Professional Opinion Survey

> Often you here that the survey is just the professionals opinion.
>
> If the survey is a true retracement of the original such as there was retraceable evidence of the original then even though it's a professional opinion it should be solid work and the client gets his boundary located (freshened up on the ground).
>
> Now retracement surveys are probably not in much demand as if there is retraceable evidence they most likely know about it so they don't need a survey other than maybe to replace a torn out corner and such.

Wow. That sure doesn't describe the universe I know. It often takes professional skill to find the evidence upon which the retracement is based. Seldom will one find neon signs pointing it out.

> There must be a better way, some process where the client is truly severed by the establishment of the boundary and the surveyor has provided a service to society while making a good living.

As a rule severing clients is a poor practice if they are paying their bills and aren't otherwise more trouble than they're worth.

Consider yourself very fortunate if you can't comprehend the problem I'm referring to. You truly must work in another universe than mine.

> Consider yourself very fortunate if you can't comprehend the problem I'm referring to.

Leon, the situation that you describe is simply one end of the surveying continuum, i.e. that where either the record or the evidence upon the ground is sufficiently vague or ambiguous that three different surveyors might arrive at three significantly different opinions as to the location of the land described without any of them jeopardizing their licenses.

Each of those situations has to be weighed on its merits and one's client advised accordingly.

Well then, since the opinions are all over the place and don't serve to establish the boundary, I as a landowner (not surveyor) would consider them essentially worthless, just a waste of money.

A landowner really doesn't want to pay a bunch for an opinion, what they want to know is the location of their boundary, or get it established so they can go forth in peace with their neighbors.

I've met few landowners that care whether the surveyor license is in jeopardy or not. In fact very few landowners ever sue the surveyor regardless of how bad the work is. They just forget and go on.

I agree that a professional should step up and tell a client when things are truly ambiguous, that the opinion really can't be given from solid evidence. That's where something else needs to be done to resolve their issue. Seems to me to many surveyors just go ahead, give the poorly founded opinion, collect the fee, and get out of town. This all leaves a bad taste in the view of the public. But maybe like you say my world is at the far side of the continuum.

> Well then, since the opinions are all over the place and don't serve to establish the boundary, I as a landowner (not surveyor) would consider them essentially worthless, just a waste of money.

If a landowner expects a surveyor to easily fix the mess that decades of faulty conveyances have created, I hope he shops around to find the cheapest price to work that magic.

> I've met few landowners that care whether the surveyor license is in jeopardy or not. In fact very few landowners ever sue the surveyor regardless of how bad the work is. They just forget and go on.

Mentioning jeopardizing a license was a way of indicating that none of the surveyors whose opinions differ would be held to be incompetent. There are many situations like that.

> I agree that a professional should step up and tell a client when things are truly ambiguous, that the opinion really can't be given from solid evidence.

Well, I see it somewhat more straight-forwardly as :

(a) how likely is another surveyor presented with the same evidence to arrive at a significantly different conclusion,

(b) how likely is it that another surveyor will uncover new evidence that would significantly alter my opinion were I aware of it,

(c) how likely is my opinion to hold up in court if it is ever tested,

(d) how likely is a dispute to arise.

Those are some of the sort of judgments that a land surveyor makes and advises his or her clients about when needed.

One remedy to the indeterminate boundary is a boundary line agreement, provided both parties are amicable, of course.

Scott

> One remedy to the indeterminate boundary is a boundary line agreement, provided both parties are amicable, of course.

Yeah, but in what Leon has described as his situation in the past, some actual surveyor needs to at least figure out where the section lines of the original government subdivision are in order to properly describe even an agreed boundary and intelligently advise a client as to the necessity of it.

Unless the deed is so bad and so full of defects, it can be surveyed. Its just a matter of time and money. I know the kind of surveys you are describing, there is so much evidence missing, its really tough. If a surveyor can't locate this boudary, who can? If boundary agreements need to be made, who else can decide this except a surveyor? A lawyer? Thats a joke, that will cost the client more than a survey.

"Well the professional opinion doesn't establish the boundary on the ground as only the adjoining landowners can do that so really all that is accomplished is fodder for a boundary dispute except where the survey is accepted by all...."

Adjoining landowners OR a court of law can settle the boundary, and the latter will do so by applying the law to the facts. By finding all the facts and demonstrating a knowledge of the law the surveyor can form a professional opinion which, while not binding, will most likely have great weight in court. That in turn makes his or her opinion quite likely to be "accepted by all" and thus to obviate a pricey lawsuit. We debate the exceptions so often on this board that we forget that most abutters quietly and gladly accept our conclusions.

Well, I know it's kind of a novel approach in the U.S., but I would think it possible to teach some people the requisite laws and such to enable them to locate old ambiguous land boundaries. Then we might have some kind of designation for this group with the necessary knowledge so that consumers would know who to retain when they need the service.

Or we could continue to merely allow all expert measurers to learn on their own by trial and error. Practicing on the public is the traditional path after all. No reason to jump on the bandwagon of the new way that the other professions use until we see how it works out for them.

The fact is that landowners can not simply establish a boundary anywhere they want to, and the courts do not have any direct special training in land boundaries. There are instances where landowners can and have established boundaries, and the courts do have related special training to help determine where a boundary is located. Both want and need an expert.

The problem is that under the current system the consumer can't figure out who the expert is. The court on the other hand is fairly adept at determining that. But it is an expensive, disruptive and lengthy process. Seems it should be made a bit clearer to consumers some how.

I guess it depends on your perspective of what a "simple" or "obvious" retracement is. I've had to testify in cases where I could not think of a retracement that could be more obvious. And yet there are differing survey opinions. And it's a rare boundary that can't be retraced conclusively if one understands the issues. But it can be extremely complicated.

We could throw it all in the lap of the landowners and go back to beating the bounds and exchanging twigs. But there's problems with that system too.

Don't get your point.

Surveyors responsibilities include uncovering evidence which may (or may not) point to the correct location of the boundary.

Monuments fences, pins, junior and senior rights, adverse possession, etc., etc., all these thing don't necessarily make for a clear cut, unambiguous solution.

There is no rule that says all the evidence has to agree. It takes professional skill to discover and unravel the clues which lead to a professional opinion.

Once a boundary dispute gets to the courtroom phase, the judge will be expecting the surveyor to have formulated an "opinion". The Federal Rules of Evidence, now broadly used by state courts, state "testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact."

When I state that 'only the landowners can establish the boundaries' I'm not saying it's some willy nilly process of just going out and deciding where they want it or where they might want to move it to. That's just a simple cop out to ignore the issue. An uncertain or ambiguous boundary location can be resolved by the landowners agreement even in an implied fashion. Landowners can't move boundaries but even here they can act through a conveyance to change the boundary location.

Land boundaries are the domain of landowners. Landowners are the only parties that can convey or agree or sign and record any documents that establish a boundary so that's where I'm coming from when I say that only landowners can establish boundaries. Even going to court is a form of landowners establishing their boundaries, it's just the court deciding for the landowners who can't agree. The court is just settling the dispute, making the agreement on the behalf of the landowners. The court can only intervene on the behalf of the landowners dispute.

I'm just advocating for some process whereby the opinion is just a first step, where further work is done and the landowners are given the opportunity to truly establish the boundary location and be able to not depend on only an opinion. Maybe a formal mediation precess to resolve the issues but ultimately the courts involvement so that due process isn't violated. A statutory process designed to streamline the establishment process and keep the going to court to resolve the problem to a minimum and also the costs and time reasonable. The surveyor would be the primary service provider and landowners would be well served. The end product wouldn't be an opinion with liability attached but a resolved and established boundary, sanctioned by the landowners with practically no liability to the surveyor. A meaningful and valuable service would be provided to landowners.

"Even going to court is a form of landowners establishing their boundaries, it's just the court deciding for the landowners who can't agree. "

I'd have to disagree with you there. Land owners can establish their boundaries through agreement. But, if they can't agree, then evidence and the interpretation of that evidence, becomes the overriding factor.

If a court is going to decide where the boundary may be but ....."not depend on only an opinion.....", when the physical evidence is contradictory or unclear, what else is there?

Sounds like you are looking to make an imperfect system perfect.......a fine enough goal, but hardly attainable.

Evidently you have a survey and/or a surveyor that you disagree with. Would it be possible to actually post an image of the survey to gain a better understanding of your situation?

Many professionals give opinions, but that doesn't necessarily make the opinion wrong or useless to the client. I have personally been given poor opinions by electricians, plumbers, doctors, and lawyers. That doesn't allow me in good faith to jump to the conclusion that all work done by all electricians, plumbers, doctors, and lawyers are worthless.

This is not based upon any particular survey or situation but rather about tens years of dealing with problems in certain very obliterated areas. I've finally reached the point where I'd like to propose legislation to deal with the issues. I searched other states laws and studied the law.

In the situation I'm looking at boundary opinions seem to cause problems instead of resolving them, landowners are not served the chaos is just increased. Additional work way beyond just marking an opinion on the ground needs to be done to solve these problems. To make the establishment useful and permanent the ultimate backing and power of the court needs to be in the loop but minimized as much as possible.

Boundary agreements are not the the end all here because they seem to be subject to being overturned by mistake. Some will argue that agreements are invalid from the start because they are mistakes. Ultimately society needs stable boundaries. Why not tackle the problem where there is the need.

If you work in an area where you don't have this problem consider yourself fortunate. Your culture has done good and stayed on top of things. Neglect of maintenance or even creating boundaries properly in the first place can end up as a mess without easy ways to unravel. Much of this problem came from low land values. The highest dollar solutions are not the answer, they will not or can not afford to pay. A streamlined efficient process to keep costs under control is needed. Anyone who has ever gone to court to resolve a dispute knows that it's not a good way to do it yet due process must be maintained.

>Much of this problem came from low land values. The highest dollar solutions are not the answer, they will not or can not afford to pay. A streamlined efficient process to keep costs under control is needed. Anyone who has ever gone to court to resolve a dispute knows that it's not a good way to do it yet due process must be maintained.

I think you've reached the heart of the problem, money

Why should the current owner pay for the neglect and mistakes of the previous owners?

Why does the current owner look at you like it's your fault?

Take a look at what they are doing in British Columbia, Canada and in Australia. Talk to Mike Binge about his efforts to create a National Cadastre. Leaving boundary issues up to individuals or small municipalities is not the answer. The answer lies within the big picture, at least as large as the state, national would be better.

Check this out NSDI It's in it's infancy, but some day, it will be a reality.

Douglas

I'm with you on this one. The technology such as GIS and GPS are here. Title registration along with a land court and a national cadastre probably is the long term solution. Surveyors should get on board in a big way at least prepare. There is more work here than we all could complete in the rest of our lives. Many new people would need to trained. It's needed by our society in a big way.

BC-LTSA

The Mission of the Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia (LTSA) is to create confidence by delivering assured land title and land survey systems essential to the property market and economic foundation of British Columbia.

When I met with Mike Thompson, last year at this time, I was amazed at the progress they had made in 4 years.

With today's technology and instant communication, there is no reason that we can not get this done.

I hope you notice that LTSA is a not for profit, private organization, for the people, by the people. It is not tied up in bureaucratic red tape.

We could make this happen here!

GET ON BOARD!!!!

Mediation, arbitration, agreements, second opinions, and ajudication are all currently available options.

So the question is why none of it works very well.

Part of it is the psychology or attitude about land. When people feel an intrusion into their private space they are much more likely to fight than if it's simply a failure of some consumer product they purchased. Part of it is the wildly differing opinions that can fuel that attitude. A professional validation of the intrusion almost forces some people to stand and fight on principle.

Modern precise positioning and land registration will certainly help.