What to do now....

Sounds like you better get Surveyor A back in the picture.

I could not imagine a scenario where I would ever record another surveyors survey. Who set the monuments 80 feet away?

WA-ID Surveyor, post: 407585, member: 6294 wrote: Sounds like you better get Surveyor A back in the picture.

I could not imagine a scenario where I would ever record another surveyors survey. Who set the monuments 80 feet away?

Surveyor A is back in the picture and agreed to have the survey recorded.

Surveyor C set the other corners - I assume working for the adjoiner

The Client is only served by an accurate survey of the property. In the end, the problem should be solved and not perpetuated. If Surveyor A did such a sloppy job, I would not want to see him again.

lmbrls, post: 407590, member: 6823 wrote: The Client is only served by an accurate survey of the property. In the end, the problem should be solved and not perpetuated. If Surveyor A did such a sloppy job, I would not want to see him again.

That's been taken care of

Does the legal desc call out the bounds or just the metes?

ropestretcher, post: 407593, member: 2059 wrote: Does the legal desc call out the bounds or just the metes?

Just metes - "To a Point"

Dang, no calls to adjoining lines?

Too bad the events (recording the plat) already took place. I think I'd have opted to field verify the plat and set corners before recording.
If all sides agree that surveyor A was wrong, a corrective plat/affidavit should clear things up. Have the county permanently mark the face of the old plat with indication to see the corrective plat.
If the consolidated parcel was meant to include all of the individual parcels, intent should be pretty clear regardless of the erroneous description.

ropestretcher, post: 407599, member: 2059 wrote: Dang, no calls to adjoining lines?

Too bad the events (recording the plat) already took place. I think I'd have opted to field verify the plat and set corners before recording.
If all sides agree that surveyor A was wrong, a corrective plat/affidavit should clear things up. Have the county permanently mark the face of the old plat with indication to see the corrective plat.
If the consolidated parcel was meant to include all of the individual parcels, intent should be pretty clear regardless of the erroneous description.

I agree, but the survey was completed in 2015, and the 2015 survey was referenced in the description with the date. Surveyor B had no choice but to record that - Surveyor B can't changed the erroneous past survey. Nor can Surveyor B sign and seal Surveyor A work - Nor does he want to.

Because the property has since been conveyed with an erroneous survey and description, in my opinion, you now have a title problem and the Title Co. needs to be a part of any resolution. Defer your liability to them, that's part of their job, to insure what is being sold.

PUNT, FORREST, PUNT!!!!!!

Wouldn't that be a great option? Solving everyone else's problems tends to get old after a while.

I'm supposed to get in the middle of one where they need a description to use in a quiet title action for what was the mainline of the Frisco Railroad. Probably a few hundred thousand dollars worth of improvements have been situated there for a couple of decades. Now someone has decided there is a problem where there wasn't one.

Sounds like no survey has yet to be completed to me.

Ryan Versteeg, post: 407615, member: 41 wrote: Sounds like no survey has yet to be completed to me.

I agree. He went out and found some irons that do not match what the parties intended on paper (they said there wasn't anything in the field) therefore the irons in the ground are meaningless. In this case, being a deed staker would be a good thing. Stake teh plat, that is what the parties intended - walk away.

The monuments in the ground that were located are irons in the ground - they are not property corners.

Do not over complicate the situation.

In my opinion, this is a drawback of rewriting legal descriptions every time a property is surveyed. They've now got title insured to the legal description that is erroneous. If this were just a retracement survey, you could disregard it, but now, the problem has to be fixed. I don't see that we have the authority alone to "map someone in and out of property" i.e. property is transferred by deed not map, but maybe i'm just being conservative.

Are Surveyors A and B working for the same client?