> Someone please remind me again how it is that allowing "mortgage inspections" is protecting the public. Here is a good example where "the public" will likely be harmed.
>
> I never understood why the licensing boards don't step in and take care of their #1 reason for existing. Protect the public. A survey should be a survey.
>
> Larry P
I tried(with others) to get the board to drop such things from our standards the last time they took it up. We weren't successful. I said a few nasty things about that.:-@
> I still don't get why your client is so happy.
He's happy apparently because he's "right". He knew where his north line was at (he showed me one of the pins). He taped 75' south and noticed his new neighbor's add-on was less than 75' from his north line. He first talked to the owner to the south. Then he called me.
As for an estoppel defense...probably not. That is not up to me, however. But the fella lives out of state and spends his summers locally at his cattle ranch (where his son lives year-round) with the wheat cutting and hay-hauling. The property in question is mowed by a third party. The add-on is around a year old and my client hasn't actually seen it until now.
He just wanted to make sure he actually owned a 75' foot lot. I believe he does.
It takes a paper trail to prove fraud in most places.
When a Realtor knows where the real boundary is and points somewhere else and says there it is, they are giving a licensed opinion.
Same as a Surveyor that does the same. The only difference is that the Surveyor knows better.
Eh?
I'm thinking that Friday has said that on Dragnet.
I'm pretty sure that even in states that allow mortgage "surveys" collusion to misrepresent the location of improvements in relationship to the property lines by seven feet is verboten.
Have a read...
Association of Ontario Land Surveyors v. Van Loon, 2004 CanLII 8847 (ON CA)
Cheers,
Derek
> I'm not a big fan of mortgage inspection "surveys" either, but let's not muddy the waters. The problem is not that a mortgage inspection exists. The problem is that it is fraudulent. This is also possible with a "real" survey.
Agreed, around here, the Colo. equivalent (the infamous ILC) has a standard statement that the surveyor must sign and stamp to that, in part, says "there are no encroachments except as shown" (or something to that effect). Knowingly showing no encroachments when there is a glaring one, would absolutely wrong, and I would hope could get your license pulled, because that statement is probably the greatest reason for the purpose of one.
That statement, alone, would give me the greatest consternation if I had to do one, as I would think that even though it's not "necessary" I would need to reestablish all the corner locations in order to certify to it.
Eh?
> I'm thinking that Friday has said that on Dragnet.
Or was it Mark Twain?
Licenses lost is small potatoes, won't change a thing. To make an impact there needs to be a big judgement with triple damages for fraud. Only that will truly get any attention.
> Licenses lost is small potatoes... To make an impact there needs to be a big judgement with triple damages for fraud.
So what would be wrong with both? I think we can rest easy knowing that the attorneys will go after the money first, last, and always. A complaint to the board will merely be a tactic in the search for a monetary judgement.
The threat of losing a license only affects those that try to follow the rules. It's obvious that doesn't stop some from doing things such as the subject of this thread. These licenses (surveyor and agent) should probably be taken but it won't stop a constant stream of others from doing the same stuff down the road. A much bigger fine would be the real damages and triple damages in a case like this. License or no license if a person really knew they was going to pay the damages for this kind of stuff then there would be a deterrent. For the most part, most never sue for bad work and damages caused by surveyors, so things don't improve much, there is not much risk (financially) for poor survey work, the world just dismisses it and moves on.
I hope somebody really pays for this one and much more than just losing a license. Many times the ones that do this stuff can't pay a judgement, so why spend the money for a court case?
