chuckh_02, post: 380130, member: 6258 wrote: So I'm wondering about everyone's take on survey records and the sharing of same in certain cases.
1) the one I'm dealing with now - Attorney is doing a private sale of a parcel north of a parcel I surveyed. His client was wondering about old fence posts along the line and commissioned a survey which shows the posts on or within a couple of feet of the deed line. He assures me no one wants the old posts to be the line, but could he have a copy of my survey.
2) Person buys a parcel and calls wanting a copy of an old survey our firm did for the previous owner.
3) Neighbor wants a copy of the survey because it's his line too . . .
I send them an archive map request form. It states the terms and fee. I don't always know if the map has been filed, so one requirement is they are the original party or an attorney acting on behalf of the original party. If not, then I need consent of same. Fee is to search archives, print, get consent if needed, etc.. $150 - $300 if they sign and return with all the disclaimers. No one ever has sent it back. What does that tell you? Tells me it's not worth my time.
Bill93, post: 380358, member: 87 wrote: The concept of non-recording states still boggles my mind.
It means different things in different states. It seems some states record all monuments that are replaced, others have a minimum error budget to activate a record, some concentrate on PLSS monuments.
I would think that any new split has to get recorded in every state, maybe not a map but at least a written description.
The cost associated with recording seems to be awful high is some areas.
Duane Frymire, post: 380359, member: 110 wrote: You are required to pay for a surveyors opinion of your boundaries. Otherwise you acquiesce in the opinion your neighbor paid for as witnessed by the stakes in the ground.
Failure to commission a competing survey does not automatically result in acquiescence to the survey your neighbor paid for. There has to be more substantial acts of ownership relative to the points of that survey by one or both owners and some affirmative indication that the adjoiner accepted the boundary as marked for it to become the true boundary.
Duane Frymire, post: 380359, member: 110 wrote: We are not public employees when in private practice. Just because my work may or may not affect an adjoiner, does not mean they are entitled to it free of charge.
You have misunderstood what I was saying.
Duane Frymire, post: 380359, member: 110 wrote: Not all surveyors work for the public, some of us are in private practice.
I hate this "surveyors work for the public" BS. Until the public hires me and pays my salary in some governmental capacity, I work for one client at a time.
You should read your state BOR requirements regarding the purpose and duties as a licensed surveyor, it may surprise you as to what oath you take while paying to extend your license each term.
😉
A Harris, post: 380371, member: 81 wrote: You should read your state BOR requirements regarding the purpose and duties as a licensed surveyor, it may surprise you as to what oath you take while paying to extend your license each term.
http://www.op.nysed.gov/prof/pels/lsbroch.htm&apos ;">From the New York State Department of Education, Office of the Professions:
What records does my land surveyor maintain? Can anyone else get them?
New York licensed land surveyors must retain for six years all preliminary and final plans, documents, computations, records, and professional evaluations they or their employees prepared, related to the work which the licensee signed and sealed. They may not reveal personally identifiable data or information obtained in a professional capacity without the prior consent of the client. The client may request copies of documents from the licensee which have been prepared for and paid for by the client.
Bill93, post: 380358, member: 87 wrote: The concept of non-recording states still boggles my mind.
In my opinion not recording is a major blemish on our profession. How can we hold our heads high and claim we serve the public while denying an adjoiner or a future owner access to a survey that purports to depict their boundary?
Every boundary survey directly effects at least two land ownners. Im not sure what good a survey is that only one owner is alowed to see.
When a survey is recorded there is public notice and all effected parties can chose to aquiesce. When only one owner has a copy the probability of two surveyors reaching different conclusions goes through the roof. If the survey is recorded the only time two surveys should disagree is if major problems are discovered.
I am licenced in both non-recording and recording states and have found things seem to work out much better for clients and surveyors in the recording states. I think it is unethical to charge an adjoiner for a plat you have already done.
"I think it is unethical to charge an adjoiner for a plat you have already done." An attitude like that would make it difficult for me to explain how my plats are valuable to my client. I don't disagree with government mandated recording, but having worked in a recording and a non-recording state I prefer the non-recording state as it provides me greater flexibility and makes me feel less like just another regulator collecting an administrative fee.
eapls2708, post: 380365, member: 589 wrote: Failure to commission a competing survey does not automatically result in acquiescence to the survey your neighbor paid for. There has to be more substantial acts of ownership relative to the points of that survey by one or both owners and some affirmative indication that the adjoiner accepted the boundary as marked for it to become the true boundary.
Huh? I think you misunderstand acquiescence. I agree not much is automatic. But a failure to act can be just as important as an affirmative act. The ceremony of beating the bounds and Feoffment with livery of Seisin has not been needed for more than 200 years and never needed in most U.S. States.
Mark Mayer, post: 380366, member: 424 wrote: You have misunderstood what I was saying.
Could be, I apologize if so.
A Harris, post: 380371, member: 81 wrote: You should read your state BOR requirements regarding the purpose and duties as a licensed surveyor, it may surprise you as to what oath you take while paying to extend your license each term.
😉
Not likely, as I taught the requirements for 13 years. You are mistaking my desire for a well paying profession that will attract and retain young intelligent people, for a lack of integrity. On the contrary, I have done everything in my power to ensure well educated and trained individuals are prepared as best as possible to perform a professional service to the highest standards. That is what protects the public in general. And individuals with the necessary skills and education protect the public and their clients every day. But you don't get those kind of people without the requisite rewards. Giving away work product hurts the profession, hurts the public, and should be a case for professional malpractice unless it's of a charitable contribution nature.
aliquot, post: 380436, member: 2486 wrote: In my opinion not recording is a major blemish on our profession. How can we hold our heads high and claim we serve the public while denying an adjoiner or a future owner access to a survey that purports to depict their boundary?
Every boundary survey directly effects at least two land ownners. Im not sure what good a survey is that only one owner is alowed to see.
When a survey is recorded there is public notice and all effected parties can chose to aquiesce. When only one owner has a copy the probability of two surveyors reaching different conclusions goes through the roof. If the survey is recorded the only time two surveys should disagree is if major problems are discovered.
I am licenced in both non-recording and recording states and have found things seem to work out much better for clients and surveyors in the recording states. I think it is unethical to charge an adjoiner for a plat you have already done.
They are not denied all the results, just the results that don't apply to them. The monuments are in the ground for them to see. And even in non-recording states (so called) subdivisions are recorded. But yeah, there are old subdivisions that are not recorded. If they want a complete modern opinion they need to pay for it. Or they could lobby the state to make boundary surveying a state function and pay a little more in taxes to fund it, but those who choose not to own property (the majority of Americans I dare say) might have a problem with that.
Duane Frymire, post: 380469, member: 110 wrote: They are not denied all the results, just the results that don't apply to them. The monuments are in the ground for them to see. And even in non-recording states (so called) subdivisions are recorded. But yeah, there are old subdivisions that are not recorded. If they want a complete modern opinion they need to pay for it. Or they could lobby the state to make boundary surveying a state function and pay a little more in taxes to fund it, but those who choose not to own property (the majority of Americans I dare say) might have a problem with that.
Agreed. The map I make is between myself, and the client, the monuments I set, or the boundary line I run is for the public to use. Furthermore, I also tell all my clients, that I own the electronic file of the survey.
aliquot, post: 380436, member: 2486 wrote: I think it is unethical to charge an adjoiner for a plat you have already done.
If I understand you right, you are saying that it is unethical for a surveyor to seek to be paid for something he has already done and already been paid for in full.
If we were manufacturing and selling a product, a commodity, I could understand your point and agree to a point. But even if you can't get beyond the idea that you should get paid only for the value of your effort once, isn't their value to your time to find the map in your files and then to produce copies? Isn't there value in the materials used to produce the copies? It may take as little as 15 minutes to find, copy and refile the map (if you have few or really well organized files) and the cost of ink/paper/power/envelope/postage may be only about $5, but it is a distraction from other billable work and your time & materials does have value.
But we are not selling maps & stakes. We are in the business of providing professional opinions. The counter argument to your statement, based on the value of the opinion rather than past payment for a product or wages for hours, is that it is unethical to not charge the adjoiner for the value of the opinion after you had charged your client full value for access to the same opinion.
The area I live in finally got cable TV & cable internet access 9 years ago. I and many of my neighbors subscribed as soon as it was available, but many others did not. The cable company probably recouped the costs of installing the distribution system to the area after about 3 years.
Should anyone in the area who wants cable after that time be entitled to get it for free or at a reduced cost, or should they pay the same as I do for receiving the same benefit?
Duane Frymire, post: 380464, member: 110 wrote: Huh? I think you misunderstand acquiescence. I agree not much is automatic. But a failure to act can be just as important as an affirmative act. .
OK, let me clarify as I wasn't clear. If the party who commissioned the survey installs a fence or places other improvements according to the survey in a location that might otherwise be in dispute, and the other party sits on their rights and allows the construction to take place without challenging, then they will have acquiesced in the survey results. You're correct in that it is not an affirmative action by the party who did not commission a survey. It is willful inaction when faced with an affirmative action by the party relying on the survey. So, yes, I worded it poorly and could have been more precise with my comment.
But if the party who has the survey done does nothing more in the vicinity of the boundary, the landowner on the other side of the line can disagree with the location and even remain silent about that disagreement until the party who had the survey performed begins to make use of the area that may be in dispute in reliance on the survey. That silence while no other substantial acts of ownership occur is not acquiescence. The failure to commission a competing survey within a specific timeframe is not acquiescence.
Duane Frymire, post: 380464, member: 110 wrote: The ceremony of beating the bounds and Feoffment with livery of Seisin has not been needed for more than 200 years and never needed in most U.S. States.
[sarcasm]So am I the only one who still takes the kids out to a property corner when they need a spanking???[/sarcasm]
Duane Frymire, post: 380468, member: 110 wrote: Not likely, as I taught the requirements for 13 years. You are mistaking my desire for a well paying profession that will attract and retain young intelligent people, for a lack of integrity. On the contrary, I have done everything in my power to ensure well educated and trained individuals are prepared as best as possible to perform a professional service to the highest standards. That is what protects the public in general. And individuals with the necessary skills and education protect the public and their clients every day. But you don't get those kind of people without the requisite rewards. Giving away work product hurts the profession, hurts the public, and should be a case for professional malpractice unless it's of a charitable contribution nature.
I understand your point of view.
I am only establishing the fact that we never work for one client's interest or yield to their demands when that conflicts with the demands of the public.
It was a sad day in my history of events when a client accused me of arriving at my conclusion for the location of monuments to favor my client because of his race, the depth of their wealth and where my fee was coming from.
More sad was when attempting to explain the process of relocating the location of the missing corner monuments was the mans refusal to hear the rules I had to follow and procedure to arrive at the correct positions because he never ceased his rant and rave and did not want to see clearly that he and his neighbors deeds fit rather well considering the decades of difference between various surveys and everyone generally had what they had been deeded.
:gammon:
eapls2708, post: 380471, member: 589 wrote: If I understand you right, you are saying that it is unethical for a surveyor to seek to be paid for something he has already done and already been paid for in full.
If we were manufacturing and selling a product, a commodity, I could understand your point and agree to a point. But even if you can't get beyond the idea that you should get paid only for the value of your effort once, isn't their value to your time to find the map in your files and then to produce copies? Isn't there value in the materials used to produce the copies? It may take as little as 15 minutes to find, copy and refile the map (if you have few or really well organized files) and the cost of ink/paper/power/envelope/postage may be only about $5, but it is a distraction from other billable work and your time & materials does have value.
But we are not selling maps & stakes. We are in the business of providing professional opinions. The counter argument to your statement, based on the value of the opinion rather than past payment for a product or wages for hours, is that it is unethical to not charge the adjoiner for the value of the opinion after you had charged your client full value for access to the same opinion.
The area I live in finally got cable TV & cable internet access 9 years ago. I and many of my neighbors subscribed as soon as it was available, but many others did not. The cable company probably recouped the costs of installing the distribution system to the area after about 3 years.
Should anyone in the area who wants cable after that time be entitled to get it for free or at a reduced cost, or should they pay the same as I do for receiving the same benefit?
If you feel you must charge for the actual expense of printing a plat I don't really have a problem with that, although it would probably take more time to invoice then it is worth.
You are right that we are paid for our professional opinion. My issue is that the opinion the adjoner wants is the exact same opinion that you gave his neighbor.
You are doing your client more of a service by sharing your decision. If you don't the neighbor will hire another surveyor who may come up with a different solution because you wouldn't share your product. With two different surveys of the same line the neighborhood is worse of then it was before the surveyors came and our profession loses respect.
It is also good business practice to share what you have. It is very lickely that the neighbor will want to know where the rest of their boundaries are too.
I'm not sure land surveying is more like cable T.V then it is like electric power. When new power poles are required to bring power to a neighborhood whoever requests it pays for the poles. New neighbors just pay for the power. They don't have to pay for the poles again.
Amother analogy relies on our quasi judicial function. When a court issues an opinion it is published for all to see. You don't have to pay all the court fees all over again to see the opinion.
I'm not sure what to make of the comment asking how to explain to a client the value of a plat. I assume you were hired because they want to know where their boundary is, so presumably they already realize there is a value in knowing where their boundary is.
aliquot, post: 380495, member: 2486 wrote: ... it would probably take more time to invoice then it is worth.
Perhaps, but I would be conveying that there is value attached to what you is provided. If they pay something for it, even if only $50, they're more likely to treat it like an important document. If you place no value on it, the recipient is less likely to place value on it.
If charging actual T&M to produce a copy, it's not an immediately profitable activity. Immediate profit's not the concern. The nominal T&M fee is just enough to convey a sense of value to the recipient. If no sense of value is placed on the map, then the recipient isn't likely to see value in surveying services to verify or add to what you've provided.
aliquot, post: 380495, member: 2486 wrote: My issue is that the opinion the adjoner wants is the exact same opinion that you gave his neighbor.
You understand that the value is in the opinion, but you're thinking of that opinion as a commodity. The value of the opinion does not decrease because you previously provided it to someone else. It may take less effort for you to reproduce the report (map) documenting the opinion, but it has no less value.
aliquot, post: 380495, member: 2486 wrote: You are doing your client more of a service by sharing your decision. If you don't the neighbor will hire another surveyor who may come up with a different solution because you wouldn't share your product.
First off, if the adjoiner is too cheap to pay even a nominal fee to cover T&M for producing a copy of the map, then he's going to be too cheap to pay for a survey. But for sake of argument, if the adjoiner doesn't want to pay for a copy of the map but does decide instead to hire another surveyor, so what? Isn't that actually a good thing?
Another surveyor, if he's professionally responsible, will recognize the importance of having a copy of your map at a minimum, if not the notes and some of your time to discuss any specific issues you might be aware of. For that surveyor, paying you T&M to provide a copy of the map will be entirely reasonable even if he would prefer you provide it for free as professional courtesy.
Offering a copy of your map for a fee is not refusing to provide a copy. If they refuse to pay, that's their decision, their refusal to obtain a copy.
What you are refusing to do is to place any responsibility on the adjoiner or his surveyor to acknowledge that your opinion has any value at all.
aliquot, post: 380495, member: 2486 wrote: It is also good business practice to share ... the neighbor will want to know where the rest of their boundaries are too.
It is good business practice to make your records (those that don't contain proprietary info of your client) available to others. That is one of the reasons why I wouldn't necessarily charge full value, but charge T&M (with a 1 hour minimum) for a copy of the map I've already produced. That is not so much that he should feel ripped off, but enough to convey that the opinion has value. Besides, if he comes to me to complete the survey of his property, I can deduct the fee for the map from the fee for his survey.
aliquot, post: 380495, member: 2486 wrote: I'm not sure land surveying is more like cable T.V then it is like electric power. When new power poles are required to bring power to a neighborhood whoever requests it pays for the poles. New neighbors just pay for the power. They don't have to pay for the poles again.
In the area where I live, the electric service analogy may even prove the point better.
If there is new construction in a location with no power lines, the party requiring the service pays for the installation of the poles and related facilities to get power to the site. If another party builds on a parcel along that extended route, or further out in a location where that recent route extension would have been needed to get to the new site, and it happens within a certain period of time (don't recall specific period, but it's several years), that later party pays a pro-rata portion of the previous extension and the first requesting party receives a partial refund on their costs to bring power in.
If you want to follow that model and be completely fair, you would charge the adjoiner the pro-rata value of your opinion, plus T&M for processing the request, and refund your original client the pro-rata portion. But that's still treating the survey as if the value is only in the stakes and map rather than the application of your knowledge to ensure the stakes are placed in the proper locations and properly documented in a complete and understandable manner.
Again, the surveyor's opinion is not a commodity that holds a 1-time value. The opinion is the result of applying advanced knowledge gained through a significant amount of specialized training and experience. That knowledge is where the value is. That is the value you should try to convey.
A better analogy might be that of an actor, musician, or author. They are paid a fee to play a part, record a song, or provide a manuscript once, but collect a royalty fee each time a movie ticket is sold, a song is downloaded, or a copy of the book is sold because the result of their efforts continues to hold value to new viewers, listeners, or readers.
aliquot, post: 380495, member: 2486 wrote: When a court issues an opinion it is published for all to see. You don't have to pay all the court fees all over again to see the opinion..
Being in a recording state, copies of my filed boundary surveys are available to all through the county Recorder's Office - for a fee. Likewise, if I want a copy of a trial court judgment, those are not published, but I can get a copy through the courts - for a fee. Relatively few trial decisions go to the appellate level, and not all of those are published. Prior to courts making published decisions available online (in some jurisdictions, that availability is still very limited), one had to get a copy through the courts - for a fee, or they could purchase published decisions in bound volumes from an independent publisher for the price of an average mid-sized sedan.
Government offices charge fees for the copies they provide. So if you want to use the quasi-judicial role as an argument for or against fees for copies, you need to be charging for your costs to provide copies.
aliquot, post: 380495, member: 2486 wrote: I'm not sure what to make of the comment asking how to explain to a client the value of a plat.
You missed the point. By giving away the report of your opinion (map) for free, you are telling the recipient that there is no real value to the opinion, that the only value is in the monuments you set, and that the map only has nominal value at best. Once your client finds that you've simply given a copy of the map, the message they get is the only real value is in the materials set in the ground at the corners and the time spent on site to place them. They know that your crew only spent 2 hours on their lot, and that materials can't be worth more than $50. Your client now feels that any portion of your fee that was over $250 was excessive profit that went straight into your pocket.
Why? Because he's unaware of the work occurring prior to setting monuments and you've told him, through his neighbor that there's no valuable expertise needed to determine where to set those points. He only knows he paid $3000 to get those points and a copy of the map, and that his neighbor got the points and the map for free.
The non-paying adjoiner thinks your a good guy, and if he considers having a survey done, he'll think of you first. The actual likelihood that he will hire a surveyor is at best, 50%. If he does have a survey done, the likelihood that he will hire you versus hiring one of the many other surveyors in the area to have them verify your results is probably also around 50%. Unless they do hire you and are very happy with the service, the likelihood they'll provide any recommendations for you to others is nil. The likelihood that your former client is going to be ticked that you gave his neighbor what you charged him $3000 for is at least 80%. The likelihood that if he is ticked, that he will recommend that others not hire you is about 100%.
So, 25% chance of future work from the adjoiner (who is likely to argue with you about the value because you placed none on the first info you gave him) together with an 80% chance of negative advertisement about your character if not your services from your former client versus still a 25% chance of future work from the adjoiner (but with at some appreciation of the value), a still zero chance of advertising, positive or negative, via the adjoiner if he doesn't hire you, and far less likelihood of resentment from your client because he knows that you charged his neighbor something to acknowledge value.
Considering that, giving out maps for free to people because their neighbor exercised the poor financial judgment to be the first to hire a surveyor doesn't seem like very good business to me.
I don't share private unrecorded surveys with neighbors unless my client gives the okay to do so. The client paid for the survey and they are entitled to the choice of whether to share it. The neighbors aren't entitled to this information but are entitled to hire their own surveyor. This policy can also be a selling point for those considering hiring a surveyor when they have a possible problem with a neighbor. They can obtain the facts, then decide how to proceed, with the security of knowing that it is private information. If the survey turns out to not be in their favor, they can choose not to share it.
eapls2708, post: 380475, member: 589 wrote: OK, let me clarify as I wasn't clear. If the party who commissioned the survey installs a fence or places other improvements according to the survey in a location that might otherwise be in dispute, and the other party sits on their rights and allows the construction to take place without challenging, then they will have acquiesced in the survey results. You're correct in that it is not an affirmative action by the party who did not commission a survey. It is willful inaction when faced with an affirmative action by the party relying on the survey. So, yes, I worded it poorly and could have been more precise with my comment.
But if the party who has the survey done does nothing more in the vicinity of the boundary, the landowner on the other side of the line can disagree with the location and even remain silent about that disagreement until the party who had the survey performed begins to make use of the area that may be in dispute in reliance on the survey. That silence while no other substantial acts of ownership occur is not acquiescence. The failure to commission a competing survey within a specific timeframe is not acquiescence.
[sarcasm]So am I the only one who still takes the kids out to a property corner when they need a spanking???[/sarcasm]
Well, we disagree then. In my opinion, the only reason affirmative use of some kind is recognized at all is because it acts in corroboration or defiance of survey monumentation. In the first instance it may later be used as accessory evidence to find the original location of the monuments, in the second instance it may be used to make a claim of adverse possession or an agreed line, or may lead to a survey asking for a second opinion. When a deed is delivered the legal presumption is it has been accepted, same with the survey. If unchallenged for a long period of time it becomes conclusive.