posted Jan 5, 2013, 6:31 AM by Deward Bowles
[
updated Jan 6, 2013, 6:21 AM
]
posted Dec 24, 2012, 4:28 AM by Deward Bowles
[
updated Jan 5, 2013, 11:56 AM
]
B & B Surveying would like to wish everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. We would like to thank our customers for the honor of the Super Service Award from Angie's List for 2012, our second year in a row to win this award. We look forward to continuing to deliver quality without compromise into 2013. |
posted Dec 13, 2012, 5:18 AM by Deward Bowles
B and B Surveying Company has won the Angie's List Super Service Award for 2012. This is our second year in a row to win this award. We would like to thank our customers for this honor and look forward to continuing to provide our outstanding service and product to the public in 2013.
|
posted Nov 29, 2012, 2:43 PM by Deward Bowles
[
updated Dec 14, 2012, 11:38 AM by LSU Justin Farrow
]
Below is a link to an example of a recent survey we have performed. The client has authorized the release of this material to any interested parties.
Below is a link to the Surveyor's Report attached to the above drawing.
Below is a link to a google image.
6610 Cochran St, Houston, TX 770226610 Cochran St, Houston, TX 77022
Below is a link to the Harris County Appraisal District digital tax mosaic/map
Below is a link to the other part of the mosaic/map
In this particular case our client is possessing land that he has no Public Record Title to. This is due to an error in the conveyance made to him many years ago. B&B Surveying Company was able to track down the previous owners heirs and help resolve this issue. He had no idea this condition existed and has taken my advice and is correcting the situation. |
posted Dec 15, 2011, 5:40 AM by Deward Bowles
[
updated Dec 28, 2012, 5:32 AM
]
B and B Surveying Company has won the 2012 Super Service Award from Angie's List. You can read more about the  requirements for this prestigious award here. And if you're interested in a little background on why it is that we are rated so high, check out this blog post on Land Surveyors United. This is our second year in a row to win this award.
I'd like to thank all of my terrific customers and clients for nominating B and B Surveying for this award. I know it can be rough at times, but we couldn't have done it without you. Thanks!
|
posted Nov 7, 2011, 6:56 AM by Deward Bowles
[
updated Nov 9, 2011, 8:35 PM by LSU Justin Farrow
]
B and B Surveying Company has received another report from an Angie's List member. They grade us "A". This give us a total of 20 member reports with 19 grading us "A" and 1 grading us "B". In addition we have 15 non-member reports that are all positive.
B and B Surveying Company Member: Ollie Rivers
13738 Shirebrook Drive
Sugar Land, TX 77498
Category: Land Surveying
Services Performed: Yes
* More Weight is given to a report where work has been completed.
Work Completed Date: November 01, 2011
Hire Again: Yes
Approximate Cost: $433.00
Description Of Work: Performed a land title survey to find property lines prior to my installation of a new fence.
Member Comments: Excellent service from B & B Surveying starting with the original inquiry and continuing through the physical survey process to the delivery of five survey copies.
Overall A
Price A
Quality A
Responsiveness A
Punctuality A
Professionalism A
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ANSWERED WHEN COMPLETING THIS REPORT
How much did the final cost compare to the original estimate? right on
How does the value of the work compare to the price? I got exactly what I paid for
How far in advance did you schedule the work? within a week
Did you find the company through Angie's List? yes
If yes, which source(s)? website
Why did you choose this contractor? reputation
Have you used this company before? this is the first time I've used this company
What did you like most about this contractor? Knowledgeable, friendly explanations of survey process and expected outcomes
What did you like least about this contractor? Nothing
What surprises came up during the course of the work? None
What words of advice would you give other members considering this contractor? Hire B & B Surveying Co.
What words of advice would you give this contractor? None" |
posted Oct 3, 2011, 7:29 AM by Deward Bowles
By Pean Cheneying, PLS
I received a phone call from Mr. Smith about a problem he was having with his neighbor Mr. Jones. They were in a boundary dispute over the location of a fence recently constructed by Mr. Jones. I warned him that if he hired me my opinion may not be in his favor. Mr. Smith signed the proposal so we began work on the project. The project was in an area that I was very familiar with near the medical and museum district in the heart of the large city where I practice. The subject property was several fractional Lots and an apparently abandoned alley in an old recorded subdivision from 1905. The land in this area was extremely valuable and the subject tract consisted of a commercial building and an asphalt parking lot. Mr. Smith’s Deed was pulled and it appeared that he had purchased the subject property under a Warranty Deed from Mr. Sparkle (seller) in 2007. It contained a written description of the subject property signed and sealed by Mr. Jake Leg, PLS. It also contained a stamp to return it to a prominent Title Insurance firm so Mr. Smith was questioned to see if he could produce a copy of a Title Policy. Mr. Smith could not produce a copy of the Title Policy and under further questioning it became apparent that Mr. Smith had probably purchased a lender policy only. I told him to contact his lender to see if he could obtain a copy of it. The alley formed the southerly portion of the subject property. The surveyed description by Mr. Jake Leg mentioned the alley as it passed along its southerly boundary but contained no information on the instrument that would have abandoned it. After the initial field visit it appeared that Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones were fighting over the south ½ of the alley that was contained in Mr. Smith’s Deed. Mr. Smith was north of Mr. Jones and the old alley was between them. Mr. Jones had built a fence down the middle of the old alley which prompted Mr. Smith to call me. Mr. Jones’ Deed was pulled and it made no mention of the alley but was for the fractional Lots adjoining the alley to the south. A partial chain of title was pulled for Mr. Jones going back 2 transactions dating to the early 70s. The alley was never mentioned in any of them. The current tax map showed Mr. Smith owning the entire alley. At first blush it appeared that Mr. Smith may have some merit to his complaints about Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones was interviewed to see if he might have any documents that could shed light on this problem. Although Mr. Jones would produce no documents he insisted that he was the owner of the south ½ of the alley. He complained bitterly that he could no longer access his parking lot behind his building without use of the alley. It seemed unusual for the entire alley to end up in the hands of one party but not impossible. In a typical reversion ½ of the alley would go to the south adjoiner and ½ of the alley would go to the north adjoiner. However if Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones’ title had merged in the past when the alley was abandoned this condition was certainly not beyond reason. I partial chain of title was pulled on Mr. Smith to see if the instrument abandoning the alley could be located and to find out if a title merge with Mr. Jones could be found. The old tax maps from 1993 were also pulled to see if it might contain any information on the alley. The results of this effort were shocking. The old tax map showed the alley still being owned by the City. The partial chain of title for Mr. Smith dated to 1984 through 2 transactions. The northerly fractional Lots were mentioned but not the alley in the 1984 transaction. The next transaction in 1994 contained descriptions for 2 parcels. The first being the northerly fractional Lots and the second being “all the interest I may have in the alley south of the first parcel.” This description was conveyed to Mr. Sparkle (seller) who sold the subject parcel to Mr. Smith in 2007. However the conveyance to Mr. Smith had changed again from the 1984 description and the 1994 description and now described the northerly fractional Lots and the alley as a single property. None of these descriptions mentioned the instrument abandoning the alley. They did contain information that suggested that no merge of title between the properties on either side of the alley had ever occurred at anytime in history.
This prompted a search for the instrument abandoning the alley in the public records with no results. I called Mr. Smith and told him that it may be necessary to hire an abstractor to track down the alley abandonment instrument. I told him it seemed highly unlikely that his predecessor in title could have obtained the entire alley in a reversion. Mr. Smith told me he had a box of old papers he found in a building on the property when he purchased it. He said I could come down and look at them if I wanted to. The box Mr. Smith had contained copies of surveys, copies of Deeds and copies of lease agreements for his property and Mr. Jones’ property stretching back more than 60 years. In the box was a copy of the alley abandonment instrument. The instrument dated 1958 stated that the City quit claimed the alley to “the abutting land owners as their interest appeared.” This was a typical reversion as I had suspected and indicated that Mr. Jones was correct and in fact did own ½ the alley. This implied that the description for the subject tract going into the seller of the property to Mr. Smith had been interpreted incorrectly when the property was sold to Mr. Smith. Either Mr. Jake Leg, PLS or the Title Insurance firm had taken the wording “all the interest I may have in the alley south of the first parcel” to mean “the entire alley” in the description into the seller. Thus Mr. Jake Leg, PLS had written a new description that encompassed the entire alley for the sale of the property to Mr. Smith. The seller of the subject property never owned the south ½ of the alley they sold to Mr. Smith. The south ½ of the alley was worth 30 thousand dollars. I prepared the survey along with an attached Surveyor’s report and sat down with Mr. Smith to explain the results. He was angry and upset when I told him that his neighbor Mr. Jones was correct and how this problem had occurred. I told him that he had a good chance of recovering the money he had paid for the south ½ of the alley however. This seemed to make him feel a little better. I gave him the number of a good real property lawyer that I know. Mr. Jones sued the seller who in turn sued the Title Insurance Company who in turn sued Mr. Jake Leg, RPS. Last I heard Mr. Smith had executed a Correction Deed with the seller and they had settled for some 50 thousand dollars. I do not know about the outcome of the suit by the seller against the Title Insurance Company but the Land Surveying Company Mr. Jake Leg, PLS worked for is now out of business. (This story is completely fictional and any resemblance to actual events is purely a coincidence.) |
posted Jul 9, 2011, 6:48 PM by Deward Bowles
By Pean Cheneying, PLS A client who was a custom home builder ordered a Standard Survey (survey without the benefit of a title policy) on a parcel composed of a fractional lot in a recorded subdivision created in the 30s. This particular client had ordered some small subdivisions in the past but they were redeveloping this existing fractional lot and building an expensive custom home on it. Many of the parcels within this particular subdivision were being redeveloped and the neighborhood had completely changed character over the last few years. The lots in this subdivision were typical City lots and were indicated on the subdivision map to be 50 feet wide and 100 feet deep. These particular lots in Block 6 of the subdivision were numbered 1 through 10 with Lot 1 on the Northeast corner of the Block and Lot 10 on the Southeast corner of the Block. Lot 1 through 10 was bounded on the East side by a street and on the West side by other lots in the Block numbered 11 through 20. The subject description was for the South 47 feet of Lot 5 Block 6 and did not appear to be much of a challenge. I dispatched a field crew and they returned with some pretty good evidence including some block corners. Nothing seemed amiss and in the initial analysis the boundaries of the subject parcel seemed certain. There was an unusual condition however in that the old fence along the South boundary of the subject tract was 3 feet too far to the South, in addition there were old iron rods at that fence apparently set in the past by previous surveyors. The South adjoiner was an old day care center that had occupied the land for many years. It appeared at first blush that we may have a 3 foot gap along our Southern boundary. 
The North adjoiner had a custom home being constructed on it at the time of the initial field visit. The new foundation was 3 feet North of the subject tract boundary which would be a typical side setback for new construction in this particular City. An old pinch top pipe and a new capped iron rod set by the surveyor of the North adjoiner were found marking the subject tract’s North boundary. Framing crews were busy working on the new home adjoining the subject tract to the North when my field crew left the site. I began comparing the field evidence with the records and as a matter of course the current North and South adjoining descriptions were pulled and the chain of title for the subject tract researched by me in preparation of completing the survey. A very interesting history of the subject tract began to emerge. The original developer of the subdivision, that this fractional lot was part of, had been unable to sell the parcels of land as the original subdivision map indicated. The original developer had instead, for one reason or another, sold fractional pieces of lots, either combining fractions of lots or only selling a fraction of lot. The developer did this piecemeal throughout the subdivision until the subdivision was fully developed. During the 80s this area had experienced an economic downturn and a single real estate speculator had managed to acquire many of these parcels within this subdivision. At one time this real estate speculator apparently owned all of the lots within the block the subject tract was part of. The real estate speculator was now selling different fractional pieces of these lots within this subdivision to developers, with different fractional descriptions than the original descriptions he had acquired these lands under. The original description the real estate speculator had acquired the subject tract under had been the South 47 feet of Lot 5 Block 6 and the adjoining (to the south) North 3 feet of Lot 6 Block 6. However when the real estate speculator conveyed the subject tract to my client (the custom home builder) he only conveyed the South 47 feet of Lot 5 Block 6.
This seemed to explain the discrepancy with the old fence and stakes being 3 feet too far to the South of the subject tract boundary. The South adjoining description (old day care center) was for all of Lot 6 Block 6. This description was recently conveyed to the day care center occupying this land for many years. Previously the day care had leased the land from the real estate speculator who conveyed them the land. The chain of title was traced a little further and the original description that the real estate speculator had acquired the land under in the 80s was for the South 47 feet of Lot 6 Block 6 only. There was no doubt that the South adjoiner had been staked out according to the original description sometime in the past and when it was recently conveyed by the real estate speculator to the day care center it was never surveyed with the new description so there were no new stakes marking its new boundary which had now shifted 3 feet to the North of the original description the real estate speculator had acquired the land under. Even though there was no problem with the descriptions or the location of the boundaries in those conveyances I made a note to call my client and recommend that this problem be cleared up. It just looked odd on the ground with the fence being 3 feet South of the new boundary.
I turned my attention to the North boundary of the subject tract which appeared to be nothing more than an exercise in prudence given the field evidence found (capped iron rod recently set and the old pinch top pipe marking the subject tract North boundary). I was horrified when I examined the most recent description for the conveyance of the tract adjoining us to the North. This description was for the South 47 feet of Lot 4 Block 6. There was no mention of what happened to the North 3 feet of Lot 5 Block 6 as the description for the subject tract was for the South 47 feet of Lot 5 Block 6. It became apparent that the surveyor who had surveyed the tract adjoining us to the North had staked his boundary 3 feet too far to the South (as evidenced by the capped iron rod he had set and the new foundation that was being built exactly on the South boundary for that conveyance description). There should have been a 3 foot gap between the subject tract boundary and the boundary of the tract to the North of us according to the recent conveyance descriptions. My first thought was that this problem was of no concern to me as it did not affect the subject tract’s North boundary which I was surveying. I thought I might be able to get away with a courtesy call to the surveyor of the adjoiner to the North and that would be the end of it.
This hope evaporated when I realized that the person who was developing the adjoining tract to the North was also my client according to the most recent conveyance. There was some comfort in the fact that the subject tract, the South adjoiner and the North adjoiner all had a common grantor which was the real estate speculator however I felt obligated to inform my client of this problem if what I had uncovered turned out to be true. I quickly called the surveyor of the adjoining parcel to the North and sent him the half drafted survey I was working on via email. I asked this surveyor to look at what I was seeing and tell me where I had gone wrong.
I did not immediately here back from him that day and I began to become extremely anxious thinking about the construction my client was engaging in on the adjoining tract to the North. The new structure on the North adjoner would not meet the setback line requirements and the boundary had been staked out 3 feet too far to the South. I felt I had to call my client as soon as possible or face possible ethics questions regarding my behavior. I decided to wait until the next morning to give the other surveyor time to respond. After all the other surveyor might be able to shed some light on this problem that would prove my concerns were groundless.
I was very relieved to receive a phone call early the next day from the other surveyor. He confirmed what I had on my preliminary survey I had sent him and stated that he had simply made a mistake. The other surveyor sent me a copy of a corrected survey that he was also planning to send to our common client. The other surveyor had found the pinch top pipe along the subject tract’s North boundary and assumed it was the South boundary of his tract and had proceeded to stake his tract out, 3 feet too far to the South. This did not seem too big of a problem since the real estate speculator apparently owned all the land in question. It seemed merely a problem of filing a correction deed that would include the North 3 feet of Lot 5 Block 6 from the real estate speculator to my client. I called my client explained the problems along the North and South Boundaries of the subject tract. I told him that there were no problems with the subject tract boundary I was surveying. I thought we just had some hickeys that needed to be fixed. It seemed a matter of a couple of three correction deeds between himself, the real estate speculator and the South adjoner and the problems would be solved.
A few days went by and I was contacted to modify my survey of the subject tract to reflect a correction deed filed to convey the North 3 feet of Lot 6 Block 6 to my client from the real estate speculator and was also provided a correction deed, filed a day before that conveyance, between the day care center and the real estate speculator for the same parcel. I thought everything was in order and was relieved that the parties involved in the problem on the South boundary of the subject tract had followed my advice. I felt certain that the 3 foot gap along the North boundary of the subject tract could be fixed the same way with little or no damage to anyone including the surveyor who had made the embarrassing mistake in staking out the parcel adjoining the subject tract to the North. A couple of weeks or so went by and I received a phone call from my client who was in a panic. The real estate speculator had refused to execute a correction deed to him for the North 3 feet of Lot 5 Block 6 because the real estate speculator said he did not own it. I had not looked at a chain of title for the North adjoiner to the subject tract because it was of no concern to me and I had a copy of the last conveyance. The North boundary of the subject tract had no conflicts and I had followed the subject tract chain of title back to the first conveyance. I was uncertain how to advise my client so I told him I would look in to it.
My client was very worried because he had a large sum of money tied up in the home he was constructing on the tract adjoining the subject tract to the North. He would complete the construction within the next week on the adjoining tract to the North and needed to sell it to recoup his investment. If he did not manage to sell the home (because it now did not meet the side yard setback requirements of the City) as soon as the construction was completed he would be wiped out. He told me any delay would place him in serious financial difficulty. I went back to the Courthouse and traced the chain of title for the North adjoiner. I was shocked to find that no conveyance had been made by the original subdivision developer for the North 3 feet of Lot 5 Block 6. I went to the tax office and found in the old paper tax map records that the 3 foot wide sliver in question consisting of the North 3 feet of Lot 5 Block 6 was still in the name of the original subdivision developer. The subdivision developer had not paid taxes on the sliver since the 1940s but when the old paper tax maps had been digitized the tax office simply did not show the 3 foot strip on the new electronic version of the tax maps. The original subdivision developer was almost 70 years in default on the taxes to this sliver. The County and City had never done anything about it over the years, like selling this sliver at a tax sale, but had continued to carry the original subdivision developer on the tax roles as the owner. This long unpaid tax bill had reached an astronomical amount of 12 thousand dollars.
I called my client back and explained what I had found. I advised him to do one of three things. 1) Approach the taxing authority and explain to them that you wish to pay the back taxes and ask them to issue a tax deed for it. 2) Approach the taxing authority and force a tax sale of the tract and then buy it at the tax sale. 3) Since the real estate speculator had been the owner of the tracts on both sides of this 3 foot strip since the 80s have him file an affidavit of ownership by possession and then convey them a quick claim deed to the land in question. Begin paying current taxes on it and then land should be able to be insured by a title insurance firm within 5 years.
My client was furious. He was now on the verge of completing the construction of this house and had potential buyers looking at it but the title insurance firm had told him they could not insure the property or the improvements because of this problem. He was going to be financially ruined by a delay of any potential sale of this property. He complained that the surveyor who had surveyed the property carried no liability insurance and that he had no way to recover any damages from the surveyor for the erroneous survey. He did not want to pay the extra 12 thousand dollars for land he felt he already had purchased according to the survey that had been performed. He was afraid to force a tax sale because if somebody else outbid him for this sliver of land he would be over a barrel and be forced to pay an even higher price for it. He could not wait 5 years to get the property insured and needed to sell it now to keep himself financially solvent.
He asked me if there was any chance he could get another surveyor to survey the property and make the same mistake the first surveyor had. He could then take that “new” wrong survey to a “new” title insurance firm and pass the problem on to the new purchaser. I told him that the problem would not be passed on to the new purchaser in his scenario but would in fact set him up for a potential lawsuit. I advised him not to try what he suggesting and pointed out that his conversation with me created a huge liability for him in me if such a lawsuit were to take place in the future. My client ended up approaching the taxing authority and purchasing the sliver for the 12 thousand dollars in back taxes. He pursued an action against the other surveyor and from what I understand was able to get a settlement out of him for the damages caused by his erroneous survey. The last I heard the other surveyor has now placed his surveying business up for sale. |
posted Jun 25, 2011, 2:16 PM by Deward Bowles
[
updated Jun 25, 2011, 4:38 PM by LSU Justin Farrow
]
Another Land Survey gone wrong.I was hired to perform a survey of a Lot within a recorded subdivision. My contact was through the contractor who was building a new home on it for the owner. We discussed it and the owner of the land signed our contract to start work. We sent material in the contract asking for a copy of the title policy which the contractor eventually obtained from the owner and passed along to us. Everything went fine and we eventually staked out the building and the home was built on it. Approximately 1 month after our work was completed I received a panicked call from the contractor. Apparently the owner had decided to build a new pool behind the now completed house and the construction crew had struck underground utility lines when they began excavation. The contractor who built the home was saying that the Architect of the pool had a copy of a survey performed by another firm which the Architect was using for the pool design. The survey the Architect was using was performed for the owner of the property for the purchase of the land. That survey showed a utility easement at the very rear of the property where as my survey showed the utility easement directly behind the new house that had been constructed (about 40' of difference). I asked him where they were excavating when they hit the utility lines. When he told me I pointed out that this is exactly where I was showing the utility easement on my survey. The contractor was very relieved when it became apparent that is was the other survey that was wrong and not the one we had performed. He was not part of the new contract and this news meant that we were totally out of the loop of the new problem. He said he would talk to the Architect and ask if I would mind talking with him, I said fine. After several phone conversations through the Architect the owner hired me to prepare the necessary paper work to re-route the utility easement. The Architect has made it clear that this problem has cost the owner a fortune in construction delays and extra expenses, not to mention the fact that the owner has been unable to obtain an occupancy permit because of the delay in the pool construction. Until this matter is resolved with the utility easement the owner has a new home he can't move into. I advised the Architect to have the owner contacted me directly so that I could advise him on recovering damages from the other Land Surveyor. This was a simple mistake and probably a result of the Land Surveyor never looking at the recorded map record because the title commitment stated the utility easement was "at the rear" of the subject tract. It would not be fair if I did not mention that the land surveying firm that made this mistake is the same land surveying firm I have caught making a number of mistakes in the past. We have recovered our fees for our services from this land surveying firm at least twice in the past on behalf of our clients. I have signed at least one Affidavit of Merit against a Land Surveyor working for this firm. I also have to mention that the Architect has sent me a sketch of how they would like to re-route the utility easement which shows the new easement partially on a neighbor's land. I have sent him back a list of options to avoid this potential new mistake and as of this writing awaiting a reply. Sloppy work, or not doing the work to save money is a mistake. A Land Surveyor must operate with the highest ethical standards or face the consequences. If the firm you are working at as a Land Surveyor is not permitting you to operate ethically then you should withdraw. |
posted Apr 26, 2011, 6:37 AM by Deward Bowles
[
updated Jun 22, 2011, 4:25 PM by LSU Justin Farrow
]
Written By Penn Cheneying, PLS A woman called me one morning asking for a Standard Land Survey on her property in my town. She and her hus-band lived out of state and had purchased the lot in question at a tax auction some four years earlier. They had purchased the land speculating that they could sell it sometime in the future at a profit.They had viewed the land prior to their purchase and she told me that they were under the impression that there was a small old house on it. They assumed the land and house they had looked at was the land they had purchased in the auction although they had not had a land survey performed.Her husband had passed through my town in the last month or so and had been out to what they thought was their property. Her husband had been surprised to find a new home on the land with people occupying it. The people occupying the lot told him to get off their land and refused to speak with him about the property. I urged this woman to get in contact with the people occupying the land and exchange information on the property in question. A contract between us was executed and I started work on this project. The lot in question was in an old sub-division from the 30s that I was somewhat familiar with. The subdivision was composed of deep narrow lots with blocks over a thousand feet wide measured in an east-west direction. Some of the streets dividing these blocks had never been opened. Other streets had been opened through the blocks within this subdivision from adjoining subdivisions with the lots being sold to the city for street purposes. I began examining the old sub-division map and at first glance it appeared to show all the lots at the same width in an east-west direction. However, upon further review the old recorded subdivision map had very small dimensions at the extreme north boundary and the extreme south boundary of the subdivision which indicated that the lots were all of varying widths between 60 and 70 feet measured in an east-west direction. I could not imagine that somebody would have built a new home on the wrong lot but determining the location of the land in question would be a little harder than I had first thought. A field crew was dispatched and they spoke with the people occupying the land in question as they were gathering evidence. The people occupying the land agreed to let my field crew access the property for the purpose of the survey. The initial review of the field evidence was inconclusive but strongly began to suggest that the people who had the new home had built it on my client‘s lot. I began to pull the records for a chain of title on the lot in question and the adjoining lots to see if this would shed some light on the problem. In the meantime I sent the field crew back armed with a preliminary mathemati-cal projection of what I thought the subdivision should look like based on the initial field data. Deliberate searches were then performed at the block corners and lot corners within the block in question and surrounding blocks to find more evidence.The field crew was finding some monuments at the search locations so I went out to the site to look at the evi-dence myself. I was out in the field when I received a phone call from my client. She said that she had obtained a copy of a survey from the people occupying the land in question. She said the people occupying the land had told her that this survey map proved they had built their home on the lot they owned. With the new field evidence I reached a conclusion as to the location of my client‘s lot. There was overwhelming evidence that the people who had torn down the existing home and built a new one had done so on my client‘s lot. They actually owned the adjoining lot to the east of my client‘s lot. It was with a heavy heart that I opened the email my client had sent. I did not relish the idea that some other Professional Land Surveyor may have surveyed the wrong lot and caused this problem. However, I was surprised when I viewed the "survey" forwarded from the people occupying the wrong lot. It looked very official with measurements and information like what you would see on a Land Survey but was in fact a digital tax map superimposed over an aerial/satellite photograph. A review of the official county tax map revealed that whoever had created the map had failed to notice that the lots were of varying width in this subdivision measured in an east-west direction. Whoever had plotted and digitized the official county tax map had simply given the lots all the same width causing a shift in the de-picted location of the lots and their actual location on the ground by as much as 60 feet in either an east or west direction as you traveled across the block the subject lot was located in. This made it appear as if the lot these people had built their home on was the lot they owned on the official county tax map. I was relieved that a Land Surveyor had not caused this problem but I was very shocked that this "survey" that was not a Land Survey had created this apparent mess. I sent a field crew out to stake the lot corners that were missing and I began to draft the final version of the Standard Land Survey for my client. My field crew contacted me from the site in question. The field crew had finished placing the boundary stakes but the people occupying the land, who had seen where the stakes were falling, were telling them to leave their property. I released the finished survey to my client and with their permission transmitted a copy to the people actually occupying the lot in question. I urged my client to consider some alternative to legal action such as exchanging a quit claim deed with the people occupying the lot for a quit claim deed to the adjoining lot which these people actually owned. The adjoining lot however was vacant and my clients had purchased a lot with a house on it, a house they planned to try to eventually renovate and sell. The people who had built their home on the wrong lot because of the erroneous "survey" had torn that home down to build the new one that was now on the wrong lot. It was a mess of epic proportions. I recommended a good real property lawyer I knew but to say my client was distressed by what I had discovered would be an understatement. Various parties contacted me over the next couple of weeks either associated with my client or associated with the people who had built their home on the wrong lot. I spent numerous hours on the phone explaining the problem to what seemed to be an endless list of concerned parties. Some of the people who contacted me were threatening, some disavowed liability or responsibility and others seemed intent on disproving the results of my survey. Some called to insist that I produce material that I had not contracted to gather or provide in the course of the survey I performed. The phone calls have now ceased and I have not heard from anyone regard-ing the matter for a couple of months. I don‘t know how this matter was resolved or if it was resolved. I must confess being shocked however regarding this "express disaster" and I wonder how a Professional Land Sur-veyor in Texas has been allowed to be displaced by a composite of GIS information that has no basis in reality. Is not the role of the Professional Land Surveyor to protect the public? How do I protect the public if they are allowed to injure themselves before I arrive on the scene? Is not one of the purposes of a professional Land Survey to reduce litigation? The fees I charge for a professional Land Survey will have to increase fivefold if every simple lot survey I perform becomes an exercise in real property litigation. Is this fair to the public? (This article appeared in the Journal of the Gulf Coast Surveyor, April 25, 2011, and was written by Deward Karl Bowles under the pen name Penn Cheneying). |
|
