Texas Rule Changes

I believe that these are the proposed rule changes:

å¤663.16. Boundary Construction.
When delineating a boundary line as an integral portion of a survey, the
land surveyor shall:

(4) - (5) (No change.)

The above was published 02/17/2017 in 42 TexReg 648

http://www.sos.state.tx.us/texreg/pdf/backview/0217/0217is.pdf#search=Texas Board of Professional Land Surveying

"And if appropriate to the chain of title of the tract surveyed" seems a little vague and up for user discretion until the board decides they don't agree with your opinion and slaps a fine on you

TXSurveyor, post: 416953, member: 6719 wrote: "And if appropriate to the chain of title of the tract surveyed" seems a little vague and up for user discretion until the board decides they don't agree with your opinion and slaps a fine on you

I'll agree that the rule is becoming a bit of an ungrammatical mess that doesn't really state its relatively simple purpose very well. After the proposed addition, the rule will be:

When delineating a boundary line as an integral portion of a survey, the land surveyor shall:

(5) Respect the proper application of the rules of dignity (priority) of calls, and applicable statutory and case law of Texas.

(D) Shall review the record instrument that defines the location of the adjoining boundaries and if appropriate to the chain
of title of the tract being surveyed, cite the record instrument on the drawing and prepared description.

Can not count the number of time following others that merely brought back a yellow legal pad full of deed references and had never read any of the adjoining deeds.
The topic has become a hiring point at times because so many have been taught to simply get the deed reference and not a copy of the actual deed.
The obvious become fact when in the field you find the original monument as described in a deed and another surveyor's set monument by the new fence corner as far as 20+ft away.
Another fail is when the referenced deed does not contain a description to the property and only make reference to a deed from Joe Smoe to John Doe, undated and no recording information or worse and it gives only property tax ID information.

A Harris, post: 416972, member: 81 wrote: Another fail is when the referenced deed does not contain a description to the property and only make reference to a deed from Joe Smoe to John Doe, undated and no recording information or worse and it gives only property tax ID information.

There should be some shorthand for those cases in which the M&B description is essentially 'the same tract conveyed..' or a recital of cardinal direction, even feet, and 'point for corner'. Or the description calls for a lot and block from a recorded subdivision map.

I think that the way I'd probably write that rule would be as a general statement of performances, i.e.:

Make a diligent search for the best available evidence and, using the same, locate the boundary of the tract in a manner consistent with the writing of the instrument that created the real property estate subject of the survey, read in light of any other instruments referenced in that writing and those pertaining to adjacent properties, resolving any discrepancies in a manner that the surveyor can demonstrate respects:

shall be presumed not to have complied with the provisions of this rule. This presumption may be rebutted by a clear and convincing demonstration that the intentions of this rule were nonetheless met.

R.J. Schneider, post: 416975, member: 409 wrote: There should be some shorthand for those cases in which the M&B description is essentially 'the same tract conveyed..' or a recital of cardinal direction, even feet, and 'point for corner'. Or the description calls for a lot and block from a recorded subdivision map.

When the description remains the same, it is called cut an paste.
I learned early in my career that there are no real shortcuts to produce a proper document and am very thankful now that my mentor expected me to prove every bit of information placed on my drawings and property descriptions.
Being too cheap to pay recording fees and using their exempt status of being the scrivener and person that assembles a deed does not excuse anyone from receiving the blame as to why a one page deed that does not include a property description is wrong.
The same can be said from those documents of record that simply can not be read because of their poor dpi quality or use of micro text.

A Harris, post: 417000, member: 81 wrote: When the description remains the same, it is called cut an paste.

So you're saying it's called a cut and paste.

R.J. Schneider, post: 417001, member: 409 wrote: So you're saying it's called a cut and paste.

I am saying there are no shortcuts

A Harris, post: 417002, member: 81 wrote: I am saying there are no shortcuts

Is cut and paste in or out, then ?

I cut and paste every time I use WordPerfect and when I merge drawings together in Carlson.
Along with page templates, macros, insert images, insert symbols and other procedures to complete a document with as few keystrokes as possible.
Never have used the word "ditto" on a drawing or property description.............:cool:

Kent McMillan, post: 416978, member: 3 wrote: I think that the way I'd probably write that rule would be as a general statement of performances, i.e.:

Make a diligent search for the best available evidence and, using the same, locate the boundary of the tract in a manner consistent with the writing of the instrument that created the real property estate subject of the survey, read in light of any other instruments referenced in that writing and those pertaining to adjacent properties, resolving any discrepancies in a manner that the surveyor can demonstrate respects:

-- well established principles of the law of land boundaries as reflected in decisions of Texas courts,
-- any senior rights of adjoining landowners,

Any surveyor who fails to :

-[laundry list of malpractice items]

shall be presumed not to have complied with the provisions of this rule. This presumption may be rebutted by a clear and convincing demonstration that the intentions of this rule were nonetheless met.

Good morning, Kent.

So you would opine that all boundary surveys require research back to the deed(s) which established junior-senior rights for all of the boundaries of the tract being surveyed?

Do you feel that the Board is asking us to show said junior-senior deeds on the resulting plat?

JRC

Good question, Jack. I think that is good surveying. I don't know how you can respect junior/senior rights without knowing what the junior/senior rights are. The only way I know of that a surveyor can be aware of the junior/senior rights is by abstracting back to the creation of all lines. Having said that, I don't think there is much precedent (at least that I'm aware of that) where the board imposed penalties for surveyors who did not research back to establishment.

That sounds like the application of what a reasonable and prudent surveyor would do under similar circumstances. If you have to ask - it likely needs to be done.

I won't say "no one" does it, but those that do are unicorns. Most follow the current metes and bounds description. Some will take into account the adjoining description (current). Very few will look back a couple of conveyances to see if the descriptions are consistent for the past couple of decades or so.

I don't know of anyone who routinely traces back the creation of each and every line of every survey they do. I'm sure that there are some that do, but I'm not acquainted with them.

Andy Nold, post: 416901, member: 7 wrote: The TBPLS has issued 2 proposed rule changes for public comment. 1 was a minor housekeeping item to correct a misnumbered section. The other deals with the requirement for showing the recording information for the adjoiners.

Edit:

Well, I was going to post a link to the proposed changes but I can't find the link. I will have to post it when I get back to my work computer tomorrow.

Wasn't there another that allowed for electronic signature and seal???

Kris Morgan, post: 417296, member: 29 wrote: Wasn't there another that allowed for electronic signature and seal???

I'm pretty sure the link I followed was posted on the TSPS website. I can see it on a google search posted 2/21/2017 but when I follow the link, the TSPS page says it doesn't exist. You'd think there would be a link on the TBPLS website, but I'm not finding any announcements from 2017 there.

If you follow Kent's link to the Texas Register, you find the 3rd rule change that I forgot about. So, after personally struggling with the board to get a rules clarification in 2015 and finding out that I could not use a Digital Signature Certificate, now they're changing their minds.

22 TAC å¤661.31 The Texas Board of Professional Land Surveying (Board) proposes amendments to å¤661.31, concerning Definitions. The proposed amendment to paragraph (12), adds the word "electronic" to permissible seal designs in the definition of seals.

å¤663.18. Certification.
(a) (No change.)
(b) An electronic seal and signature are permitted to be used in lieu of an original seal and signature when the following criteria, and all other
requirements of the General Rules of Procedures and Practices are met:
(1) It is a unique identification of the professional;
(2) It is verifiable; and
(3) It is under the professional's direct control

When the revision to the adjoiner instrument reference rule was first brought up at my local TSPS Chapter, it was thought that the rule was being abandoned altogether (to much scorn and ridicule). Based on the reasoning in the register, they claim to be just a reorganization of the rules to a more orderly format. I am having trouble believing that. The new wording, by the addition of the words "if appropriate", would give free pass to those who do not wish to cite the adjoining boundary. This weakens the rules in my opinion and is a bad idea that will lead to survey work that does not adequately protect the public.

The proposed amendment to å¤663.16, paragraph (3), adds new subparagraph (D). This language was in rule å¤663.19, subsection (f) but would more appropriately be found in å¤663.16. The new subparagraph (D) addresses citing adjoining boundaries in the land surveyor's drawing and prepared description, if appropriate.

The old text:
[(f) A reference shall be cited on the drawing and prepared description, to the record instrument that defines the location of adjoining boundaries.]

The new text:
(D) Shall review the record instrument that defines the location of the adjoining boundaries and if appropriate to the chain of title of the tract being surveyed, cite the record instrument on the drawing and prepared description.

I see your point on the new wording Andy.

Texas BOR took a hard stand and drew a line in the sand long ago that the surveyor's seal is what stands between the privilege of being an official tested and certified by the State of Texas Surveyor and that of being an illegal practitioner who owns some surveying equipment and surveys for beer money or other ill gained and fraudulent profits.
It is expected that the seal to be in total control of the license holder and not become some office logo there for use by others.
The BOR have been sampling the waters, accepting feedback from surveyors and studying other state's decisions on digital signatures for several years and have they have found their voice and put it on paper as a possible rule.
Years ago I paid a fee and got an electronic signature complete with password protection to sign some legal papers on the computer to save snailmail downtime.
It only worked on the one computer it was created on and that computer is long gone and so is my digital signature.
Apparently, now the signature is capable of attaching to the document itself and kept there for future record.
Like all BOR rules, they expect the License holder to maintain complete control.