California Surveyors Forums

I'm not sure of the source of this bill, but I'm really skeptical about anything like this getting past the realtors. Are you sure this hasn't already been killed?

And on a related note, I agree wholeheartedly with your proposal to fund the checking of surveys through a minimal fee on deeds. The Humboldt Chapter of CLSA attempted to get the leg committee to take this up and they declined.

CEAC is also supportive of such a fee, and has a goal of contininuing to pursue it, but the realtors have a policy of opposing any new fee on deeds period, so they seem intent on not even looking at this, even though it ultimately benefits their profession.

Dave Ryan,
Humboldt County

The State is looking for money from EVERY SOURCE it can find. Like the $1 fee for EVERY business license issued or renewed in CA it's a tax presented to fund some "do good" project but in reality the money will be funneled into the general fund to be spent elsewhere - like the moonbeam express to nowhere.

TIME TO WRITE YOUR LEGISLATORS AND GET THIS BILL KILLED.

Dave,

In reading the definition of “Real Estate Instrumentsâ€￾ there is a common denominator that doesn’t apply to records of survey. All the instruments listed impart constructive notice and are therefore part of the chain of title of the parcel(s) referenced in the instruments. Records of survey on the other hand don’t impart constructive notice and are not listed in a chain of title, as a rule. The maps listed in the definition of “real estate instrumentsâ€￾ that do impart constructive notice are final maps and parcel maps. Using the argument that a record of survey does not affect fee title nor impart constructive notice, the additional fee would not apply. The maps listed in the definition the additional fee would apply to are final maps and parcel maps.

Just a thought.

Mike Ford