California Surveyors Forums

I'm not sure if anyone was following this or aware of it, but check out the changes to this section as a result of AB 1698 particularly in regards to instruments recorded for real property and false filing:

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces ... ient.xhtml

Link doesn't work for me

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bil ... tered.html

I was aware of this. I am assuming that Ralph Simoni brought it to CLSA's Leg Comm for review.

I also thought that the conviction of this type of crime for an LS fit into the current Code of Regulations' language for suspension or revocation of a license and didn't give it much more thought. Did I miss something?

On another note, BPELSG is moving forward with revisions to the California Code of Regulations and the deadline for written comment is January 5, 2015.

I find some of the proposed revision to be troubling.

For example,
(d) Crimes or acts involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or theft with the intent to
substantially benefit oneself or another or tosubstantially harm another;
(e) Crimes or acts involving physical violence;
(f) Crimes or acts that indicate a substantial or repeated disregard for the health, safety,or welfare of the public.

The words "conviction of a crime" are in section (c) immediately preceding these 3 sections. "Conviction" is left out of d,e, and f. How does the Board know if a crime was committed if there is no conviction? Also, what "acts" are deemed actionable by the BPELSG to suspend or revoke your license? It is not clear to me.

In my opinion, the current language is better for California Land Surveyors than these proposed revisions.

Just my 1 1/2 cents.

http://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/about_us/416_3060_mod_text.pdf

Govt is slowly but surely making laws more and more vague, gives govt more latitude for conviction or in our case revoking of license.
I am extremely cautious of any changes or addition to our laws. But between the Feds and CA each passing ~1800 laws a year how can you possibly know right from wrong anymore.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/...chaptered.html

I was aware of this. I am assuming that Ralph Simoni brought it to CLSA's Leg Comm for review.

I also thought that the conviction of this type of crime for an LS fit into the current Code of Regulations' language for suspension or revocation of a license and didn't give it much more thought. Did I miss something?

Thanks for providing the proper link Tom. I wasn't looking at this from an LS point of view, more from those that are not licensed. If you look at the analysis of the bill, it appears to have originated from several individuals caught falsifying quit claim deeds promising to save people from foreclosure when in fact they were just preying on those that were in dire straits and taking their money.

I thought the land surveying community would find this interesting and also wondered if this law extended to false or forged maps associated with real property.

Ric,

In the case of falsified maps of subdivisions or records of survey, there is review by County/City Surveyors. Perhaps there could be a consumer notice similar to the new notary acknowledgments ;-)

I don't actually think that would be necessary - subdivision maps are 'vetted' at public hearings during the tentative map approval, and records of survey are just that - documentation of a professional opinion.

I would like to think so Warren. Though I am aware of at least two occasions when a subdivision map went through the entire process and was filed by an unlicensed individual that created false seals and signatures. Not forged...false. And the jurisdiction's legal counsel was contemplating if it was a illegal divided subdivision.

Yikes - truly frightening!

Ric7308 wrote:I would like to think so Warren. Though I am aware of at least two occasions when a subdivision map went through the entire process and was filed by an unlicensed individual that created false seals and signatures. Not forged...false. And the jurisdiction's legal counsel was contemplating if it was a illegal divided subdivision.

Unless the owner was in cahoots with the fake surveyor, I can understand the agency's reluctance to flat out declare it an illegal subdivision and penalize the owner for someone else's fraud. Ric, how did they end up resolving it? Amending map signed by a real surveyor? I make it a point to always check the Board's website every time I see an unfamiliar land surveyor's name cross my desk.