Community Forums

Share:

Is this fraud? Poll is created on July 25, 2018 10:37 am

  
  
  

Is this fraud?  

Page 1 / 4

Daniel S. McCabe
Posts: 1472
Member
(@daniel-s-mccabe)
1,000+ posts
Joined: 9 years ago

I am aware of a plat that was done a little over ten years ago. The PLS  that issued the plat identifies it as a "plat of survey of the Joe Bleaux Family partition", identifies the bearing base that he used, states the standards the "survey" was done to and makes the piece of paper look like a survey was done of a piece of property that divided a tract into two tracts. 

This plat was sent to the parish for approval and it was approved.

At the bottom of the "notes" section is a statement that basically says that no field work was done to produce this "survey".

The state board can't do anything about the minimum standards issues because it can only act for five years after the work was done, however, in cases of fraud it can act for two years from the date of discovery, which was two months ago.

I am of the opinion that this is fraud. 

Is this fraud?

18 Replies
2 Replies
cordgrass
Member
(@cordgrass)
Joined: 3 years ago

100+ posts
Posts: 150
Posted by: Daniel S. McCabe

I am aware of a plat that was done a little over ten years ago. The PLS  that issued the plat identifies it as a "plat of survey of the Joe Bleaux Family partition", identifies the bearing base that he used, states the standards the "survey" was done to and makes the piece of paper look like a survey was done of a piece of property that divided a tract into two tracts. 

This plat was sent to the parish for approval and it was approved.

At the bottom of the "notes" section is a statement that basically says that no field work was done to produce this "survey".

The state board can't do anything about the minimum standards issues because it can only act for five years after the work was done, however, in cases of fraud it can act for two years from the date of discovery, which was two months ago.

I am of the opinion that this is fraud. 

Is this fraud?

I see this all the time "desktop survey".  At least he told you was not done in the field.  Couple i have retracted have bubbles or circles on the corners with no legend.  Most of the time nothing set. 

Reply
Duane Frymire
Member
(@duane-frymire)
Joined: 9 years ago

1,000+ posts
Posts: 1640

Yes. Fraud is different when a professional opinion is involved.  The note is not enough to enable a consumer to know an actual survey was not performed, given the other language. 

Reply
David Livingstone
Posts: 900
(@david-livingstone)
500+ posts
Joined: 9 years ago

Terrible practice?  Yes!  Fraud, I don't think so.  Fraud is a step beyond doing a bad job.  He does have a note sort of covering him self although saying no field work was done probably wouldn't meet minimum standards.  I've seen more than one of these in my day.

Reply
paden cash
Posts: 9073
Member
(@paden-cash)
5,000+ posts
Joined: 9 years ago

I'm thinking since there is a "disclaimer" upon the document that fraud would be difficult to "prove"; as opposed to indicating corners were set or found on a document when no field survey was performed.  

Reply
James Fleming
Posts: 5164
Member
(@james-fleming)
5,000+ posts
Joined: 9 years ago

LA Civil Code 1953

SECTION 2. FRAUD

Fraud is a misrepresentation or a suppression of the truth made with the intention either to obtain an unjust advantage for one party or to cause a loss or inconvenience to the other.

I ain't no lawyer, but at first glance it looks like if you put the client on notice that they're getting a substandard product, it can't be fraud.

Reply
Norman Oklahoma
Posts: 4198
Member
(@norman-oklahoma)
2,500+ posts
Joined: 4 years ago

This exact thing was pretty common here in Clark County, Washington in the 70's and 80's. Many were recorded by the subdivider without a Surveyor even involved. Poor practice, but not illegal. At least not then.

Also I've seen plenty of deeds creating lots by description only. Neither illegal nor unethical.  

Reply
Page 1 / 4