Sometimes it is your client who will take advantage of you given an opportunity. Adjoiners and other strangers can be expected to be even more eager to beat you to death.
Thanks to all - sound advice given again!!!
I would not respond at all. I had the same type situation where an adjoiner just would not stop calling me about the survey I did for his neighbor. He threatened to sue me repeatedly. This despite the fact that the line he had a problem with was placed almost exactly where he showed me in the field. The line was troublesome due to both descriptions being written by an attorney without any field work. My client was happy and the adjoiner was happy, or so I thought, then he decided he wanted more land. I just stopped taking his calls, that was 3 years ago.
In the past when anyone has had an objection to my placement of the line, I have met with them and listened to their story. If asked, I tell them that the location of the line is based on deeds found in the courthouse and evidence found in the field. Do they have something of which I am not aware? What is their basis for contesting my location of the property line? If new information is discovered, I rethink my decision. In 40 years of surveying, I have been threatened numerous times and have yet to be sued. It never hurts to objectively listen to the opinion of someone else. My experience with attorneys is that they make more money by litigation than in avoiding litigation. When the problem is solved, they have to quit billing. The fact that the letter was from him and not his attorney may mean he is not serious about a law suit. Responding to a complaint seems more professional then ignoring a complaint.
An attorney once said (in a class)
"If you fire off a letter responding to a complaint about your work and I end up representing the person you wrote to, I will torture you on the stand with your words".
Since the person is threatening a law suit, all civil discourse is off the table, nothing is sacred and it'd be wise to shy away from a direct written response without talking to a lawdog you trust. If he'd just got a hold of you and asked "can you explain why you did what you did?" that'd be a different story.
:good: :good: :good:
I disagree
> While in a room full of surveyors we will all freely admit that there can be several solutions to a boundary problem; in a legal setting we must stand by our work as the only solution. Anything else can be painted up as being "wrong".
How do you know your solution is the only solution? How do you respond when another surveyor calls with a question?
Based on the following information, these are the results. Change something and results change.
What if the neighbor comes forward with a legitimate unrecorded boundary line agreement (If those can be upheld in your state)? What if there was a deed that was not indexed properly that you would not have found without scouring the books page by page? What if one of the deeds was invalid? What if your client moved a monument two years before he called you?
In a legal setting I would rather show flexibility: show where the record is clear, where it is not and how I worked through the boundary. An attorney can paint all he wants; a judge can relate.
All I would have said to the adjoining land owner was that he should talk with his neighbor about the survey and that he has the right to have his own surveyor proceed however he wanted.
Since this guy apparently did not like his own surveyor's opinion and is wanting another and perhaps more to come out until is is how he wants it to fall, his legal stance is getting weaker each time.
Personally, I would not have any more contact with the adjoining land owner. He does not deserve any answer or advice as your responsibility lies with your client, who deserves to know about the contact that was made and all the details of the conversation. That is the only letter for you to write.
0.02
once they threaten to sue you, you have to change your stance. Anything you say can be used against you. Considering further evidence may be taken as admitting you didn't consider enough evidence in the first place. You owe your client "ordinary care" and you owe the neighbor nothing. I always listen to any evidence someone has, right up till they mention a lawsuit. Then I will only speak to them via counsel.