Page 11 - ESS FALL 2023-2
P. 11

Continued from previous page

        2021-07-1835-00LSV                                     survey. The complainant believes the respondent incorrectly placed
          An  investigation  was  opened  following  a complaint alleging a   markers and did not base his survey on accurate information. The
        survey performed by the respondent did not match the legal de-  respondent did not contact the complainant back.
        scription.                                               Survey field work was performed under the direction of the re-
          The respondent did perform a survey for the complainant and   spondent at the request of the complainant in 2017. At the same
        recorded it in the appropriate county. Following a review of the sur-  time, the respondent was requested to perform a boundary survey
        vey the case manager felt the survey lacked information required   of the complainant’s neighbor property, as well.
        for the intelligent interpretation of the boundaries shown.  When notified by the Board of the investigation, the respondent
                                                               provided supporting information that explained the scope of his
          The respondent provided a preliminary amended record of sur-
        vey (AROS). The AROS addressed the issues and the survey was filed   work for his client and the basis for his survey. He also explained
        by the respondent.                                     that multiple unrecorded surveys were performed in the immediate
                                                               vicinity by various surveyors resulting in confusion between found
          Following the filing of an AROS, the case manager recommended   evidence of controlling monumentation and evidence of property
        the case be closed. The board approved the recommendation.  corners placed by other surveys without being officially recorded.
        2021-10-2540-00LSV                                       The respondent provided copies of a preliminary survey map to
          An investigation was opened following a complaint alleging the   the board that was generated to explain the marks that were placed
        respondent’s survey crew was allowed to enter his property to sur-  in 2017 as well as the basis of resolution. He stated on his prelimi-
        vey an adjoining property line but was specifically told not to show   nary survey map that he did perform additional work on the rec-
        any information that was not a specific encroachment to the actual   ommendation from one of the other licensed surveyors in 2019. A
        line. The complainant later saw the survey crew on his property and   copy of a transcript from a deposition he had made as part of the
        when he started to approach them, they left. The respondent then   complainant’s lawsuit was also provided.
        went out himself and located the driveway, put it on a survey map   It also appeared from the information provided that the respon-
        and recorded the map. The complainant disagrees with the respon-  dent was more than willing to communicate to the complainant as
        dent’s recorded survey.                                to the basis of his survey; however, the respondent was unavailable
          The respondent and his survey crew did enter the complainant’s   due to a medical procedure when the complainant attempted to
        property but were given permission to do so by the complainant.   contact.
        The respondent did, on two occasions, record survey maps with the   The preliminary survey was not recorded, and the respondent did
        county that showed encroachments on the complainant’s property.  not believe the results of the additional work was enough to amend
          The case manager found no violation of the laws/rules pertaining   the prior survey recorded in 2017.
        to land surveying and recommended the case be closed. The board   It appeared from the information provided, the activity which was
        approved the recommendation.                           performed by the respondent conflicted with the complainant’s
        2021-11-2979-00LSV                                     knowledge of common survey practices of identifying occupation,
                                                               conflicts between deed boundaries and differences in survey mea-
          An investigation was opened following a complaint alleging the   surements depicted on his survey. The information provided sup-
        respondent incorrectly placed markers and did not base the survey   ports the activity performed by the respondent and/or the field
        on accurate information which subsequently caused conflicts be-  crew being supervised by the respondent in 2017 and 2019 and
        tween the complainant and the neighbors.               although there were slight variations in measurements from 2017
          Survey field work was performed under the direction of the re-  and 2019, the results depicted were made using professional judge-
        spondent at the request of the complainant in 2021. During the sur-  ment and evidence at the time of the survey.
        vey, the respondent found errors in the previous surveys by him or   Finding no violations of laws/rules the case manager recom-
        under his responsible charge in 2012 that were made for the neigh-  mended this investigation be closed with no further action.
        bor’s property. The respondent contacted the complainant and the
        neighbors to notify them of the error and the intended resolution.  2022-07-1066-00LSV
          When notified by the Board of the investigation, the respondent   An investigation was opened following a complaint alleging
        provided supporting information that explained the situation and   the respondent entered into a contract to perform a Short Plat
        the remedy. The respondent provided steps he has to take to rem-  for the complainant in February 2019. As of June 2022, the work
        edy the error, including hiring a third-party surveyor to conduct an   was not completed, and the complainants were forced to hire
        independent survey.                                    another surveyor.
          The attorneys for the complainant, respondent and neighbor   The respondent stated there were multiple reasons the project
        came up with a boundary line agreement (BLA) as a remedy. The   had not been completed. After being notified by the complainant
        BLA has been drafted and is just awaiting signature by the com-  they were moving forward with another surveyor, the respondent
        plainant, who has been contacted but does not respond.  went through his records and noticed that several items were dou-
                                                               bled billed. As a result, the respondent refunded the complainant
          The case manager recommended the case be closed since the re-  that money and offered to compensate them for any amount over
        spondent pursued corrective action.                    the original contract amount incurred by the new surveyor.
        2021-12-3201-00LSV                                       The case manager recommended this investigation be closed fol-
          This investigation was opened following a complaint alleging the   lowing a letter of education. n
        complainant contacted the respondent soon after he recorded a

        www . LSA W. or g                                                                                         11
   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16