The local platting authority asked me to comment on a local surveyors plat notes.
Any thoughts would be appreciated so I can comment from an unprejudiced point of view.
These notes are included on all boundary and subdivision plats. -
1) Subject to all conditions, servitude’s, easements, covenants, reservation, restrictions and rights of way of record.
2) subject to all copy right laws.
3)”company name” surveying Inc. assumes no responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions of any kind whatsoever in terms of content shown hereon and disclaims all warranties and/or conditions, express or implied, to the content into any matter relating to the information shown hereon.
4) Location of public utilities are per field inspection and available records with no guarantee of thoroughness: said locations are for general reference only and not to be used for construction or engineering purposes.
1, 2 and 4 are ok, to me.
1. Of course the property is subject to all matters of record. (duh)
2. maybe, maybe not...who knows the conditions set forth in the original agreement to produce the work? A recorded plat becomes a matter of public record.
4. A must to always state that any subsurface appurtenance shown on a drawing is not an exact location.
I have a problem with number three...how the heck can you 'certify' to a survey...then state that you bear no liability in any matter that might come up from relying on the survey? I call foul on that one, I don't think it would fly.
3 reminds me of one I heard about before:
"This survey is subject to what an accurate survey would show."
Heck, my grandmother can do a survey if #3 would holdup in court.
This might be a real statement of what the surveyor thinks of their own work,
> The local platting authority asked me to comment on a local surveyors plat notes.
> Any thoughts would be appreciated so I can comment from an unprejudiced point of view.
>
> These notes are included on all boundary and subdivision plats. -
>
> 1) Subject to all conditions, servitude’s, easements, covenants, reservation, restrictions and rights of way of record.
>
> 2) subject to all copy right laws.
>
> 3)”company name” surveying Inc. assumes no responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions of any kind whatsoever in terms of content shown hereon and disclaims all warranties and/or conditions, express or implied, to the content into any matter relating to the information shown hereon.
>
> 4) Location of public utilities are per field inspection and available records with no guarantee of thoroughness: said locations are for general reference only and not to be used for construction or engineering purposes.
I agree with Paden, et alia.
#3 is a weasel note and #1 is a no brainer(unneeded) to any surveyor or title person, but not to the general public.
Generally, I think 1,2 and 4 are OK. 3 has me dumbfounded. In addition to it seemingly being contrary to what the public expects from a professional, I'm not even sure the statement makes sense.
Also, copyright disclaimers are probably not appropriate for recorded subdivision plats.
Real Estate Contracts
I think the guy made an honest mistake and thought he was writing a brokerage agreement. I am still amazed at the CYA clauses in those things. I think there are people whose sole purpose is to just write those CYA notes.....oh, yeah there is MY BAD!!
Tongue firmly in Cheek
I agree 100%
Attention Spelling Police ........... tiz Copyright methinks.
Derek
I've seen note 3 in a similar manner, but maybe it says "third parties". In other words, the survey is good only to the original client.
Yeah, I agree, all the notes are fine except number 3.
I probably wouldn't put any of them on a subdivision plat. It's not a topo or ALTA.
If you want liability (E%O) insurance you probably should buy it and then follow what the insurance company tells you. But that's just me. I suppose if you convince yourself there is no professional liability for you by saying you won't be responsible and it makes you feel good, go ahead. I doubt it will work. Better to just get it all right.
I've never copyrighted anything or claimed any such thing. It seams to be a big deal in some parts of the country. My stuff is filed in a public record. Unless you used disappearing ink I'm not sure there is anything you can do.
Sure you can't locate underground utilities but do you place a design topo on a subdivision plat. I'd think that the lot lines, easements and ROW's are what they need. Doesn't showing an easement location notify that there is or might be a utility there.
If it's for public recording, they shouldn't be trying to retain copyright. That's the whole reason for filing as a public record, so someone can get a copy in the future.
Note 1 seems harmless, but at least redline "servitude’s". No need for the apostrophe.
3 ain't gonna fly.
These sound like they were written by someone acting as their own l*wyer.
These sound like the same kind of people who print their own money and firmly believe they do not have to pay any kind of tax to any entity for any reason. They hang out only with likeminded people so they never have to admit to having heard anything different.
He just didn't copy it right
Any notes, certifications, disclaimers or other information that a surveyor places on their work does not relieve them of their responsibilities according to the state, public and clients according to the local, state and federal laws and the oath cited when they accepted their license.
B-)
Maybe some of the many more knowledgeable folks on the board can correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the copyright people wanted on publicly recorded documents was:
1. On the presentation of the information NOT the facts
2. So others were not allowed to profit from the work (not that they can't copy it)
3. Would be no different than a book sitting in a public library shelf
Example of legitimate use:
The recorders office can provide copies to anyone who wants one.
They can charge for the copies to cover expenses of providing copies.
Property owner can use a copy of plat to know what his property looks like.
Others can use the data on your plat (i.e. surveyors retracing your work)
Example of what might be incorrect use:
Company gets copies of public records and starts selling your work at a profit. I think this one has been posted about before.
Someone gets a copy and makes alterations while presenting it as your work.
Someone lifts your custom fancy north arrow and starts using it.
akpls, why did the local platting authority ask you to comment on the other surveyor's notes?
Have they asked him?
Are they needing someone to interpret what the notes say or are they needing someone to tell them that the notes are out of bounds and without merit?
I see nothing wrong with any of the notes.
I agree with A Harris that the notes would not necessarily relieve the surveyor of any responsibilities as such but they do put the users of the plats on notice.
#2 indicates a complete lack of knowledge regarding copyright law.
#3 indicates a complete lack of professionalism and cognitive ability.
#5 All data is hereby declared unusable on even-numbered days of any odd-numbered month in any Leap Year.
Thanks to all for commenting, in an answer to a couple points-
Why I asked – The platting authority does not have a surveyor on staff or anyone with formal training in this area, they enforce the code but are very under confident when it comes to addressing issues not directly dealt with in the specs. The surveyor we are talking about has had several surveying problems over the years and has an uncooperative attitude toward the platting authority and other surveyors in the area. The plats have always had notes that the platting authority was uncomfortable with but note #3 has kind of sent them over the edge. I have a good relationship with the people at the platting authority and an excellent surveying reputation in the area.
The platting authority believes it is their role to protect the public in matters of plating. In keeping with this they asked me why is the plat (a public document used by their department and many other private and public organizations) is copyrighted. They were concerned it would affect the use of that plat for the public’s everyday needs.
They also don’t like the utilities included on the final plat as it can confuse the intent of the boundary survey and its associated easements, etc. They require all utilities to be shown on the preliminary so they can identify issues and send review requests to all the appropriate entities. They have asked the surveyor to remove the utilities from the final plats, but he refuses.
They have also asked me if I felt that note #3 goes against the surveying certificate that is required to also be on the plat.
So -
Personally it is my opinion that a boundary plat should not have a copyright note.
I also think that the utilities should not be included on the final. They do get in the way of intent. As a result of this I have seen plats that did not include enough information – bearings, distances, etc. to recreate the survey either in the computer or on the ground.
I also think note #3 goes directly against the surveying certificate and it reflects the professionalism of this surveyor in putting out a product, charging for it and then basically saying that it isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.
To go a little further, I have seen surveys done by this surveyor that were completely in error – I have seen driveways designed with cuts and fills and quantities so the owner could take it to contractors for prices. – The thing was so out to lunch it wasn’t even close – stuff like 9’ centerline radius for vehicles on S turns and vertical back slopes.
This surveyor was licensed 10 years ago, recent in my opinion and I have heard but not confirmed that he is friends with the licensing board and he drafts questions for the exam. I hope other professions are not as poor as surveying.