Attorney(s) sent me a letter requesting changes to my survey drawing of a shopping center. From the first two comments it was obvious they had not looked closely at the survey drawing because the streets were indeed labeled public and all the curb returns for the entrances were shown. The third comment was a request for a list of encroachments.
I replied by stating why as a land surveyor I couldn't do that and using Gary Kent's examples. Their reply was it was too near to closing to quibble so they would let it slide this time, made it clear I was less than cooperative, and they had never had any surveyor decline this request. They used Bock & Clark as an example of a cooperative firm.
Rhetorical question: What do you say to an attorney who holds up Bock & Clark as an exemplar (meaning, the gold standard).
Answer: I kept my mouth shut, but I had a few private thoughts.
Q: What do you call a boatload of lawyers that sank?
A: A good start!
My favorite line for clients who try to money beat me as they leave..
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you...
Fill me in please, what is Gary Kent's reasoning for not listing encroachments?
"Your attorney is only as reliable as the references they cite."
[USER=703]@Tommy Young[/USER]
Personally, I do not decide what is or what is not an encroachment and would never put the word "encroachment" on a drawing or on paper..
I show the facts of overlaps in descriptions and show objects that are on each side of the boundary I locate.
My statements says a fence intrudes on my client's land or protrudes onto the neighbor's land and encloses x amount of acres or sq ft.
Bruce Small, post: 386645, member: 1201 wrote: Their reply was it was too near to closing to quibble so they would let it slide this time, made it clear I was less than cooperative, and they had never had any surveyor decline this request. They used Bock & Clark as an example of a cooperative firm.
I'd ask them if every other surveyor jumped off a bridge, do they think you should too?
I have been asked to label streets as "public" and I refuse to do this.
Attached is one of the articles I keep handy for the attorney encroachment argument. I can't seem to find my Kent article at the moment but it's basically the same as this.
Lamon Miller, post: 386654, member: 553 wrote: I have been asked to label streets as "public" and I refuse to do this.
I've never had a problem listing a street as public as long as its been duly dedicated and accepted. I'm curious of your reasoning for refusing to do so?
Tommy Young, post: 386649, member: 703 wrote: Fill me in please, what is Gary Kent's reasoning for not listing encroachments?
Do a search and you can find his horror story on line. If I remember correctly he surveyed a site with a house clearly across the line, so he called it an encroachment. It turned out for some reason it was not actually an encroachment, and he was asked in court why he had labeled it an encroachment when in fact it was not an encroachment. He vowed to never make that mistake again.
Bruce Small, post: 386657, member: 1201 wrote: Do a search and you can find his horror story on line. If I remember correctly he surveyed a site with a house clearly across the line, so he called it an encroachment. It turned out for some reason it was not actually an encroachment, and he was asked in court why he had labeled it an encroachment when in fact it was not an encroachment. He vowed to never make that mistake again.
Well, I like to be cooperative. Label it an encroachment; then add a note defining "encroachment" for purposes of the map. I haven't had any complaints, maybe they don't notice the note.
Bruce Small, post: 386657, member: 1201 wrote: Do a search and you can find his horror story on line. If I remember correctly he surveyed a site with a house clearly across the line, so he called it an encroachment. It turned out for some reason it was not actually an encroachment, and he was asked in court why he had labeled it an encroachment when in fact it was not an encroachment. He vowed to never make that mistake again.
I heard him tell another story once years ago at an ALTA seminar that he gave.
It was a vacant commercial lot (or it appeared to be) in downtown Indy and there was a brickwall of a structure on the lot that he labeled as an encroahment. He thought it was part of the building on the adjoining lot but it wasn't. It was the remainder wall of the original building on the lot. When they
Demolished the building , the contractor left that wall stand.
Something like that
I can locate things crossing lines, but that doesn't make them an encroachment. My maps show the conditions and the level of research performed (interviews, recorders rolls, etc.). So far nobody has paid me enough to prove an encroachment exists...
Cameron Watson PLS, post: 386656, member: 11407 wrote: Attached is one of the articles I keep handy for the attorney encroachment argument. I can't seem to find my Kent article at the moment but it's basically the same as this.
Is this the droid you were looking for? http://www.multibriefs.com/briefs/nsps/PG_21.pdf
Bruce Small, post: 386645, member: 1201 wrote: Their reply was it was too near to closing to quibble so they would let it slide this time, made it clear I was less than cooperative, and they had never had any surveyor decline this request. They used Bock & Clark as an example of a cooperative firm.
Rhetorical question: What do you say to an attorney who holds up Bock & Clark as an exemplar (meaning, the gold standard).
.
So if it were not so near to closing, your obviously unnecessary requests would have been absolutely necessary? You and Bock & Clark were made for each other.
Cameron Watson PLS, post: 386656, member: 11407 wrote: I've never had a problem listing a street as public as long as its been duly dedicated and accepted. I'm curious of your reasoning for refusing to do so?
I have never had an ALTA survey on a duly dedicated and accepted street. Everyone that I have done would have to be on a street declared public by extended use or prescription and that is beyond my scope of services.
Andy Nold, post: 386661, member: 7 wrote: Is this the droid you were looking for? http://www.multibriefs.com/briefs/nsps/PG_21.pdf
Yes, sir, that's the one. I also kept the attached which is along the same vein.
don't think the attorney isn't fully aware that the bigger p.i.t.a. you are the more billable time he banks. so really, you're doing him a personal service...
Lamon Miller, post: 386663, member: 553 wrote: I have never had an ALTA survey on a duly dedicated and accepted street. Everyone that I have done would have to be on a street declared public by extended use or prescription and that is beyond my scope of services.
I've never done an ALTA specifically on public ROW but 99% of the properties I do them on are directly adjacent to it, most either dedicated to the public via separate document deed or granted via a subdivision plat. I think it gives the purchaser, and more [SARCASM]importantly[/SARCASM] their attorney, a warm fuzzy knowing the property has access to public ROW.
Cameron Watson PLS, post: 386656, member: 11407 wrote: Attached is one of the articles I keep handy for the attorney encroachment argument. I can't seem to find my Kent article at the moment but it's basically the same as this.
I've never had a problem listing a street as public as long as its been duly dedicated and accepted. I'm curious of your reasoning for refusing to do so?
I'm interested too!
Cameron, to what effort do you go through to determine dedicated and accepted? I never thought about it much until surveying in Oregon, where there are a lot of very old rural roads that were petitioned for in the late 1800's. Surveyors have been setting monuments along a 20', 25Ûª, or 30' offset of the physical center line for many years without a word about the document that created it or mention of the physical location compared to the described location if it can be ascertained. I got caught up in doing the same for a while but it gives me a lot of hart burn. I recently took part in an open hearing process Oregon has to "Legalize" a road location. Basically to fix the road at the surveyed location and quit claim any part outside of the fixed area back to the abutters. This was the first legalization done in our County in last 25 years they tell me. Jp
Bruce Small, post: 386645, member: 1201 wrote: Attorney(s) sent me a letter requesting changes to my survey drawing of a shopping center. From the first two comments it was obvious they had not looked closely at the survey drawing because the streets were indeed labeled public and all the curb returns for the entrances were shown. The third comment was a request for a list of encroachments.
I replied by stating why as a land surveyor I couldn't do that and using Gary Kent's examples. Their reply was it was too near to closing to quibble so they would let it slide this time, made it clear I was less than cooperative, and they had never had any surveyor decline this request. They used Bock & Clark as an example of a cooperative firm.
Rhetorical question: What do you say to an attorney who holds up Bock & Clark as an exemplar (meaning, the gold standard).
Answer: I kept my mouth shut, but I had a few private thoughts.
I would say "Why didn't you hire Bock & Clark?"
I was once told by an Attorney that "the surveyor on their last project did it." I asked them for a copy of that survey. They sent it to me, and after contacting the beligerant surveyor who prepared it, turned him into the board. I believe he sells cars now, and the attorney knows it.