I'm in the middle of some "ongoing dialogue" with an examiner right now and he's starting to irritate me a bit. This survey is a medium size (70 acres) that has interstate frontage and is probably a real "prize" for the purchasing developer. It's what I call a "stand-up 80"...the W/2 of a SE/4, with an odd shaped 10 acre "less and except" of a farmstead that was 'whittled' out probably thirty years ago.
The "less and except" 10 acre description was prepared by an unknown entity, probably a surveyor. I say this because each course calls to a 1/2" rebar, with almost all of them described eloquently in a position being something like "0.7' south and 1.1' east of an existing corner post". I wish I could come up with a copy of the survey, but I can't. Whoever it was that prepared the description did an excellent job for the mid-eighties.
We have discovered all but one of eight of these corners in place. Here's the fly in the ointment. Although the pins are existing, my present-day measurements are not the exact bearings or distances as recorded on the recorded documents. One 790' long leg is about half a foot short and the bearings differ (after I rotated everything in an attempt to match the original bearing base) less than 2 minutes, at their worst. One fits within 30 seconds. All the differences are probably fairly insignificant to a surveyor. The survey I completed shows both the "record" and "measured" calls between all these found monuments. No problem, right?
The larger tract has remained an aliquot tract until now. All the parties involved want a metes and bounds description prepared of the larger tract as part of my survey. I did just that, also calling out the "found" monuments, but the courses were what I had measured recently, NOT what the thirty year old description had stated. This is causing this one fellow at the title company a tremendous amount of despair. His exact quote was, "we can't have anything like that..".
I received an email instructing me to rewrite the description using the "correct calls as shown in the commitment". I tried calling the numb-nuts this afternoon, but only got his voice mail. I don't know how he's going to feel after I get his head screwed back on straight. I'd like to say this one will be fun, but it really won't...I'm getting tired of the same old arguments over and over. :'(
There seems to be a fourth location for every boundary corner: where the title examiner wants it to be ...
So he considers a surveyor's work useless because record information is never wrong....
Dammit, Boy, put demdam corners back where they are supposed to be. Don't give me any of that "he said", "she said", type of BS. That's all there is to it, understand?
paden cash, post: 328599, member: 20 wrote: The larger tract has remained an aliquot tract until now. All the parties involved want a metes and bounds description prepared of the larger tract as part of my survey. I did just that, also calling out the "found" monuments, but the courses were what I had measured recently, NOT what the thirty year old description had stated. This is causing this one fellow at the title company a tremendous amount of despair. His exact quote was, "we can't have anything like that..".
I received an email instructing me to rewrite the description using the "correct calls as shown in the commitment".
When I write descriptions like that, I do try to make it look seamless per title if possible, but sometimes its not possible. I have in the past used dual calls with the measured being the primary call and the adjacent deed's call in parenthesis.
paden cash, post: 328599, member: 20 wrote: ...I received an email instructing me to rewrite the description using the "correct calls as shown in the commitment".
It's stupid. But to satisfy numb nuts and move on - use your calls, then the record calls in brackets.
[INDENT]"...;Thence N89å¡45'34"E, 154.69 feet (S89å¡23'15'E 155.14 feet per deed Book 123 Page 456) to a found 1/2" iron rod; Thence ...."
EDIT: like BowTie said![/INDENT]
Good luck with that. Let us know how that turns out. I have trouble explaining this one to some other people that call themselves surveyors.
Like Bow Tie and Norman said, is what I do, record and measured.
On a side note out of curiosity based on my understanding of aliquot parts, the day that ten acres was excluded, it ceased to be an aliquot part but is what I refer to as an 'Unsurveyed Remainder'. Please feel to correct me.
Just ask Mr. title examiner if their client would like to know what they think they have or what they really have and who he thinks will take the heat when they find out they're not one and the same. :whistle:
Norman Oklahoma, post: 328615, member: 9981 wrote: ... like BowTie said!
There are really a number of different approaches like both you and BT have suggested. I don't have a problem with either of them. My first reaction would be to describe the boundary of the "W/2 of the SE/4" by metes and bounds and then "less and except" the recorded out-parcel with the survey graphically represented on the same sheet. I don't have a problem with that, even with using the recorded older calls, as long as it is understood the description is from a previously recorded document. But from the last correspondence I received, it sounds like 'mister know-it-all' wishes the "record" & "measured" calls be removed from the graphic portion of the survey. Something he apparently considers "conflicting distances and bearings"....That will not happen.
I'm trying to come up with a profession way to get him to understand the 1/2" rebars ARE the boundary corners, with the calls merely being an attempt to describe their location as precisely as may be possible; something for which I am professionally responsible.
I hope he eats his Wheaties in the morning. Tomorrow he gets a "schoolin' ".
Williwaw, post: 328636, member: 7066 wrote: On a side note out of curiosity based on my understanding of aliquot parts, the day that ten acres was excluded, it ceased to be an aliquot part but is what I refer to as an 'Unsurveyed Remainder'. Please feel to correct me.
Willi, I suppose you're technically correct. We probably throw around the term aliquot a little loosely down here in farm country.
I use the term for anything that has the majority of its boundary lines being quarter, sixteenth or sixty-fourth lines...and hasn't been properly bounded or described with the courses of a survey. Like the "north 15 acres of the SW/4 of the SW/4" is really not an "aliquot" description; but in the absence of a modern description complete with points of commencement and beginning, I still consider it 'aliquot'.
It's just my old habitual way of thinking that probably isn't really correct. :bored:
Sir if you want the calls to be only what is in the commitment and not what was actually measured in the field, you need a copier not a surveyor. Sometimes, I wonder why they want to waste the money on surveys/
There are times reading the posts from surveyors around the country that I think I must have landed in the surveyors land of milk and honey. I've seen only half a dozen or so pincushions over 25+ years; I deal with planners, architects, engineers, and (gasp) lawyers who view surveyors as co-professionals and defer to their judgment, and in a situation like this all I have to do is say "Since I know you like the title report description and the description on the survey to match exactly, why don't I just email you my description in word and you can use it for the title insurance commitment." No muss, no fuss.
paden cash, post: 328652, member: 20 wrote: .... from the last correspondence I received, it sounds like 'mister know-it-all' wishes the "record" & "measured" calls be removed from the graphic portion of the survey. Something he apparently considers "conflicting distances and bearings"....That will not happen...
If he would like to see some example surveys from Oregon/Washington showing both measured and record dimensions I can produce some, steaming fresh. As a matter of fact, go to Bock & Clark's website and download their example ALTA map. It shows record and "calc" dimensions which differ. But I'm sure you have plenty of examples of your own.
Bow Tie Surveyor, post: 328614, member: 6939 wrote: When I write descriptions like that, I do try to make it look seamless per title if possible, but sometimes its not possible. I have in the past used dual calls with the measured being the primary call and the adjacent deed's call in parenthesis.
"I have in the past used dual calls with the measured being the primary call and the adjacent deed's call in parenthesis."
NEVER do that!... let the title company do it if they want to take the liability for it.
paden cash, post: 328599, member: 20 wrote:
The larger tract has remained an aliquot tract until now. All the parties involved want a metes and bounds description prepared of the larger tract as part of my survey. I did just that, also calling out the "found" monuments, but the courses were what I had measured recently, NOT what the thirty year old description had stated. This is causing this one fellow at the title company a tremendous amount of despair. His exact quote was, "we can't have anything like that..".I received an email instructing me to rewrite the description using the "correct calls as shown in the commitment". I tried calling the numb-nuts this afternoon, but only got his voice mail. I don't know how he's going to feel after I get his head screwed back on straight. I'd like to say this one will be fun, but it really won't...I'm getting tired of the same old arguments over and over. :'(
I would need to tell him that would conflict with Ohio minimum standards! Specifically:
[INDENT=1]Ohio Administrative Code 4733-37-05 Plat of survey.[/INDENT]
[INDENT=1](C) The surveyor shall include the following details:[/INDENT]
[INDENT=1](6) The length and direction of each line as specified in the description of the property or as determined in the actual survey if this differs from what is stated in the deed description by more than the tolerance specified in paragraph (B) of rule 4733-37-04 of the Administrative Code. The length and direction shall be stated as follows:-.[/INDENT]
[INDENT=1](a) Bearings expressed in degrees, minutes and seconds and distances expressed in feet and decimal parts thereof on each course. If a metric equivalent distance is stated, it shall be stated to the third decimal place. (Emphasis added)[/INDENT]
Then I would ask for his full name and Ohio P.S. number in compliance with State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Surveyors Opinion 2009-05-27 | Preparation of Legal Descriptions. Unless his is licensed in Ohio his attempt to direct how I prepare a description is surveying without a license and I am required to report his violation of Ohio law and rules. The Ohio board will contact him and may issue a written cease and desist order. Any further problem will result in legal action.
paden cash, post: 328599, member: 20 wrote: I'm in the middle of some "ongoing dialogue" with an examiner right now and he's starting to irritate me a bit. This survey is a medium size (70 acres) that has interstate frontage and is probably a real "prize" for the purchasing developer. It's what I call a "stand-up 80"...the W/2 of a SE/4, with an odd shaped 10 acre "less and except" of a farmstead that was 'whittled' out probably thirty years ago.
The "less and except" 10 acre description was prepared by an unknown entity, probably a surveyor. I say this because each course calls to a 1/2" rebar, with almost all of them described eloquently in a position being something like "0.7' south and 1.1' east of an existing corner post". I wish I could come up with a copy of the survey, but I can't. Whoever it was that prepared the description did an excellent job for the mid-eighties.
We have discovered all but one of eight of these corners in place. Here's the fly in the ointment. Although the pins are existing, my present-day measurements are not the exact bearings or distances as recorded on the recorded documents. One 790' long leg is about half a foot short and the bearings differ (after I rotated everything in an attempt to match the original bearing base) less than 2 minutes, at their worst. One fits within 30 seconds. All the differences are probably fairly insignificant to a surveyor. The survey I completed shows both the "record" and "measured" calls between all these found monuments. No problem, right?
The larger tract has remained an aliquot tract until now. All the parties involved want a metes and bounds description prepared of the larger tract as part of my survey. I did just that, also calling out the "found" monuments, but the courses were what I had measured recently, NOT what the thirty year old description had stated. This is causing this one fellow at the title company a tremendous amount of despair. His exact quote was, "we can't have anything like that..".
I received an email instructing me to rewrite the description using the "correct calls as shown in the commitment". I tried calling the numb-nuts this afternoon, but only got his voice mail. I don't know how he's going to feel after I get his head screwed back on straight. I'd like to say this one will be fun, but it really won't...I'm getting tired of the same old arguments over and over. :'(
There isn't anything wrong with using the record, but you are kinda stuck doing it as an exception out of the 80, if they want a metes and bounds, then it isn't record anymore......so................duh!!!!
paden cash, post: 328652, member: 20 wrote: I hope he eats his Wheaties in the morning. Tomorrow he gets a "schoolin' ".
Go get 'em mr. cash. You're right on. These guys need to know to respect the experts opinions. school them good.
I get that when they put a commitment together it is their job to write their description on the front of it verbatim. They are concerned that if their description varies from the vesting deed, they have a problem with their "guarantee". But they need to know that you aren't a title examiner wanna-be that you are an expert that they should listen to and respect to help them understand exactly what the boundary is.
Tom Adams, post: 328750, member: 7285 wrote: Go get 'em mr. cash. You're right on. These guys need to know to respect the experts opinions. school them good.
I get that when they put a commitment together it is their job to write their description on the front of it verbatim. They are concerned that if their description varies from the vesting deed, they have a problem with their "guarantee". But they need to know that you aren't a title examiner wanna-be that you are an expert that they should listen to and respect to help them understand exactly what the boundary is.
and then send them a bill for skoolin' time.... Tutor bill.. 😀
Today's "update" :
I don't take lightly the professionalism that I extend to my clients. Throwing actual correspondence up on the board here might be against the practice of some surveyors. But I would like to state that the title company IS NOT my client. In this matter I believe I am attempting to maintain the marketability, or at least the integrity of the property boundary as described by my survey and description. Here is part of this morning's email to the title examiner, or survey reviewer, or whatever he calls himself.
"..your email yesterday indicated the inclusion of both the record and current surveyed distances and bearings between the monuments on my survey were "conflicting" and should be addressed. I have reviewed all your concerns and respectfully disagree with that assessment. In the instance of a difference between the "record and measured" lengths and directions of boundary lines it is not only common practice to show these differences, it is required. Required not only by the ALTA Standards, but it is also required by the statutory Oklahoma Minimum Standards for Land Surveying. These actually supersede the ALTA Standards as stated below....
...others have asked that a "new" description of the property be prepared for the contract. In my professional opinion the "measured and record" bearing and distances (you stated as conflicting) are not only important to a survey, they are the very essence of why a survey was required in the first place. ....You will note my description preamble states my survey follows "the following measured boundary courses...", with the record information also included for reference.... Please feel free to alter the description for the conveyance in any manner decided upon by all concerned. .......I have attempted to address all the concerns stated in your email. ...those items we have discussed on the survey will remain unchanged for the reasons I have stated..."
...I have no control over the actual description that will be used for a formal conveyance of the subject property. My client and the seller can describe the property in any manner they agree upon. I have been retained to prepare a survey to ALTA Standards of the property described in your title commitment which I believe I have successfully provided ...
Respectfully...
FOR YOU REFERENCE:
MINIMUM STANDARD DETAIL REQUIREMENTS FOR ALTA/ACSM LAND TITLE SURVEYS
(Effective February 23, 2011)
3. Surveying Standards and Standards of Care
B. Other Requirements and Standards of Practice - Some Federal agencies, many states and some local jurisdictions have adopted statutes, administrative rules and/or ordinances that set out standards regulating the practice of surveying within their jurisdictions. In addition
to the standards set forth herein, surveyors shall also conduct their surveys in accordance with all applicable jurisdictional requirements and standards of practice. Where conflicts between the standards set forth herein and any such jurisdictional requirements and standards of practice occur, the more stringent shall apply. (see excerpt from the Oklahoma Minimum Standards below concerning this)
6. Plat or Map
B. Boundary, Descriptions, Dimensions and Closures
ii. The location and description of any monuments, lines or other evidence that control the boundaries of the surveyed property or that were otherwise relied upon in establishing or retracing the boundaries of the surveyed property, and the relationship of that to the surveyed boundary. In some cases, this will require notes on the plat or map.
iii. All distances and directions identified in the record description of the surveyed property (and in the new description, if one was prepared). Where a measured or calculated dimension differs from the record by an amount deemed significant by the surveyor, such dimension shall be shown in addition to, and differentiated from, the corresponding record dimension.
viii. When, in the opinion of the surveyor, the results of the survey differ significantly from the record, or if a fundamental decision related to the boundary resolution is not clearly reflected on the plat or map, the surveyor shall explain this information with notes on the face of the plat or map.
Effective July 25, 2013
SUBCHAPTER 13. MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR LAND SURVEYING
Û¢ 245:15-13-2. Minimum Standards
(c) Minimum technical standards for land or boundary surveys (field and office).
(9) Where evidence of inconsistencies is found, such as overlapping descriptions, hiatuses, excess or deficiency, or conflicting boundary line or monuments; the nature and extent of the inconsistencies shall be shown on the drawing.
