My understanding is that I have been placed in a position of Public Trust. My duty is to my Client and the Adjoining Owners. If an Adjoining Owner contacts me about a disagreement about the placement of the line, I believe that I should listen to what he says. I agree that I should not give him anything in writing; however, I will make myself available to review any documentation that he may have. I have met with many adjoiners in the past. Usually, the objection is that they don't like my client and I did not put the line where they wanted it to be. Once in a great while, the adjoiner has shared a tidbit of information that helped clarify a vague description. I believe that it is my duty to thoroughly investigate all the facts and make a professional opinion based on the preponderance of evidence. My initial statement in person or on the phone to the adjoiner would be "if you are simply notifying of an upcoming lawsuit, you need to direct any further communications to my attorney. If you wish to provide me with what you believe is useful information about the location of this line, I am willing to meet with you to discuss".
In the Professional Liability Insurance Seminars that I have attended my main take away has been that the large majority of claims would have gone away if someone had just responded to the complaint. I have been an Expert Witness in condemnation cases. The attorney for the other side has never commended my survey for being exceptional. They will try to beat it up when the real issue is not the survey but that they want as much money as possible for their Client and Themselves. Once again, I believe there is more harm in ignoring than responding to a compliant. I will not allow a lawyer's threat to bully me into not doing my duty.
I think a surveyor's client, is a surveyor's only concern and the adjoiner's rights(and claims or whathaveyou), are only of interest in determining one's client's property, along with any clouds that might exist.
Of course, this is still a roundabout way of saying the surveyor needs to concern himself with any information he/she can gather, regarding anything having to do with the line he/she, will be presenting as fact to his/her client.
... and while you're probably right that most threatened suits go away by addressing an adjoiner's interest, the act of discussing these issues with an irate adjoiner might end up strngthening his/her claims ... kinda a catch 22.
To be clearLetter of intent for law suit....TTT
To be clear, my interactions with the adjoiner is gathering information. My goal is to objectively assess any information that he may provide. I will not share confidential information provided by my Client. I will leave telling him that I will consider the information that he provided. If the adjoiner wishes to share fact, I will listen. If they want to just sling mud at myself or my Client, we will have a very short meeting. Of course sometimes, the real mud slinger is my Client. Just the facts sir; just the facts.
I thought the original letter came from the individual not a lawyer.
Someone said in a reply previously that it was "saber rattling". I agree.
To me, that is just a threat.
When going to battle you never advertise your intentions, you just do it.
Sun Tzu would probably back me up on that.
I got a letter threatening a suit against me because someone else crashed my car and took off. Police were all over my house hauling me out of bed. I had no clue what the deal was all about. They did go get the person I let use my car.
Fortunately they didn't arrest me and [un]fortunately I was meeting with my attorney about a divorce matter the day I got the letter over that incident. Towards the end of our meeting "anything else I can help you with Eric?". As a matter of fact, "Yes!" and I pulled that out of suit coat pocket (yes, I wore suits back then). He read it and asked some questions about it. Most important was that I had contacted these people myself. I said no and he said don't - EVER. He asked what I wanted him to do about it. I suggested that since he was already retained counsel the he write them telling he is representing me and basically to f... off.
Apparently he did so since I've never heard a word since that was circa '90.
Anyway, I commend you for your stance and it sounds well grounded me.
Didn't Sun Tzu say "know your opponent"? Being professional is not alway about being a nice guy.What is the support for his claim? Is it weak or strong? My best defense is having the line in the correct location. I am gathering information not divulging my defense. Attorneys have convinced the Public that we are not smart enough to defend ourselves. They may be a part of a strategy, but they are not the only ones with the ability to think. Of course, wisdom is knowing when it is time to turn it over to the attorney.
> Didn't Sun Tzu say "know your opponent"? Being professional is not alway about being a nice guy.What is the support for his claim? Is it weak or strong? My best defense is having the line in the correct location. I am gathering information not divulging my defense. Attorneys have convinced the Public that we are not smart enough to defend ourselves. They may be a part of a strategy, but they are not the only ones with the ability to think. Of course, wisdom is knowing when it is time to turn it over to the attorney.
Yes, indeed. "know your opponent". Very good!
IMHO attorneys do not act on the public interest. They look for their own pocket getting stuffed - but not in the Aussie way. 😉
Truth and facts are on your side. Stay the course.
Blunt force honesty doesn't care about nice guys. Usually the obverse in my experience in life in general. At least I can sleep at night - or whenever I do.
In Ohio, we now have a statute of limitations law.
The time begins when the job is "completed".
A smart attorney(in your case/possible/threatened case), if there is one might claim that as long as your considering new evidence, you might actually be not completely finished with your project. A smart attorney will use A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G you might, say, do, or imply, against you ... when the time comes.
What happens if you "re-open", this project, to now consider evidence that might affect your "completed", survey ... AND an attorney is FINALLY retained AFTER the statute of limitations has passed since you "claimed", you completed your survey, but that the attorney claims that IF your survey, was in fact completed, there would be no consideration for new evidence that might effect the "completed", survey?
Attorney's can be sneaky and somewhat devious in their search for their client's justice($$$$), and the courts, (and complicated worded laws).
If your job is completed(and you want it to remain completed), tread lightly....
