Questions and comments:
1. In Texas do the corners that Kent finds erroneous gain any value by being there 5 or 10 years? It seems Kent says no, but others say yes. Obviously if yes, then the corners have value.
2. I would do what it takes to try to find out why the other surveyor set the corners where he did, including trying to find him or his successor (to get field note).
3. I believe that anytime a surveyor disagrees with another surveyor he ought to try to contact the other surveyor and try to figure out what is wrong. Ought to be done with open mind. It is possible the the surveyor found incorrect will apologize and get out there and straighten the mess up (if alive).
4. I think what I would do if I did in fact find the older surveyor and he disagreed with me (or if I couldn't find him) would be to leave the old corners in place and clearly show on my survey that I disagreed with them, refer to references, and state why I disagreed with them even if the plat requires use of several pages.
That said, I have read Kent's postings for years, and he always seems logical and very knowledgeable about what he does. I might be missing something here since the threads were pretty long.
> Questions and comments:
>
> 1. In Texas do the corners that Kent finds erroneous gain any value by being there 5 or 10 years? It seems Kent says no, but others say yes. Obviously if yes, then the corners have value.
No, the mere fact that a surveyor places an erroneously located marker means nothing at all by itself other than that the surveyor didn't do a very good job.
> 2. I would do what it takes to try to find out why the other surveyor set the corners where he did, including trying to find him or his successor (to get field note).
Oh, that isn't any mystery at all. His map shows the basis of his survey. He found Iron Rod No. 56 and Iron Pipe No. 71 and while he correctly guessed that No. 56 was an original corner of the parcel from 1963, he was grossly mistaken in guessing that Pipe No.71 was the rebar that had been set in 1963 as another parcel corner.
Then, he simply mashed the geometric figure of the parcel to fit 56 and 71, and staked it out, apparently completely unconcerned that he found no other survey marker in the process of doing it.
> 3. I believe that anytime a surveyor disagrees with another surveyor he ought to try to contact the other surveyor and try to figure out what is wrong.
Well, it's a good theory, but my experience has been that in certain cases it's a waste of my time and my client's money. The folks who survey in the manner described above typically aren't interested in what went wrong. It is their usual mode of operation and this is hardly the first time that someone has called to discuss some disaster of theirs. As a result, they put their energy into trying to figure out how to make it all seem like something other than an inevitable result of quickie-dickie surveying.
> Ought to be done with open mind. It is possible the the surveyor found incorrect will apologize and get out there and straighten the mess up (if alive).
That's a pretty theory, but completely impractical. What is practical is to recognize the difference between the surveyors who may have something worthwhile to say about what they did and those who just put in three hours on the survey and moved on, hoping for the best.
> 4. I think what I would do if I did in fact find the older surveyor and he disagreed with me (or if I couldn't find him) would be to leave the old corners in place and clearly show on my survey that I disagreed with them, refer to references, and state why I disagreed with them even if the plat requires use of several pages.
By "older", I trust you mean the 1990 surveyor, not the 1963 surveyor. There wasn't much question but that we'd found the true boundaries of the parcel as established in 1963 and as described in all of the adjoining owners' deeds. There was lots of evidence to support the conclusion and zero evidence against it. The 1990 surveyor's work was basically no evidence of anything other than a misadventure.
> That said, I have read Kent's postings for years, and he always seems logical and very knowledgeable about what he does. I might be missing something here since the threads were pretty long.
Well, I didn't go into detail describing what the actual survey consisted of, but it was a substantial effort, both in terms of research and field work that showed the 1990 work to be grossly mistaken beyond any doubt whatsoever. That detail that I posted is just a part of a larger map that shows the pattern of other original evidence used in arriving at the conclusion I did. Some editing was done to conceal the identity of the 1990 surveyor since the real purpose of the thread was to show a real world situation in which carefully preserving some wildly mistaken markers makes no sense at all, and removing them does.
If I read this correctly the 1990 surveyor found #56 (a correct point ) and #71 (not a point on his survey)..So he held #56 and rotated to #71. It looks pretty clear from the map that is what he did.
Why he failed to find the front corners that Kent recovered is puzzling. Maybe when he though they had two then could just rotate their geometry and get on down the road with staking out the rest of the property.
Maybe as they staked they hunted for a corner but having rotated well off of the actual survey lines then they would not have found them unless they checked a larger area (suggested).
Only two points is danger level to me.
I could not find out, but may have missed it in the thread. I'm guessing that all the corners that Kent concluded were original had the same composition and lengths while #71 was different. This should have been a first clue, even with the flagging tied to it.
Kent weeded out the pin garden and restored the lines to where they actually belong.
This was not about a measurement disagreement but about an obvious blunder. Kent may have saved the other surveyor a lot of money had something been erected on the wrong lines but later discovered.
I may overuse this word but I would bet a picture of the larger map would show the overall harmony of Kent's retracement and the obvious blunder in 1990 by only trying to work on 'their' tract instead of retracing far enough to prove those two points they held in haste.
Deral
Kent, I appreciate your response and the effort you put into the survey. From what I see your work seems correct. You put forth very thoughtful and correct effort to figure out what was wrong in the field. While going through this effort and seeing a mess of a previous survey, and during hot summer weather, it gets disgusting to have to correct a mess like this. Great job.
I have always felt that two surveyors should discuss disagreements. I know of at least one case where I thought a previous surveyor was double dead wrong, only later to find out that it was me who was wrong, and that I was missing something. I regret not having spoken with that surveyor. I would rather discover and correct an error than have someone tell others that my work is wrong. Maybe that guy deserves a chance to do that (if still alive). To not contact the other surveyor causes crab claws to go up, and people start trying to stand their ground, exacerbating the disagreement.
Recently, another surveyor disagreed with something I did about 10 years ago, and he never called me to discuss. He was positive he was right. He was so sure I was wrong that he had recommend his clients litigate, and he told them a Daubert (quackery attack in court) should be pursued against me. He told his clients that they would win in a court of law. He was absolutely positive. He was found wrong in district court, appellate court, and state supreme court denied writs. His clients sued him and I think they ended up with over $300,000. A one-hour conversation would have headed this off.
This is not to say you are wrong; it is just my own opinion. You know the parameters in your area around Austin better than I do, and it is probably not practical for you to write a 10-page thread to explain.
What is the statute of limitations on littering? Maybe the client should send a map copy to the 1990 surveyor with a note asking them to come back a clean up the trash iron they left behind.
Kent saved the other surveyor no money, the statute of repose in Texas had expired. Also, as much as Kent denies it, the other survey granted color of title to said property. Kent has yet to address whether cultivation has occurred for a suitable time by the adjoiners to said irons, as such his argument that those irons had no rights associated with them is false. Further, under the section of law quoted by Richard, those irons may indeed be protected evidence and can only be removed under judicial order. Kent may have had good intentions, however he screwed up on this one.
I would think only the owners can create a color of title by their dependence on said pins. In this case, Kent said no reliance was given to them so he simply fixed a hidden problem caused by an obvious blunder.
I see no difference in what Kent did to us sometimes doing a corrective deed to fix a boo-boo typo or such.
Sometimes duct tape will fix a problem but sometimes you just need a new part.
Deral
> What is the statute of limitations on littering? Maybe the client should send a map copy to the 1990 surveyor with a note asking them to come back a clean up the trash iron they left behind.
Well, he'd cashed the check and the statute of limitations had run. My wager would be that it would be an "I'll get back to you on this" that never did. The quickie-dickie end of the market operates mostly on the principal of plausible deniability I've discovered.
> I have always felt that two surveyors should discuss disagreements. I know of at least one case where I thought a previous surveyor was double dead wrong, only later to find out that it was me who was wrong, and that I was missing something. I regret not having spoken with that surveyor. I would rather discover and correct an error than have someone tell others that my work is wrong. Maybe that guy deserves a chance to do that (if still alive). To not contact the other surveyor causes crab claws to go up, and people start trying to stand their ground, exacerbating the disagreement.
Yes, if there is a dispute between landowners, the situation is quite different. In this case there was no dispute and the beneficiaries of the 1990 survey were still there, but with no idea as to where the markers placed in 1990 were. I chose that particular example because it is about as clean as it gets.
> This was not about a measurement disagreement but about an obvious blunder. Kent may have saved the other surveyor a lot of money had something been erected on the wrong lines but later discovered.
Yes, that's the way I see it as well, although I'm not sure that he wouldn't have been able to walk away from it since the statute of limitations had run.
> > I dunno Kent - seems a bit like performing a deposition without the benefit of the deponent being there.
>
>All I was going to hear from the 1990 surveyor was some lame excuse. That is just how it is in quickie-dickie world.
Kent is missing entirely the point of calling the other surveyor. It doesn't matter what the response the other surveyor makes. That's the other surveyor's responsibility. Kent's responsibility is to show some professional courtesy (I know that's a difficult concept for some) and make the contact. Kent has discovered a blunder made by a fellow professional. Common courtesy dictates that he call the surveyor, and inform him of his findings (before he completes the destruction of the evidence). That's Kent's responsibility. How the other surveyor responds will let us know the professional integrity of the other surveyor. That's not Kent's job to presume, nor is it Kent's job to judge.
By not contacting the other "quickie-dickie" surveyor Kent has allowed the surveyor to continue his oblivious methods with no opportunity to 1) learn from his mistake, or 2) fix his mistake. Kent now has a role in perpetuating this travesty onto the next unsuspecting client by allowing "quickie-dickie" work to continue. By destroying the evidence, Kent has also destroyed the work product that some client paid money for. He has obliterated any chance for remedy or remuneration.
Had Kent contacted the other surveyor, there would have been opportunity for the surveyor to 1) fix his mistake, 2) learn from his mistake, and 3) learn the importance of watching each others' professional backs. The other surveyor should be grateful for the call. Maybe the other surveyor wouldn't hesitate to call Kent the next time he finds one of Kent's blunders. (We all make them, don't we?)
JBS
PS. I'd give Kent an A+ for the survey and a D- on the professional courtesy.
Here is the thing, Deral: we do not know that there was no reliance. Kent says his client had not relied on the iron. But we do not know about the adjoiners. Heck, one of them may have shown the 1990 surveyor the #71 iron. But since Kent was so sure the 1990 was a "quickie dickie", Kent decided to ignore protocol and said screw him and just yanked the iron. So we cannot assume there was never any reliance on #71. That is a fact not in evidence because Kent was so irresponsible that he could not be bothered with showing professional courtesy to another licensed surveyor and asking him what was going on. Bottom line, the obvious blunder in the deal is Kent yanking irons. Everything else is subjective. Kent did not investigate all evidence available to him as he chose to not talk to the other surveyor!!! This is not correcting a boo-boo, it is piss poor surveying! You talk to the other guy to find out why he held the iron BEFORE even considering yanking the iron. Kent failed to provide due diligence by his own admission.
> Had Kent contacted the other surveyor, there would have been opportunity for the surveyor to 1) fix his mistake, 2) learn from his mistake, and 3) learn the importance of watching each others' professional backs. The other surveyor should be grateful for the call.
That's a pleasant theory, of course, but one that is disconnected from the actual circumstances that exist when dealing with folks whose practice consists almost entire of making quickie-dickie surveys.
How exactly is the 1990 surveyor going to "fix" his survey? Is he going to spend a week and a half researching the property and actually making a real survey of it for free? I'd quote the odds of that happening at about 0.0% Just about the only way he can "fix" his survey would be to pull the markers out and give his clients back his fee plus interest. I'd quote the odds of that happening at about 1.0%.
No, the reality is that there are some surveys that just need to be erased and forgotten, and that was one.
The idea that the folks whose entire practices are built around doing quickie-dickie surveys are going to learn anything except by having to pay money for their mistakes flies in the face of experience. That 1990 survey misadventure had probably cost my clients about $400 for the boundary survey part of the work. Expecting them to spend more money to "educate" the responsible surveyor is frankly a bit nutty.
The idea that a professional surveyor ought to "watch the back" of some surveyor whose practice is built around doing quickie-dickie surveys is bizarre. These are the folks who have made an economic decision to try to do the minimum in the hope that they'll be somewhere else if problems arise. The surveyor's responsibility is to serve his clients' interests seen in the full context of the vested property rights of the adjoining landowners and the cadastral system used in Texas.
Wrong
Your duty, as a license surveyor is to protect the public welfare. You chose to do nothing! You did not talk to the surveyor to let them know where they screwed up! You chose to not notify the state board of a surveyor endangering public welfare by performing substandard surveys! In short you chose to ignore your obligation under the law! Shame on you! If you find his "quickie dickie surveys" to be of such a sufficient danger, you are obliged to file a complaint with the state, that is one of the obligations of your license. In short, you failed to protect the public that day!
The rule Kent Broke
was 663.11
"Failure to set or leave as found markers to represent or reference boundary corners, angle points and points of curvature or tangency. Failure to show and describe the locations of such markers on the plat." Kent found markers which were shown as (which makes them represent on the 1990 survey) the property corners. In removing them, he has violated this part of the Texas Rules. He may also be in violation of this one 663.11 (1) "Failure to reference and describe the survey markers as shown on the plat" if he did not have written on the face of his plat that he removed #71.
Also, he is required, in the ethics rules to make known to the board if he finds another registrant violating the rules. He did not. That is also a violation.
Wrong
> Your duty, as a license surveyor is to protect the public welfare. You chose to do nothing! You did not talk to the surveyor to let them know where they screwed up! You chose to not notify the state board of a surveyor endangering public welfare by performing substandard surveys! In short you chose to ignore your obligation under the law!
Uh, no. The reason why land surveying is a licensed profession in Texas is to protect the protect the public welfare. Because of the lapse of time (from 1990 to 2005) and the changes in the rules of practice in Texas over that interval, it is highly unlikely that the BOR would have pursued a complaint. As a rule, if there isn't a member of the public who has been damaged and is willing to bring a complaint, I don't myself. Otherwise, I'd spend all my time at reporting substandard work at the quickie-dickie end of the survey market and would never get anything done.
My estimate is that virtually all of the surveyors working the quickie-dickie market have a clue that what they are doing is skating at the margins of negligence. So telling any one of them that they'd done something grossly negligent wouldn't be a news flash. Really, the desire of posters to want to ignore the obvious conclusion from this thread, i.e. that removing the markers was a proper and effective solution to a problem is mildly amusing.
What the rules actually say.
> was 663.11
>
> ]"Failure to set or leave as found markers to represent or reference boundary corners, angle points and points of curvature or tangency. Failure to show and describe the locations of such markers on the plat."
>Kent found markers which were shown as (which makes them represent on the 1990 survey) the property corners. In removing them, he has violated this part of the Texas Rules. He may also be in violation of this one 663.11 (1) "Failure to reference and describe the survey markers as shown on the plat" if he did not have written on the face of his plat that he removed #71.
>
Okay, that's just stupid. Anyone who has read this thread ought to have absorbed the idea that the quickie-dickie markers removed did not represent the boundary corners. The boundary corners were marked by the original surveyor's monuments and those which I set. The markers removed fall in the category of ferrous junk.
> Also, he is required, in the ethics rules to make known to the board if he finds another registrant violating the rules. He did not. That is also a violation.
Well, you're certainly free with slanderous, unfounded charges, aren't you? There is in fact no such rule as you claim. If you'd bothered to actually read the rules of the Texas Board of Professional Land Surveying, you'd know that. The actual rule reads as follows:
RULE §663.7 Maintenance of Standards
Aid should be given the board in maintaining the highest standards of integrity and competence of those in its subject profession and occupation. The registrant:
(1) may initiate a complaint or furnish the board with any information that comes into his/her possession, indicating that any person or firm has violated any of the provisions of the registration laws or code;
(2) shall furnish any information he/she might have concerning any alleged violation of the registration laws or code upon request of the board or its authorized representatives.
> Here is the thing, Deral: we do not know that there was no reliance. Kent says his client had not relied on the iron. But we do not know about the adjoiners.
Actually, I know that they didn't and I told you as much if you'd actually bothered to read this thread. Some of you guys are eaten up by the effort of avoiding the obvious, i.e. that this example shows your opinions about mindlessly preserving every mistakenly placed survey marker to be simply wrong.
Read the rule you quoted
Aid should be given the board in maintaining the highest standards of integrity and competence of those in its subject profession and occupation. The registrant:
(1) may initiate a complaint or furnish the board with any information that comes into his/her possession, indicating that any person or firm has violated any of the provisions of the registration laws or code;
(2) shall furnish any information he/she might have concerning any alleged violation of the registration laws or code upon request of the board or its authorized representatives.
Not slanderous at all. You hang your hat on may and upon the request, while ignoring the rules citations such as: 663.5 "Failure to perform work with integrity, truthfulness and accuracy. Misleading the public." and 663.6 "Failure to make known to the board any unauthorized practice of which the registrant has personal knowledge" Not turning a substandard surveyor in allows them to keep cheating people. That is misleading the public and when you know of practices that are substandard, that makes the unauthorized. Your refusing to make known to the board knowledge of substandard practice is technically a violation! That is because, according to you, the 1990 surveyor was in violation of 663.9 (c) "Failure to have personal knowledge of documents, plats, maps or reports that bear the surveyor’s seal or signature.". Ethically, you were obligated to notify the board. But you chose to ignore the rules. And that is a violation of 663.10! You did not contact him because then you could not delude yourself about your obligations under the law. Granted too much time has passed for the state to nail you on it, but you are guilty of violating the rules on multiple counts!
Read the rule you quoted
Matt, I think you've just disqualified yourself from any discussion of professional ethics if you're unable to read English and want to make wild charges without understanding what rules actually say.
