I have for many years, described easements as "Proposed 60' access and utility easement" or "Existing 60' ingress-egress easement". Within the last two years or so we surveyed a parcel that was accessed by a "60 ingress-egress easement" that crossed two other properties and is shown on the client's plat. Client's deed describes the easement as depicted on the plat. The problem is that there was never an easement conveyed from one of the two properties crossed. The easement should have been labeled "proposed" on the client's plat, in my opinion. Most surveyors in the area do not label the easements existing or proposed. I was taught that "proposed" and "existing" are important pieces of information. I was also taught that on a plat, unless described as "proposed" the presumption is that the feature exists.. In that circumstance, I'm not sure who would be responsible and it doesn't matter now. Today, we were asked by the head of real estate in a large organization (not our client) to change the title of an easement survey from "plat of proposed 20' utility easement" to "plat of easement area". After the usual back and forth and "all the other surveyors do it that way", the title was changed but the easement was labeled "proposed" in bold letters on the drawing itself. I'm not the signing surveyor on this one but feel that was a fair compromise although I likely would have told them to pound sand if it were my project. It seems a novel concept for us to tell the truth with clarity.. Can anyone explain to me why they wanted the word "proposed" removed? Am I missing something?
FWIW if it's an existing easement I just label it as an easement; if it's a proposed easement I label it as proposed.
Licensed Land Surveyor
Finger Lakes Region, Upstate New York
...Can anyone explain to me why they wanted the word "proposed" removed? Am I missing something?
IMHO the only logical reason to mislabel a proposed easement (and therefor imply it exists) would be to facilitate a fraud.
I'm just a stickler, but any easements shown on my drawings are labeled with their recorded info such as book and page or record plat info.?ÿ
I would think it would depend on if they signed the Plat or not. If they didn't the person that signed the Plat can not grant an easement across property he doesn't own.. Theoretically.?ÿ
I have been thinking along those same lines. I'm sure the planning and zoning folks in the area think I'm a bit peculiar. You know... things like insisting on signing only true statements, labeling easements clearly and completely... I'm so tired of "the other surveyors don't have a problem signing this"... When that statement is made, I inform them that the only Surveyor they need to be concerned with at that moment is me. The last time that statement was made to me I simply asked "Are you seriously going to try and make me commit fraud to get this plat through review?" Strange that they wouldn't answer the question. But it got their supervisor's attention and we found a solution to the problem very quickly. When I wore a younger man's clothes, I enjoyed such challenges. These days, not so much. I'd rather cut line in a swamp.
I create legal descriptions and graphic depictions of new (proposed until recorded) easements all the time...and none of them are labeled as proposed. They are intended to be included in the document that creates the easement. I think it would be fairly confusing to have it say "proposed" in the document that, in fact, creates the easement. I stamp drafts as preliminary, of course.
I would probably be better to say something like "easement to be granted per this plat", that way it fixes it going forward.
Around here existing easements are typically (not always) labeled as such on plats.?ÿ New easements are simply labeled as easements, such as 10' utility easement.?ÿ The easements are dedicated to the appropriate entity/agency in the plat dedication language.?ÿ?ÿ
IMHO the only logical reason to mislabel a proposed easement (and therefor imply it exists) would be to facilitate a fraud.
I'm inclined to agree with that, but possibly the client is thinking that the map will be used after the easement is dedicated, and therefore no longer proposed.?ÿ
If this is a plat to facilitate a land division, at this moment a single owner owns all the lots. That person cannot dedicate an easement to himself (or herself) by the doctrine of merger. So an effort to dedicate an easement in advance of a sale would be fruitless. So it is possible that, knowing this, the client is thinking of the situation that will exist in the future, and not the current state of affairs.?ÿ ?ÿ?ÿ
?ÿ
IMHO the only logical reason to mislabel a proposed easement (and therefor imply it exists) would be to facilitate a fraud.
I'm inclined to agree with that, but possibly the client is thinking that the map will be used after the easement is dedicated, and therefore no longer proposed.?ÿ
If this is a plat to facilitate a land division, at this moment a single owner owns all the lots. That person cannot dedicate an easement to himself (or herself) by the doctrine of merger. So an effort to dedicate an easement in advance of a sale would be fruitless. So it is possible that, knowing this, the client is thinking of the situation that will exist in the future, and not the current state of affairs.?ÿ ?ÿ?ÿ
?ÿ
A "land division", aka a "subdivision" is a common way to create easements. An easement can not be granted to oneself, but that doesn't mean much when it comes to a parcel created by plat.?ÿ
A deed that refers to the plat includes everything that is shown on the plat as if it were written in the deed, so while it may be true that the the easements does not exist while the parcels are in common ownership, the deed, which refers to the plat, which shows the easements, fixes that conundrum.?ÿ
We looked at a property 3 years ago. It was a flag lit that got split in 2 on a minor subdivision map, the rear lot got the flag and the front lot had a proposed easement over the flag. The owner forgot to reserve the easement when granting out the rear lot. It was implied but could become a problem. We didn??t buy it for other reasons.
Hell...that's a pretty severe schism. Swamp line isn't a thing of nightmares, it IS the nightmare.
I'm still young enough to want that principles based fight, and I'm appreciating you must have been exposed to those people for that long that a nightmare is more appealing.
?ÿ
Yikes.
It seems like they want you to remove the proposed labeling to make it appear as if that portion of the easment actually existed.?ÿ It's fraud.
I don't change my wording for Attorneys, never have, never will.
I've been dealing with people like that for 30+years. When you're young, you think you can win the war but you finally realize that you only won a small battle. About the time you think they're learning something they'll either leave that job or be promoted and you gotta fight that first battle over again. Also, Doc told me to avoid stress! Swamps don't stress me, government employees really make my BP go up though.
Seems straightforward. Either an easement already exists to where you can reference the instrument that created it, or it's identified as being dedicated on a plat and not outside the bounds of that plat on somebody else's property. Anything else is just 'proposed'. One of my pet peeves are easements shown on a plat that clearly aren't being dedicated by the plat, but give no reference as to what or how it was created, no smoking gun. I've had a few of these client wanted to use and I had to be the bearer of bad news that without a document, as far as I know it doesn't exist or it was never recorded and was undiscoverable. If someone wants to perpetuate a fallacy, they can do it without my help.?ÿ
Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get me.