It's often discussed on this board whether surveyors should supply a copy of a survey long after the survey was performed. Please consider this scenario. Survey plat created but not recorded. Survey plat is mentioned in deed. Property is sold several times, the reference to the survey plat is retained in the deed language, but the actual plat is long gone. There is a blazed tree that seems to be on or close to the liine, but it isn't called for in the deed as a monument. Surveyor still in business but doesn't supply map to current owner
If the tree was shown as blazed and on line in the map, would that make it a called-for monument? Does this potential conversion of a called-for monument to a non-called-for monument influence your opinion about whether the surveyor should supply a copy?
It sucks that new lots can be created and the plans not recorded. I'm not on the record everything band-wagon, but think that when something new, lot lines, easements, etc, is created, they should also contain plans. And I've seen too many 80,000 SF lots described in deeds, meeting the minimum area, that aren't, because they're not square, but parallelograms.
That said, I don't think that you force another surveyor to give you a copy of his plan.
JPH, post: 435501, member: 6636 wrote: It sucks that new lots can be created and the plans not recorded. I'm not on the record everything band-wagon, but think that when something new, lot lines, easements, etc, is created, they should also contain plans. And I've seen too many 80,000 SF lots described in deeds, meeting the minimum area, that aren't, because they're not square, but parallelograms.
That said, I don't think that you force another surveyor to give you a copy of his plan.
Thanks for answering the second part of my question. How about the first part: if a deed doesn't directly mention a monument, but refers to a survey that does show the monument as on-line, should the monument be treated as a called-for monument?
ashton, post: 435503, member: 422 wrote: Thanks for answering the second part of my question. How about the first part: if a deed doesn't directly mention a monument, but refers to a survey that does show the monument as on-line, should the monument be treated as a called-for monument?
Did the previous survey create the line? If not then even if it called for the tree I would likely not bend the line through it.
If the survey created the line and the tree was called for then I would bend the line through the tree.
Should the surveyor share his plat? In most cases, yes. Should it be compulsory? No.
ashton, post: 435503, member: 422 wrote: Thanks for answering the second part of my question. How about the first part: if a deed doesn't directly mention a monument, but refers to a survey that does show the monument as on-line, should the monument be treated as a called-for monument?
How would you know that the plan shows the monument if you haven't seen it? Are you sure that the blaze is the actual line or is this a 400 acre parcel where someone with a compass did his best to mark the line, and may be off a bit?
Since it appears this plat may be crucial to establish the boundary, would the other surveyor charge you for a copy of the survey or just let you look at the plat at their office location? Either way, it sounds like you need that plat to make the most informed decision.
A blaze on a tree is an indication that the boundary is nearby.
It can not be absolute in location unless it is called for in the deed as to how far from monument or how far away and in what direction from the boundary.
3 hacks on one side will give more indication of the location of the boundary within a couple of feet, still not absolute.
When a client makes the decision to not record my drawing, at some time past that date, it is not my responsibility to correct his failings.
My client contacts me and asks for another copy of the survey I performed for them, I have no problem with producing a copy of the same exact drawing for a modest fee or other compensation as required.
Seeing that my drawing/survey is so important and perhaps the key information needed for another to rely upon to finalize their survey, it must be something of value and due compensation for that appears reasonable to expect.
Third parties must pay according to their need of the product.
0.02
ashton, post: 435497, member: 422 wrote: It's often discussed on this board whether surveyors should supply a copy of a survey long after the survey was performed. Please consider this scenario. Survey plat created but not recorded. Survey plat is mentioned in deed. Property is sold several times, the reference to the survey plat is retained in the deed language, but the actual plat is long gone. There is a blazed tree that seems to be on or close to the liine, but it isn't called for in the deed as a monument. Surveyor still in business but doesn't supply map to current owner
If the tree was shown as blazed and on line in the map, would that make it a called-for monument? Does this potential conversion of a called-for monument to a non-called-for monument influence your opinion about whether the surveyor should supply a copy?
If the Survey Plat is called-for in the deed, then the plat becomes part of the four corners of the deed. It absolutely needs to be public record. I think the Survey Plat should be provided and it should be compulsory. Whoever wrote the deed calling for the Plat should have either recorded the plat, or not called to the Survey. That's my opinion.
The nature of the blaze on the tree is not clear. If it's shown on the recorded plat, it would be a called-for monument, but the plat isn't recorded. How can the public be put on notice of the property lines, based on an unrecorded document?
(again. my opinion)
Shawn Billings, post: 435506, member: 6521 wrote: Did the previous survey create the line? If not then even if it called for the tree I would likely not bend the line through it.
If the survey created the line and the tree was called for then I would bend the line through the tree.
Should the surveyor share his plat? In most cases, yes. Should it be compulsory? No.
The revision date stated for the survey, combined with the date of the first dead to break the property away from the parent lot, suggests the surveyor did create the line.
JPH, post: 435507, member: 6636 wrote: How would you know that the plan shows the monument if you haven't seen it? Are you sure that the blaze is the actual line or is this a 400 acre parcel where someone with a compass did his best to mark the line, and may be off a bit?
Indeed, that's the point. I haven't seen the plat, so I don't know if the plat shows the potential line tree. It's entirely possible the blaze was added by a later homeowner using a compass. But it's an old blaze, so it could be contemporary with the creation of the line.
Tom Adams, post: 435532, member: 7285 wrote: If the Survey Plat is called-for in the deed, then the plat becomes part of the four corners of the deed. It absolutely needs to be public record. I think the Survey Plat should be provided and it should be compulsory. Whoever wrote the deed calling for the Plat should have either recorded the plat, or not called to the Survey. That's my opinion....
Current Vermont law agrees with Mr. Adams; town clerks are now supposed to refuse deeds that call for a plat unless the plat is already on file or recorded together with the deed. But that wasn't the law back in the 60's when the lot was created.
Been told, to get your drawing added with the deed, staple the property description and drawing together.
That makes it one document.
This example is a reason why I try to not put information regarding the boundary lines on a plat and not include them in the property description. If the intention is to run through a certain tree, then that tree should have been called for.
I'm glad that I practice recording states. While I can see the merits of not providing copies of ALTAs, topographic surveys or such. If I create a survey for the sole purpose of breaking up land then it should be recorded or at least made available to the owners of said property. It sure does not help our profession to withhold that kind of information.
ashton, post: 435503, member: 422 wrote: if a deed doesn't directly mention a monument, but refers to a survey that does show the monument as on-line, should the monument be treated as a called-for monument?
Absolutely. If the survey is referenced, then everything about it is made part of the deed. And it's the survey, not the map that controls. The map is presumed to accurately reflect the survey, but if there is any discrepancy between the map and the physical evidence of the survey, the physical evidence controls.
A Harris, post: 435574, member: 81 wrote: Been told, to get your drawing added with the deed, staple the property description and drawing together.
That makes it one document.
My survey plats have the property description on them, not on a separate page.
eapls2708, post: 435600, member: 589 wrote: Absolutely. If the survey is referenced, then everything about it is made part of the deed. And it's the survey, not the map that controls. The map is presumed to accurately reflect the survey, but if there is any discrepancy between the map and the physical evidence of the survey, the physical evidence controls.
Yes, but in this case the plat is not avaliable. The survey can be near useless without the plat to tell you what to look for. Without the plat there is no way no know if the tree is part of the survey or not.
The blaze is evidence of a line. If its triple blazed, a monument is likely nearby. Rarely are blazed trees the monument in these parts. More than likely no better than flagging in trees along a line. Close, but no more. Much like an old downed wire fence.
Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
A proper metes and bounds will contain the same information that is show on the drawing.
One is only words and the other is mostly lines and symbols.
