Thoughts?
MADSON'S COMPILATION OF RULES FOR LAND SURVEYORS*
RULE ONE
To avoid liability the surveyor should err on the side of safety. Always try to do a little more
than an ordinary prudent surveyor would do under the circumstances.
RULE TWO
It is the land surveyor's duty to correctly locate and mark property lines as described in a deed
furnished him and to relate lines of possession to title lines. The surveyor cannot and does not
assume the responsibility of proving that a given deed is correct and legal; that is a function of an
attorney or court of law.
RULE THREE
Search and search well. If it is there, find it. If it isn't, be able to say with certainty that it isn't
there.
RULE FOUR
Liability results when the surveyor fails to do correctly the thing that he purports to do.
RULE FIVE
The surveyor is a fact finder. He goes upon the land armed with all the documentary evidence
that is available and searches for markers, monuments and other facts. After all the evidence,
facts, measurements, and observations are assembled, the surveyor must come to a conclusion
from the facts.
RULE SIX
Never set a corner in disagreement with improvements without first satisfying yourself that you
are not only right, but that your "right" will prevail in court if necessary.
RULE SEVEN
Discovery of a County Surveyor's monument does not relieve the surveyor of the obligation to
look further. The County monument is only proof in the event that superior evidence cannot be
discovered. Therefore, the surveyor must seek all other evidence and use the official monuments?ÿas though they were the last resort.
RULE EIGHT
The conclusions that flow from the evidence may produce proof. Evidence in itself is not proof
of a fact; a conclusion or inference that may be drawn from evidence is proof. In coming to
conclusions from evidence, the most important need of the surveyor is the ability to recognize
and know what is the best evidence of that available.
RULE NINE
The best evidence of a monument's original position is a continuous chain of history by
acceptable records, usually written and dating back to the time of the original monumentation. A
found monument without a background history is of little value as evidence; and a set monument
is worthless if unidentifiable in the future.
RULE TEN
In civil cases having to do with land surveying and real property, it is only necessary to prove a
"preponderance of evidence"; it is not necessary to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" as in
criminal cases.
RULE ELEVEN
It is of the utmost importance that a surveyor seek and find all of the evidence at the time of the
initial survey, and this must be done irrespective of costs. The major cause of disagreement
between surveyors relates to the lack of discovery of all available evidence. If every surveyor
uncovered all of the evidence, differences would be reduced to a minimum, and their surveys
would have a finality of location.
RULE TWELVE
A surveyor may be able to compute, make drawings, use instruments and stake engineering
projects, but, until he understands property line law and the law of evidence, he is not qualified
to make property locations.
* Carlisle Madson, S674, of Hopkins, Minnesota, has been a WSLS Member for several years.
His above "Words of Wisdom" merit a prominent spot in every surveyor's office.
?ú Taken from Wisconsin Society of Land Surveyors, August 1974, Newsletter 8.
Borrowed from our ASPLS website.
Borrowed from our ASPLS website.
There's actually something worthwhile on the ASPLS website?
I wholeheartedly agree with rule 7, not to disavow the others, but this one kinda stuck out.
Regarding Rule Two, I don't recall anyone ever asking me to mark their deed on the ground.
People want their property lines defined and marked. There are many deed faults that can be resolved without an attorney or court by a competent knowledge in the Supreme Court and Appeals Court decisions of the state you are practicing in. Particularly in the case of deed gaps along rivers and streams, railroads, canals, etc. Apply the case law and explain what you did and why with reference to the pertinent case(s) on your plat. Other examples of issues we should be capable of resolving are junior/senior rights and descriptions based on GLO plat dimensions.
After over forty years as a licensed surveyor my company was sued 3 times. None of those lawsuits resulted from this philosophy.
RULE ONE
To avoid liability the surveyor should err on the side of safety. Always try to do a little more
than an ordinary prudent surveyor would do under the circumstances.
You're never going to avoid liability; you should concentrate on avoiding uncompensated liability.?ÿ
- I went to madsons 3 day seminar in 1986 and read all his books. Knowing what I know today, rule 2 is mostly right but only the courts, NOT AN ATTORNEY, have the function of proving that a given deed is correct. STRIKE THE WORD ATTORNEY. IT IS WRONG. DO NOT CALL AN ATTORNEY TO PROVE IF A DEED IS CORRECT IT IS NOT THEIR FUNCTION. if you are a LANDOWNER who wants to pay an attorney to fight for whatever you want to achieve in court, he will do his best. Attorneys do NOT understand boundary conflicts with deeds on the ground AT ALL. DO NOT PUT A NOTES ON YOUR PLAT THAT REFERS SURVEY CONFLICTS TO ATTORNEYS!!!!! THAT IS THE WORST OF ALL POSSIBLE WAYS TO RESOLVE A CONFLICT!!!!!
"DO NOT PUT A NOTES ON YOUR PLAT THAT REFERS SURVEY CONFLICTS TO ATTORNEYS!!!!!"
Do surveyors really do this?
I read rule 2 as regarding title conveyed, not boundary. It is correct.
WRT to Rule 2, Madson obviously never touched a mineral survey, nor did he read the Act of April 28, 1904.
The last portion of the Act reads:
Where patents have issued for mineral lands, those lands only shall be segregated and shall be deemed to be patented which are bounded by the lines actually marked, defined, and established upon the ground by the monuments of the official survey upon which the patent grant is based, and the surveyor general in executing subsequent patent surveys, whether upon surveyed or unsurveyed lands, shall be governed accordingly.
The said monuments shall at all times constitute the highest authority as to what land is patented, and in case of any conflict between the said monuments of such patented claims and the descriptions of said claims in the patents issued therefor the monuments on the ground shall govern, and erroneous or inconsistent descriptions or calls in the patent descriptions shall give way thereto.
Underline and bold face emphases are mine.
Few people know or understand why patents of mineral lands can contain theoretical exclusions. They can also purposely exclude real conflicts with prior official surveys. Mineral surveys, esp. of lode mining claims where conflicts with prior official surveys are common and regular occurrences are different. If I followed Madsen's Rule 2 I'd screw up everything by clinging solely to the language in the U.S. patent.
Mineral surveys are great examples of Brown's axiom, "the contrary can be shown!"
@fairbanksls yes, I see them on plats; 'I recommend the landowner consult an attorney to examine conflicts shown, etc"
Got a little chuckle re your comment about explaining what you did and why, in regard to court decisions, etc.
Twenty years ago, I agreed to survey a particular piece of property for a set amount (don't remember the amount, but for sake of discussion I will use $1000). After spending some time on the property, I realized the landowner was not in agreement with where I was preparing to set his corners. After an hour or so arguing with the guy and going into detail as to what I did and why in regard to court decisions, I gave up, packed up my equipment, and left without setting corners. Over the next couple weeks, the guy badgered me at my office several times and demanded that I complete the survey. He would not go away. He would not give up. I told him to get another surveyor. I never drew the map. I never billed him. He never paid me a penny.
Several months later I received a letter from the Board (not gonna say what state), requesting my response to the enclosed complaint filed by the landowner. The complaint simply alleged ??Did not complete the survey for the $1000 promised.? And the landowner was demanding the Board to force me to return and complete the survey.
I read the complaint, and it was true that I did not complete the survey, but I felt I needed to explain why I refused to work for the man.
In my letter back to the Board, I described the conflict between the landowner and I, and described why I refused to set corners where the landowner demanded. In doing so, I referred to those court decisions I had used when I had attempted to educate the landowner as to my understanding of his land boundaries and how the law affected my decision.
Several months later I received a certified letter from the Board, officially charging me with ??practicing law?. It seems the Board either expects the surveyor to be ignorant of the law, or perhaps they intend to enforce a gag order on the surveyor to stop him/her from explaining how the law influenced his/her location of property corners/lines. This was all news to me since surveyors are tested on their knowledge of the law, and university geomatics curricula include courses on boundary law.
Responding back to the Board, my attorney denied every allegation, and proceeded to demand (as is my right) a full trial before a judge, rather than dealing with the typical administrative type of court setting. We then waited beyond a full 12-month period without receiving a response from the Board (the law gave the Board one year to respond), after which my attorney declared the matter to be legally dead. He was wrong. (Meanwhile, my attorney had retired from practice due to age/health.)
Then, one day out of the blue I received an official letter from the Board, informing me I was receiving a ??letter of guidance?. My offense? Taking the $1000 from the landowner, without completing the survey. The Board had read the ??Did not complete the survey for the $1000 promised?, then charged me with ??Breach of Contract? for having pocketed the $1000. I had no idea the Board had assumed I had been paid as it had never come up in all their charging documents for which we were made to answer.
Yet, my career remains stained by the Board's pronouncement.
I never took a penny from the landowner.
So, perhaps you can understand why a wise surveyor may wish to refrain from discussing law/court decisions, etc. with the client.
Wow!?ÿ Just wow!?ÿ When you start to think the world cannot get any crazier, it does.
The stain is on the board. ?ÿSounds to me like you did the only thing an ethical surveyor could do.
@kscott I have concluded after years on the ground like you say, no landowner ever, ever hires a surveyor to advise if his deed is correct. MOST of my clients don't even realize that we refer to their deed! They hire us to retrace their property lines, they don't know of any other professional to call for that one purpose. There has never been some kind of movement by surveyors to proclaim themselves as rightful advisors on legality of deeds. In every case, when a landowner calls an attorney, the integrity of any survey goes downhill from there
Next time, lead with that bit about not having been paid.?ÿ Well, hopefully, there's no next time
I would rather rely on my own wisdom than to hear the blathering of some self-aggrandizing "wise" person who has judged himself to be wise. If you want to be wise then listen to some classical music, meditate or educate yourself. There is no quote that will make you wise. There is only conceit.
It is analogous to classes on ethics. If you don't know ethics by the time you leave the kindergarten grade then it is probably lost to you. When we make our own choices based on the information we have received though our education and experiences we make our own wisdom.
