Fiduciary duty. If he's waiting for adverse possession to toll on the other lines, and something about our onsite work or our recorded map tips his hand(s) to the adjoiner(s), then he's looking at loss(es) caused by our un-delicateness and indiscretion, and can sue us for failing to fulfill our fiduciary duty. If he can tackle each line one at a time, he can divide and conquer.?ÿ Information on the map can cause damage by its presence or its absence. Maybe "can you survey just one line" is a naive-yet-savvy way of asking if we hold fiduciary duty over being a "picture perfect, paint a perfect picture" surveyor who can fix the whole neighborhood. People call for the one line surveys all the time, I've been missing out. Now I get it maybe.?ÿ
I believe in Washington state that if you intentionally encroach upon your neighbor, you cannot claim adverse possession. I could be wrong though.
Fiduciary duty. If he's waiting for adverse possession to toll on the other lines, and something about our onsite work or our recorded map tips his hand(s) to the adjoiner(s), then he's looking at loss(es) caused by our un-delicateness and indiscretion, and can sue us for failing to fulfill our fiduciary duty. If he can tackle each line one at a time, he can divide and conquer.?ÿ Information on the map can cause damage by its presence or its absence. Maybe "can you survey just one line" is a naive-yet-savvy way of asking if we hold fiduciary duty over being a "picture perfect, paint a perfect picture" surveyor who can fix the whole neighborhood. People call for the one line surveys all the time, I've been missing out. Now I get it maybe.?ÿ
I believe in Washington state that if you intentionally encroach upon your neighbor, you cannot claim adverse possession. I could be wrong though.
Trespasser??s Intent Irrelevant in Washington
"The doctrine of adverse possession protects someone who has honestly entered and held possession in the belief that the land is his or her own, as well as one who knowingly appropriates the land of others for the specific purpose of acquiring title. In other words, in Washington, there is no requirement that the entry and continued possession of the property be done with knowing or intentional hostility."?ÿ?ÿ
I stand corrected. Thank you for posting that.?ÿ
My best advice to my clients has been to have a visit with their neighbors and ask them to follow down to their common monuments and boundary markers and evidence while it is obvious to set groundwork so they know where their common ownership is and to negate any future claims of adverse possession in the future by making claims that thay had no knowledge of where their property ended.
In other words, "You can not claim adverse possession when you have always known where your monuments and boundaries actually exist."
First off, I survey one line if that is what the client wants. However, I usually, if within reason, search for the other corners as part of the evidence used to make my decision. If during that action, I discover something that may be relevant to the boundary or ownership of the parcel, it gets noted in our field notes and on the accompanying record of survey.?ÿ Nothing that I observe gets withheld from the client or public when it pertains to the boundary.?ÿ
Perhaps I look at these things differently than some, but basically if I have to explain to a judge or my BOR why I left off or included something, I would rather be explaining why I included something. I cannot expect my client or his neighbor to understand the nuances of the laws by which I operate.?ÿ
That all said, the various GIS that we use to generate scope, price, strategy, and procedures is a inherently faulty when it comes to boundary and title. I wouldn't comment on it as part of my conversation with a client unless they brought up the subject.?ÿ?ÿ
?ÿ
It seems that in Washington state adverse possession can be acquired adversely or by accident. That must be the most liberal state for getting land that isn't in the deed.
The cell site developers love to "survey jest this line" on their requests to save money. A common practice for them, but a potential problem for large lots that have closure problems
I not sure that RCW requires that you show encroachments on a Record of Survey. Good practice dictates that you inform your client of encroachments that you uncover, but there is no need to gossip about it.?ÿ ?ÿ
It's in RCW 58.09.090, I won't quote the whole thing because it's extremely long & boring:
(iii) The presence of any physical evidence of encroachment or overlap by occupation or improvement;?ÿ
?ÿ
So how do you interpret this. I always understood it as a Record if Survey was required on damn near every boundary survey. Any parcel with an existing fence along the property line would trigger this part of the RCW, requiring an ROS to be filed.
I generally assume just about everything needs to be recorded.
So how do you interpret this. I always understood it as a Record if Survey was required on damn near every boundary survey. Any parcel with an existing fence along the property line would trigger this part of the RCW, requiring an ROS to be filed.
First, it's very rare to be doing a boundary survey when all the corners are in place. So, yes. Virtually every time you do a boundary survey you are going to be restoring a corner and filing a map.?ÿ
As far as the fence goes, if the fence is on the boundary line it does not, itself, trigger the ROS requirement. How much it can be off before it is significantly off is an open question.?ÿ ?ÿ
