You're missing the point of the document. It has nothing to do with providing a survey. It's about a surveyor looking at the deed and saying, "this is a horse excrement description, I recommend you get a survey."
> Wow. You guys are overreacting a little aren't you? Clearly the intent is to make sure that the description used is not total garbage (as in the wrong parcel, too vague to possibly retrace or resembles a sine wave when plotted). Nobody is asking for a boundary determination. If everyone is so afraid of being sued, how can you possibly give an opinion on boundary locations that you have surveyed? Do you charge $2 million for a 5 acre retracement? Because unless you've reached a level of perfection unheard of in any profession, you just might be wrong.
:good:
I'm confused, is this supposed to go with a survey, or in liue of a survey?. I'd have a hard time signing such a thing without doing a survey first, yet I feel that in the minds of the title industry, this is supposed to be a cheap way to discourage the buyer from getting a survey, yet give them the "warm fuzzies" that a surveyor was involved. "Look, a surveyor signed a paper saying everything is A-OK with your property".
The part I'm most troubled with is saying that the legal description "adequately defines the subject property". I can see dozens of ways that can go bad unless a survey is done first. I would be OK with signing something like "the legal description forms a mathematical closure", but how can you be sure the legal description doesn't contain a blunder and a forced closure without a survey?
One time I surveyed a tract that had a legal that called out B&Ds around the tract, 200' each side, to form a nice closure. Problem is, it was supposed to be a 200' X 400' tract, whoever typed the deed replaced all the 400's with 200's. On paper, the tract looked like a valid description, in reality, it didn't uphold the intent of the parties, and my survey disclosed the need for a corrective deed, which was granted. A desk jockey might have calced the closure and signed off ... would he then be liable to pay for the remedy?
I will take the other side of the coin. This could be a very good thing for the profession. A) It will ensure that legal descriptions improve because every time a surveyor says the description is not adequate, a survey will be performed. B) If there are no monuments called in the description, a survey will get performed. C) poor closure..new survey. D) Bad coordinates..new survey..poor tie..new survey...This could be a huge moneymaker for surveyors.
> I will take the other side of the coin. This could be a very good thing for the profession. A) It will ensure that legal descriptions improve because every time a surveyor says the description is not adequate, a survey will be performed. B) If there are no monuments called in the description, a survey will get performed. C) poor closure..new survey. D) Bad coordinates..new survey..poor tie..new survey...This could be a huge moneymaker for surveyors.
Yep, this sounds great, well, until you read the proposed law:
"(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to require a land surveyor to
perform a survey or other procedure or practice in acting in accordance with this section."
And from the Tennessee magazine:
"It would be a review of the existing description, by a licensed land surveyor, and if there appears to be ambiguities that would make it difficult or impossible retrace the existing description, the buyers would be notified, and they would have the option of ordering a survey."
But then again, that is the problem. A surveyor is supposed to certify if a description is either "adequate" or inadequate". No matter how we try to focus on the pile of money at the closing table and ignore the truth, the ONLY way to determine whether or not a description is adequate or inadequate is by actually surveying the property. Maybe we need to quit kidding ourselves, this has little to nothing to do with protecting the public.
> I'm confused, is this supposed to go with a survey, or in liue of a survey?. I'd have a hard time signing such a thing without doing a survey first, yet I feel that in the minds of the title industry, this is supposed to be a cheap way to discourage the buyer from getting a survey, yet give them the "warm fuzzies" that a surveyor was involved. "Look, a surveyor signed a paper saying everything is A-OK with your property".
>
:good: