I think it's unfortunate that we even have to have these types of conversations. But the same people (realtors, lawyers, land-owners, etc), who're wanting our products, time, and services for free, or next to free, are the same ones who're wanting us to carry the bag for most of the liability too.
I see the concern you FL guys have. If that were my experience, I might completely agree with you.
Having worked in several regions of the country, recording and non-recording jurisdictions, I have seen RE agents and even RE transactional attorneys try to get off cheap by using an old map and/or trying to con the surveyor into updating an old survey only to the extent of adding a name to the certification (thereby requiring a new date), but without benefit of a reasonably thorough field check and review of a new PTR to determine if any conditions have changed.
It's unlikely that a recently provided copy having only the original date on it would renew any liabilities, even with a discovery rule in the law because the discovery rule isn't just "from when the error is discovered" but rather "from when the error was or should have been discovered." The statutory language might not reflect it, but I would be very surprised to find that the "or should have been discovered" part of the standard has not been applied by the courts in FL or any other US jurisdiction.
Theoretically, the point of discovery rule makes liability an unending thing and I can understand the concern that providing a copy of an old drawing is providing a new opportunity for an error to be found, thereby starting the discovery rule clock. In the vast majority of circumstances, I would expect that a court would find that where many years have passed, that there should have reasonably been ample opportunity to have discovered any errors of significance well before the map copy was provided.
Where bypassing the step of having a survey performed when it should be by using outdated maps is a chronic problem, I'd consider having a "reissue" red ink stamp that reads something like "This map reflects conditions as of the original date shown hereon, surveyor makes no representation that this map accurately reflects current conditions, and assumes no liability for the failure of others to recognize changed conditions, whether physical or of record. The holder of this copy assumes any and all liability for the improper use of this map or the improper reliance on the information shown hereon."
That may not faze an unscrupulous RE agent or attorney, but it might give many buyers pause to reconsider whether an updated survey would be worth the relatively minor added cost to acquiring the property.
thebionicman, post: 433011, member: 8136 wrote: Thats kind of my point. If the Survey is recorded now there is no problem to solve. This case does have a few twists that would justify new descriptions. Done properly rhe language will preserve the manner of title creation..
I don't know about you, but I have surveyed behind a quite recorded surveys with problems that needed solving. And I'm not referring to just ancient surveys that update measurements. I'm talking recorded surveys that completely bastardize the title lines. To me simply following the footsteps of the latest recorded survey by XYZ Surveyors, Inc without verifying the title and all additional evidence is a disservice to the client and to ourselves as professionals. I'd hate to stand in front of a judge one day and say I ignored the deed description that created the parcel and has been used for the last one hundred years of transfers and followed XYZ Surveyors, Inc. recorded survey for the last transfer 2 years ago that missed the found axles 15' away and have been in place for 100 yrs. Which has created a hell of a mess when the adjoiner had their property surveyed.
My point just cuz its recorded don't make it right.
A few years ago I attended a continuing education seminar where the instructor brought up this subject (re old maps...handing out copies etc.). When providing maps for a client, the class was advised to never provide one single map in addition to what was absolutely required. Never give out any "extra" copies. Essentially, just provide one copy for each party the survey was to be "certified to". The instructor suggested that after providing the absolute minimum number of maps we should look forward to the day when all of the copies had vanished so that nobody could find even a single one of them. He told the class that would be when we were finally free of responsibility for that map. He then made the point there was never a good reason to ever give out an old map. I talked to my grandson (attorney) last night, and he basically said there was no way a surveyor could be positively sure his/her providing old maps to assist parties in a closing would never invite problems for the surveyor. So, why? I still haven't heard a good reason here on the advisability of giving away old copies of surveys. Other than being a nice guy.
JKinAK, post: 432888, member: 7219 wrote: For those in states which don't require recordation of boundary plats, corner replacement, and surveys that reveal material differences in boundary locations... all of which are clearly beneficial for maintaining a cohesive boundary fabric... What is the rationale behind making boundary info difficult or impossible to obtain?
Some states observe the "Maine Rule" when evaluating claims of adverse possession. It requires knowledge by the possessor that the land they are claiming is not in fact theirs. Client-surveyor privilege in Maine allows the client to forbid a PLS from disclosing information to other parties. A recorded plat showing their encroachment would be a breach of contract.
Murphy, post: 433321, member: 9787 wrote: A recorded plat showing their encroachment would be a breach of contract.
That's twisted logic. My reaction is that knowledge of the facts is nearly always a good thing. It would take some explanation and deep thought to convince me that rule was beneficial.
I did not intend to imply that I agree with it. Maine requires a signed contract prior to the start of any survey and the client has the legal right to specify not only who views the data but also the methods of obtaining the data.
After the Revolutionary War, Massachusetts was broke and commissioned surveys of their northern territory for the purpose of selling the land and/or trading it against debts owed. Millions of acres were suddenly owned by a relatively few private citizens.
Early settlers had an exceptionally difficult task in taming the wilderness. I believe the thought process for the Maine Rule stemmed from a recognition of these hardships coupled with knowledge that timber barons owned nearly everything. If a land owner was so complacent as to not notice that a family had cleared their land (massive trees were cut in wind rows then burned), built a house and barn on it, and cultivated it, well then that landowner obviously didn't need the land as much as the pioneer family.
Of course those days are gone. The handful of adverse possessors I've come across were closer to crooks than the brave souls who first settled Maine.