Fraud is a step beyond doing a bad job.?ÿ He does have a note sort of covering him self although saying no field work was done probably wouldn't meet minimum standards.?ÿ I've seen more than one of these in my day.
I'm thinking since there is a "disclaimer" upon the document that fraud would be difficult to "prove"; as opposed to indicating corners were set or found on a document when no field survey was performed.?ÿ?ÿ
LA Civil Code 1953
SECTION 2. FRAUD
Fraud is a misrepresentation or a suppression of the truth made with the intention either to obtain an unjust advantage for one party or to cause a loss or inconvenience to the other.
I ain't no lawyer, but at first glance?ÿit looks like if you put?ÿthe client on notice that they're getting a substandard product, it can't be fraud.
I am aware of a plat that was done a little over ten years ago. The PLS?ÿ that issued the plat identifies it as a "plat of survey of the Joe Bleaux Family partition", identifies the bearing base that he used, states the standards the "survey" was done to and makes the piece of paper look like a survey was done of a piece of property that divided a tract into two tracts.?ÿ
This plat was sent to the parish for approval and it was approved.
At the bottom of the "notes" section is a statement that basically says that no field work was done to produce this "survey".
The state board can't do anything about the minimum standards issues because it can only act for five years after the work was done, however, in cases of fraud it can act for two years from the date of discovery, which was two months ago.
I am of the opinion that this is fraud.?ÿ
Is this fraud?
I see this all the time "desktop survey".?ÿ At least he told you was not done in the field.?ÿ Couple i have retracted have bubbles or circles on the corners with no legend.?ÿ Most of the time nothing set.?ÿ
Yes. Fraud is different when a professional opinion is involved.?ÿ The note is not enough to enable a consumer to know an actual survey was not performed, given the other language.?ÿ
This exact thing was pretty common here in Clark County, Washington in the 70's and 80's. Many were recorded by the subdivider without a Surveyor even involved. Poor practice, but not illegal. At least not then.
Also I've seen plenty of deeds creating lots by description only. Neither illegal nor unethical.?ÿ?ÿ
My ??yes? vote should not count. ?ÿI am a little bit tired from a light field day and voted ??yes? like a ??dick? before I read the thread.
?ÿ
Can the new dividing lines be surveyed without great ambiguity?
I see no problem with drawing a picture to illustrate the partition of land. Many local agencies require those sketches.
Sometimes a drawing is more clear for the consumers/owners than trying to understand the words in a legal description.
"Record Data Parcel Maps" have been permitted in California for ages, and Subdivisions don't always have the lot corners monumented either.
The field work happens when it is needed and someone wants things marked out.
IF what was done was contrary to the local regulations, report it! (or get those rules changed)
?ÿThe statement that it was not surveyed on the ground is enough to say that it is not a survey and it should never be relied upon as a survey.
It simply stands as the "intent" of how the family wish to divide their estate.
How about a 26 lot subdivision using GLO Government Lot lines as it's outer boundaries. Four different Surveyors only find 6 lot pins, which are nails, spikes, and 1/2" rebar. Record monuments are supposed to be 3/4" iron pins.Pretty obviously a paper survey that was never monumented. The Developer claims he's not liable to pay for fixing the problem because he is past the Statute of limitations for fraud because the survey was filed 20 years ago. Many landowners dont know theres a problem with the location of their lots. Doesn't the Statute of Limitations start at the time of delivery of the fraud?
In my opinion this may rise to the level of a fraudulent survey if the PLS contracted with the owner for something other then was delivered. Or if the owner and/or the PLS represented to the parish something other then what was delivered. I think that there needs to be damage done in order to an action to take place. My experience is that a BOR will enter this after a court has determined if a law has been broken and a licencee needs to be disciplined.?ÿ?ÿ
BTW, that five year limit for a BOR to act on something is horse poop.?ÿ?ÿ
But your mileage may vary.?ÿ
Nobody cares about the Surveyor, he's dead. The landowners want someone other than them to pay to fix the fraudulently done subdivision. The Developer made all the money, I think he should be the one held liable.
"The landowners want someone other than them to pay to fix the fraudulently done subdivision."
While I can somewhat understand the landowners position, they should have done their due diligence before buying the parcels.?ÿ When someone buys a pig in poke like this, I have little sympathy.?ÿ?ÿ I still cannot understand someone making (most likely) the biggest purchase of their life without knowing exactly what they are buying.?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ
OFF SUBJECT
Yer just beggin' for a visit from Homeland Security ain't you? ??ÿ
?¨??¥??æ?¬¥ ?ý¥? ?????ý??¥???¥??æ, ¥?¥??? ¥????ý?ø¥???¥?? ??ÿ
OFF SUBJECT
Yer just beggin' for a visit from Homeland Security ain't you? ??ÿ
?¨??¥??æ?¬¥ ?ý¥? ?????ý??¥???¥??æ, ¥?¥??? ¥????ý?ø¥???¥?? ??ÿ
I don't know about Homeland Security, but definitely the IRS.?ÿ Especially with a name like Paden-Cash ...?ÿ?¬???? ??¥?¥??
?ÿ
Yes. Fraud is different when a professional opinion is involved.?ÿ The note is not enough to enable a consumer to know an actual survey was not performed, given the other language.?ÿ
Negligence, perhaps, depends on how your board rules and local standard of care are written/setup. Fraud, I don't think so. Judging by what has been posted, it was clearly stated the boundary is a record calc, I don't agree with the practice, but if the state allows it, and its not represented as actual measured value, you're pretty much shit out of luck with the fraud claim.?ÿ
Fraud requires intent (in all locals).?ÿ?ÿ I see no evidence of intent.?ÿ Perhaps you could hold whomever benefits to some higher claim they should have known and that therefore they suppressed, but the chances of prevailing seem very slim.?ÿ Not a lawyer.