Lawyers...

I started a topic on BL Agreements a few weeks ago and it was said over and over that an Agreement should be used for an ambiguous line and a Boundary Line Adjustment should be used where the line is definite.
I would tell the attorney to pound sand and in MA I'd give him an ANR Division Plan, in RI it'd be an Administrative Subdivision and in Maine you get to choose the equivalent.

Don't "remove" a thing.

Although a BLA might render some monuments "less than useful", their physical position, as you stated, had a great deal to do with the creation of the agreement or adjustment.

The most difficult thing is trying to tell the attorney he's "steppin' over a line..." in some professional manner. Stick with your professional judgment.

In New Jersey a Boundary Line Agreement can only be used if the boundary is indeterminable. If you can determine the location of the boundary, which sounds like your situation from your post, a subdivision would be required.

Maybe this http://www.umaine.edu/set/svt/Articles/BdryLineAgreements.pd f">article by Knud Hermansen from the U of Maine will help. As for removing found control from the drawing, I wouldn't.

I would think you should show all evidence used in making your survey decisions. That may include tie lines to evidence that may or may not be the property corners.

I would explain that the information provided could be vital to a future retracement of the lines and will remain on the plat.

In my haste to write the post, I typed agreement instead of adjustment. I meant an adjustment, of course.

I'd reply to his/her email exactly what you put on the post from "The above mons....

Pretty much lays out your professional responsibility!

OK that makes more sense. As for the control, I would keep as much on the plat as possible. A surveyor in the future retracing your line will thank you. Good luck.

Maybe...

tactfully suggest an agreement. If the attorney doesn't try to dictate how you do your job, you won't try to tell him how to lie, cheat and steal.

Dear Mr Attorney,
The data you suggest I remove from my plat is required per state law and I can not in good faith remove it from my plat.
Sincerely,
Surveyor.

Send attorney a polite but firm response, stating that you are following state code in illustrating the line(s) to be removed (including the evidence that brings validity to that line), as well as showing the new line(s) created.

This gives additional information for future owners, title agents, and surveyors to know exactly what the intention was by the BLA, which is what the predecessors in interest agreed upon.

Being an attorney does not mean that he has anywhere near as much knowledge as you about such matters. Stick with your gut feeling.

Part of being an attorney is giving the appearance that you know everything about everything even when you don't. I think you should use this as a chance to educate that attorney. Politely give him/her that statute that requires the information on the plat with the attitude that you want to help. You may make a friend who may call you for advice in the future.

Evelyn

Well stated. In addition, we should not discount the attorney concerns too much, as they may be valid. Suggest other ways to address them. One possibility is a revised map showing post adjustment parcel without the stated items. We do this all the time with construction by providing an as-built. I don't think there is any law against providing an as-adjusted after the transaction. In fact, could be a way to further protect the client and receive more profit from the project. This would get the new map into the record clearly reflecting the new record deed information and the area it covers, letting all future interested parties know that the proposed adjustment did in fact take place.

Not suggesting the above as a solution, the point is to find out the concerns, help address them, charge for your service.

> I just got an email from an adjoiner's attorney in a project involving a boundary line agreement. The part that put me on edge was:·
>
> For the survey, eliminate the {Other Surveyor's Name} line, eliminate the square headed bolt in ledge, eliminate both tie lines to the ¾” iron bolt below grade, and eliminate the 5/8” iron bolt flush, and eliminate the tie line to that 5/8” inch bolt flush.
>
> The above listed mons are the record mons which represent the true line; the BLA will change that line, but I don't feel comfortable removing the very reason a BLA exists from the plan. Especially in light of the ME Standards of Practice, specifically Chapter 90, Section §6 $2:
>
> 2. Boundary Report Duty
> When the services involve identification and location of boundaries, the written
> report or plan shall include, at a minimum:
> A. Relevant records and possession boundaries and possible locations of
> ownership boundaries.
> B Encumbrances that are visible or identified by records research as
> described in Part 2, section 4 above.
> C. Any other matter a licensee should reasonably expect to be relevant to a
> client’s current needs or is necessary given the circumstances of the
> situation at the time of the survey and is within the scope of professional
> practice.
>
>
> What do people think?

In my little world it is common to produce two drawings...
1. a Record of Survey showing existing conditions as you would so for a "normal" survey... That one goes on public record first.
2. an "Exhibit" drawing showing a simple diagram of the action contemplated (kinda like what I think your atty is asking for)... with a note referencing the recorded plat with all the recording data.

sometimes it moves very fast and the recording data is left blank...

But maybe I missed the point.;-)