A Harris, post: 380493, member: 81 wrote: 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:
That's certainly true. In the case of a dispute I would counsel my client to get together and share and explain the results with the neighbor. But if attorneys have been retained then we can not get in the middle of it without their participation.
Bill93, post: 380358, member: 87 wrote: The concept of non-recording states still boggles my mind.
Why?
The process works here for the last 400 years and I imagine (using your boggled mind expression) and other non-recording states. I don't know the definition of non-recording state as it is used by all.
Of course, there are boundary surveys that require recording in this non-recording state. Some are required by local political jurisdictions such as parishes (counties), cities etc. but not all surveys.
Evan aka eapls describes the professional courtesy that exists between surveyors. Information is shared by surveyors who work in all of the market stratas. I only knew of one who didn't. Bad reputation for years.On an adjoining lot survey once, I found a 'biggy' mistake that was made and as a professional courtesy contacted him. He got back to me with a thank you and then stated that I have could have access to his records anytime that I wanted. I said thanks as I thought that I really did not want to enter into an abyss of poor surveys and help him identify them.
Realtors sometimes call and request copies for their client. Once they are made aware of charges to retrieve information and transmit, they seem to never to be heard from again.
Once I requested some info from a surveyor with the highest reputation of any work that he had done in a very isolated area where he had practiced. He told me that he would have to access some old record label from a computer he had offline at the time. In a few days, I received a CD in the mail. Attached was an invoice for $100. Hmmm. I loaded the CD and found all of his files for this area that were compiled into a In-house GIS.
I do think that GLO corner recordation(provided basic costs being reimbursed by the recording authority) is a good idea but not here in this area. It would be a tangled web as they say. One false fact would propagate endless false facts that somehow would never had been accepted before.
Other places it would be very beneficial but I wonder how it would work in Ohio. Probably a never ending symphony of surveys conflicting with each other to be arbitrated by some bureaucrat.
I have heard an abundance of protest (to the extreme limits)here through the years about regulatory mandates from government and/or government surrogate bodies.
Why is this not a consideration?
Why should a survey for a private citizen be reviewed by some azzwipe bureaucrat- GIS type or some good ole boy azzhat tied to the other local good ole boy net? Most damage that I have seen to the profession has been done by the political or good ole boy network. Performance of bad work, supplanting or hassling better qualified etc, These are the ones that seek to profit from their connections or sense of importance.
Every state has boundary survey standards. Why feed the beast with universal recordation laws?
There isn't a desert of unrecorded surveys here. New development and major subdivides are reviewed and recorded
In most areas. Surveys are attached to property conveyances as a norm if one was required. One needs to do the research and develop
professional relationships with surveyors and attorneys.
End of diatribe.
Robert Hill, post: 380713, member: 378 wrote: Why should a survey for a private citizen be reviewed
I favor recording, but not content review by someone not of the surveyor's choosing. If the document is legible, end of review. These huge review fees I hear of, and the nit-picking "do it my way" reviewers don't have to come along with recording.
Bill93, post: 380358, member: 87 wrote: The concept of non-recording states still boggles my mind.
And the concept of recording states boggle mine...
hlbennettpls, post: 380720, member: 10049 wrote: And the concept of recording states boggle mine...
The fact that some of us have been posting (on one version or another of a surveyors message board) for almost twenty years now and we've really only had one years worth of topics, discussed twenty times, boggles mine 😉
Bill93, post: 380714, member: 87 wrote: I favor recording, but not content review by someone not of the surveyor's choosing. If the document is legible, end of review. These huge review fees I hear of, and the nit-picking "do it my way" reviewers don't have to come along with recording.
I agree, generally with your comments. Even legibility might be up to interpretation. I would send a lot of medicines and instructions back if they had to be legible. And if you can read it with a magnifying glass....is it legible? A reviewer should check a plat to see if it has all the elements required by law to be on that (type of) plat. It would be good for the statutes or rules to call to a minimum font size, then it would be within the checkers purview (if that's the right word).
But generally speaking, if the statutes require a north-arrow, then check of whether the plat has a north-arrow (etc). Not the linetypes, or the boundary decisions, or other non-regulated plat issues.
Bill93, post: 380358, member: 87 wrote: The concept of non-recording states still boggles my mind.
There are some very good reasons for not recording plats.
Try selling you business in a recording state and compare it to what it is worth in a non-recording state for one
Mark Mayer, post: 380144, member: 424 wrote: Surveyors work for the public. Every time you run a boundary you are running the boundary of at least 2 owners. It doesn't matter who is paying the freight in terms of the results of the survey.
Mark, no one except my client has any right to my work.
In Texas, RPLS's do not work for the public, we work for the client who pays us. Yes, we are to perform our work with the intent to hold the highest degree of moral and ethical standards (as determined by the State of Texas). There follows a long list of things we must do, but NONE of them involve disclosure of our findings. Actually, we have a moral obligation to disclose nothing of the survey we performed for our client unless said client gives us his permission (I suggest you get that in writing) to do so.
To carry it one step further, what if I were to survey an entire patent just for kicks. Does anyone who owns a tract of land that I have surveyed have ANY right to my work? Here in Texas, the answer is, "Hell no."
Thank goodness.
I think those that are saying "surveyors work for the public" are making a stretch on word play, as are those getting riled up by the same statement. The idea behind it all is, that surveyors, though we work for OUR client, should be unbiased in our findings, thereby protecting the public's interest in our work. Eh...something like that anyway, I'm a bit punchy after staring at CAD for over 6 hours now...
Jack Chiles, post: 381029, member: 24 wrote: Mark, no one except my client has any right to my work.
In Texas, RPLS's do not work for the public, we work for the client who pays us. Yes, we are to perform our work with the intent to hold the highest degree of moral and ethical standards (as determined by the State of Texas). There follows a long list of things we must do, but NONE of them involve disclosure of our findings. Actually, we have a moral obligation to disclose nothing of the survey we performed for our client unless said client gives us his permission (I suggest you get that in writing) to do so.
To carry it one step further, what if I were to survey an entire patent just for kicks. Does anyone who owns a tract of land that I have surveyed have ANY right to my work? Here in Texas, the answer is, "Hell no."
Thank goodness.
IMHO, the key is that we are not advocates for our clients regarding boundary determination, facts, and recording evidence. In that sense, we work for the cadastre, no matter who pays the bill.
I am not from TX, but the surveyor's reports that Kent posted seemed to be basically disclosing findings to the public, when it helped the public good. Are these not mandated by ethics and such? (Subject to professional judgement.)
I think the key isn't the fact of data being recorded, but that when judgments are made regarding boundary, it is to the public's benefit that all are able to rely on those judgments, rather than having hidden facts and opinions controlling the occupation of a boundary line. Some simply argue that the monuments stand as the record. In this state (WA), you just have to let people know why you put them where you put them (by recording).
dmyhill, post: 381112, member: 1137 wrote: IMHO, the key is that we are not advocates for our clients regarding boundary determination, facts, and recording evidence. In that sense, we work for the cadastre, no matter who pays the bill.
I am not from TX, but the surveyor's reports that Kent posted seemed to be basically disclosing findings to the public, when it helped the public good. Are these not mandated by ethics and such? (Subject to professional judgement.)
I think the key isn't the fact of data being recorded, but that when judgments are made regarding boundary, it is to the public's benefit that all are able to rely on those judgments, rather than having hidden facts and opinions controlling the occupation of a boundary line. Some simply argue that the monuments stand as the record. In this state (WA), you just have to let people know why you put them where you put them (by recording).
Yes, Judges work for the public and they get paid by the public. I'm not opposed to that, just haven't received my first check yet. Until then I have to think of it in another alternate sense.
WA recording seems interesting. Here we don't normally include a report detailing all the analysis and evidence and conclusions unless it goes to court. I've never seen any of that on a recorded map, although I might make a short note about some questionable area. But I just finished an explanation of why for a court proceeding and it was 25 pages for less than an acre lake lot. But I suspect recording has more to do with providing updated information to taxing and codes authorities, and a chain of evidence for surveyors, than it does with helping any individual landowner figure out why things are as they are.
It would be interesting to look at the legislative history of map recording to see what the lawmakers expressed intent of the policy was.
DMY,
Here in Texas, people are very private. The vast majority of deeds in this State say that the land was sold for 1 dollar and "other considerations" (I'm paraphrasing) and no one knows what those things are. The County Tax Office has no idea even. If one wanted to look up the deed that was recorded to find a description, he is entitled to that document, but the plat is very seldom recorded with the deed. The sad thing about that is that many attorneys have the metes and bounds retyped and the surveyor's name is seldom mentioned in the deed. I have never asked anyone, but I have an idea that most clients would not want the findings made public, beyond what is in the deed. There is no mandate to send anything to anyone but the client, except for work being performed for the public entities, unless it's an ALTA and has several recipients listed in the contract.
Surveyor's reports like Kent's were performed for use in a court case. The only reason that report has seen the light of day was because the case was recorded in the County District Court records.
Duane Frymire, post: 381130, member: 110 wrote: Yes, Judges work for the public and they get paid by the public. I'm not opposed to that, just haven't received my first check yet. Until then I have to think of it in another alternate sense.
WA recording seems interesting. Here we don't normally include a report detailing all the analysis and evidence and conclusions unless it goes to court. I've never seen any of that on a recorded map, although I might make a short note about some questionable area. But I just finished an explanation of why for a court proceeding and it was 25 pages for less than an acre lake lot. But I suspect recording has more to do with providing updated information to taxing and codes authorities, and a chain of evidence for surveyors, than it does with helping any individual landowner figure out why things are as they are.
It would be interesting to look at the legislative history of map recording to see what the lawmakers expressed intent of the policy was.
Judges are supposed to work for the people but do they really? This isn't surveying but it is relevant as surveyors often have to deal with the law & the courts. Surveyors have an obligation to their clients but they have a higher obligation to the public. Judges try to make rulings according to the law but you can bet they know who writes their paycheck & it ain't the citizen filing a complaint against the bureaucracy. The fact that lower courts don't like to be over ruled helps some but who can afford to appeal a case? That brings an old adage to mind, "I wish I could buy a lawyer for what he is worth & sell him for what he thinks he is worth". Local government was a good concept but in many, if not most cases, it has evolved into a bunch of "out of control" power hungry little dictatorships in which private citizens have little say. Should you have a complaint against the bureaucracy, the case is heard by a judge that works for the bureaucracy & is paid by the bureaucracy. That's like asking a criminal to decide his own case. Yea, you say you can vote, but you see what the good citizens have elected to represent us. I wouldn't trust most of them to lead my dog with a FEMA approved leash. It isn't all bad, we do have some good representatives. All of them shouldn't be under indictment & we have a presidential candidate that was not threatened with indictment & was actually born in the U.S. He can count on my vote & my support. Many see him as our only chance.
That brings up a question. Have any of you heard about the "Black Robed Mafia"? I don't know much about it & I hope the reports are not true but usually, there is a little truth in everything. The concept came from a speech by a highly decorated Navy Commander with impeccable credentials. It is scary. You can bring it up on google if it sparks an interest.
eapls2708, post: 380514, member: 589 wrote: 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You missed the point.
Again, if you feel like you need to charge for your time to reproduce the plat, I can understand that.
My issue is that if other interested parties don't have access to your opinion the value of your opinion is greatly reduced. Monuments in the ground without any record are not as valuable when you don't have a record of how and why they were established.
This secracy that boundaries are shrouded in in some states is very detrimental to our status as professional. I suspect, though I haven't done the research that average salaries for surveyors adjusted for cost of living are higher in recording states than none recording states.
Robert Hill, post: 380713, member: 378 wrote: Why?
The process works here for the last 400 years and I imagine (using your boggled mind expression) and other non-recording states. I don't know the definition of non-recording state as it is used by all.
Of course, there are boundary surveys that require recording in this non-recording state. Some are required by local political jurisdictions such as parishes (counties), cities etc. but not all surveys.
Evan aka eapls describes the professional courtesy that exists between surveyors. Information is shared by surveyors who work in all of the market stratas. I only knew of one who didn't. Bad reputation for years.On an adjoining lot survey once, I found a 'biggy' mistake that was made and as a professional courtesy contacted him. He got back to me with a thank you and then stated that I have could have access to his records anytime that I wanted. I said thanks as I thought that I really did not want to enter into an abyss of poor surveys and help him identify them.
Realtors sometimes call and request copies for their client. Once they are made aware of charges to retrieve information and transmit, they seem to never to be heard from again.
Once I requested some info from a surveyor with the highest reputation of any work that he had done in a very isolated area where he had practiced. He told me that he would have to access some old record label from a computer he had offline at the time. In a few days, I received a CD in the mail. Attached was an invoice for $100. Hmmm. I loaded the CD and found all of his files for this area that were compiled into a In-house GIS.
I do think that GLO corner recordation(provided basic costs being reimbursed by the recording authority) is a good idea but not here in this area. It would be a tangled web as they say. One false fact would propagate endless false facts that somehow would never had been accepted before.
Other places it would be very beneficial but I wonder how it would work in Ohio. Probably a never ending symphony of surveys conflicting with each other to be arbitrated by some bureaucrat.
I have heard an abundance of protest (to the extreme limits)here through the years about regulatory mandates from government and/or government surrogate bodies.
Why is this not a consideration?
Why should a survey for a private citizen be reviewed by some azzwipe bureaucrat- GIS type or some good ole boy azzhat tied to the other local good ole boy net? Most damage that I have seen to the profession has been done by the political or good ole boy network. Performance of bad work, supplanting or hassling better qualified etc, These are the ones that seek to profit from their connections or sense of importance.
Every state has boundary survey standards. Why feed the beast with universal recordation laws?
There isn't a desert of unrecorded surveys here. New development and major subdivides are reviewed and recorded
In most areas. Surveys are attached to property conveyances as a norm if one was required. One needs to do the research and develop
professional relationships with surveyors and attorneys.
End of diatribe.
It may have worked for 400 years, but that is no excuse not to try to improve things.
aliquot, post: 381242, member: 2486 wrote: It may have worked for 400 years, but that is no excuse not to try to improve things.
And if it worked so well, why did those under that system devise an entirely different system for the westward expansion?
dmyhill, post: 381243, member: 1137 wrote: And if it worked so well, why did those under that system devise an entirely different system for the westward expansion?
Just because the government changes how something is done does not mean it's for the better. Or at least I can think of a few instances of this being so.
aliquot, post: 381240, member: 2486 wrote: My issue is that if other interested parties don't have access to your opinion the value of your opinion is greatly reduced. Monuments in the ground without any record are not as valuable when you don't have a record of how and why they were established.
This secracy that boundaries are shrouded in in some states is very detrimental to our status as professional.
Perhaps you missed it in my last post. By the way I advocate handling it, no one with a need or right to know is denied access to the map. They simply need to pay for a copy.
The same is true for virtually any business providing any kinds of goods or services. Whether it's groceries, hardware, auto maintenance, or medical services. None of them are going to give me something for free simply because they've already had to do the work associated with whatever the good or service is for someone else.
Several years ago, I bought a set of golf clubs that had been custom made for another customer of the golf shop. That customer bought the clubs, was happy with them but saw some clubs made with some newer material or with some fancy new design feature and decided he had to have them before he even used the set he just bought. He sold them back to the shop for somewhat less than he paid for them and I bought them for something more than the shop owner had bought them back for.
If he ran his shop the way you suggest we should run our businesses, I should have been able to get those clubs for free because the shop owner had already been paid for building them, or at most, paid no more than he bought them back for.
MightyMoe, post: 380362, member: 700 wrote: 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.
Someone posted here fairly recently that deeds weren't necessarily recorded in their state. I can't believe it but this person insisted. That would seem to be a violation of the Statute of Frauds but maybe some States don't have it. Seems really stupid to me...
