Title: State v. Brooks

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Brooks (2003-447); 177 Vt. 161; 861 A.2d 1096

2004 VT 88

[Filed 03-Sep-2004]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                                 2004 VT 88

                                No. 2003-447

  State of Vermont	                         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.	                                 Washington Superior Court

  Steven Brooks	                                 June Term, 2004

  Mary Miles Teachout, J.

  Edward G. Adrian, Secretary of State, Montpelier, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

  David H. Casier, Burlington, for Defendant-Appellant.	

  PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J. (FN1), Dooley, Johnson, Skoglund and Reiber, JJ.

        
       ¶  1.  DOOLEY, J.  The issue in this appeal is whether respondent,
  Steven Brooks, was engaged in land surveying when he combined two deeds and
  a preexisting survey into a map depicting a boundary line adjustment
  pursuant to a conveyance that occurred twelve years earlier.  Respondent
  appeals a superior court decision reinstating the Board of Land Surveyors'
  (Board) decision that respondent, by failing to prepare a survey abstract
  or perform any research or field investigation in connection with his
  preparation of the map, failed to meet certain minimum standards for
  surveys in violation of Rule 5.4(A) of the Rules of the Board of Land
  Surveyors.  We reverse.

       ¶  2.  In 1999, Manson Surdam, a landowner in the Town of Williston,
  requested that respondent, a licensed land surveyor, complete the paperwork
  for a land transaction that took place twelve years earlier.  In 1988,
  Surdam sold half an acre of his property to his neighbor to resolve a
  boundary dispute.  He failed, however, to obtain subdivision approval from
  the town for this property division, and his attorney discovered the error
  in 1999, when Surdam was arranging to sell his property.  Surdam contacted
  respondent to remedy the violation.  Respondent determined from the Town
  that he could remedy the violation by creating a map that combined the
  description on Surdam's original deed, the description on the deed from the
  1988 conveyance, and a preexisting survey prepared by another surveyor,
  John Marsh.  Town officials expressed mild embarrassment and told
  respondent that the Town's only interest was in "mak[ing] the paperwork to
  line up" with the conveyance.  Respondent offered Surdam two options: to
  prepare a map as described above, or to prepare a full new land survey. 
  For cost reasons, Surdam chose the former option.

       ¶  3.  Respondent created a map depicting the 1988 conveyance based
  upon the two deeds and the Marsh survey.  He titled the map a "Boundary
  Line Adjustment," signed and affixed his seal to it.  To distinguish his
  work from a survey, respondent placed disclaimer notes on the upper left
  hand corner of the cover page explaining to the reader that the map was not
  a survey and was not based on any field research.  The notes occupy a space
  of about 4"x 6"; one of the notes provides:

    7)  The purpose of this plot is to depict a transfer of a small
    parcel of land that is recorded in Volume 84 Page 238 between
    Surdam and one Martha Whitehorn (now owned by Rainville).  This
    conveyance of 0.50 acres of land was to resolve a boundary line
    between Surdam and Whitehorn but never received local approval.
     
       ¶  4.  In the midst of drawing the map, respondent realized that the
  Marsh survey contained a serious flaw such that the property description
  did not close.  Respondent did not try to solve the error; instead he drew
  an arbitrary line to make the survey line close.  Respondent noted the
  problem with the Marsh survey and his correction on the cover page of the
  map.  This disclaimer occupied a space of about 1/4" x 4".

       ¶  5.  The map was filed in the land records, but the record does not
  disclose who filed it.  Apparently, another land surveyor encountered the
  map and filed a complaint with the Board.  After an investigation, the
  Board charged respondent with violating 26 V.S.A. § 2598(b)(4) (FN2) -
  violation of a Board rule.  The Board specified the violated rule as Rule
  5.4(A)(1) (FN3), which requires a land surveyor, when preparing a land
  survey, to "[p]repare a survey abstract."  The content of a survey abstract
  is specified in Rule 5.3(J).  It is undisputed that respondent did not
  create a survey abstract in connection with the Surdam map.

       ¶  6.  After a hearing, the Board made fifteen findings of fact, upon
  which it concluded that the map could be mistaken for a survey despite the
  disclaimer on the cover page.  The Board, however, did not specifically
  address respondent's defense-that he was not engaged in land surveying when
  he prepared the map.  Thus, the Board did not determine whether the
  preparation of the map involved land surveying.  The Board determined that
  respondent engaged in unprofessional conduct using the following rationale:

         A licensed land surveyor does not have the authority to
    suspend the Board's regulations when they are inconvenient.  The
    document prepared by the respondent was titled like a survey,
    signed like a survey, sealed like a survey, and filed like a
    survey.  Like a survey, it was prepared with the intent of
    depicting a transfer of property.  It was filed on the Williston
    Town Land Records with the knowledge that town officials and the
    public would rely on it.

         The Board understands that the respondent did what was
    requested by his client and the town officials.  His duty as a
    licensed professional, however, was to tell the client and town
    officials what he could and could not do for them, rather than
    simply do their bidding.  When a licensee's signature and seal are
    affixed to a document that is virtually indistinguishable from a
    survey plat, it should rightly carry some weight and significance. 
    The public must be reasonably assured that a certain amount of
    professionalism and minimum standards have been met by the
    licensed land surveyor who files documents for permanent storage
    on the land records of this State.

  Based on this conclusion, the Board ordered that retention of respondent's
  license be conditional upon his completion of a full survey of Mr. Surdam's
  1988 land transfer within eight months.  

       ¶  7.  Respondent appealed the Board's decision, and the appellate
  officer reversed because the Board never explicitly found that respondent
  engaged in land surveying when he created the map.  The State appealed, and
  the superior court reinstated the Board's decision, citing deference to the
  Board's findings.  The court held that, based on the Board's findings,
  respondent had engaged in land surveying as defined in 26 V.S.A. § 2502(3)
  and, therefore, he was required to abide by the requirements of Rule
  5.4(A)(1) when he prepared the map.  According to the superior court, the
  question of whether respondent engaged in land surveying is a mixed
  question of law and fact and its conclusions followed from the facts found
  by the Board.  The court particularly relied upon its conclusion that the
  map was a "survey plat" as described in 27 V.S.A. § 1403(b):

         Mr. Brooks' survey of Mr. Surdam's property was created to
    portray an unpermitted 12 year old conveyance that was being
    retroactively permitted.  Mr. Brooks, in purporting to depict it
    on a survey plat submitted for recording, was representing that he
    had engaged in a land surveying process, which he had not. 
    Notwithstanding that he disclosed the limitations of his work in
    preparing the plan, he was engaged in preparing a graphic
    description of a property conveyance without having done so in
    compliance with professional standards.  His work thus constituted
    "land surveying" within the meaning of 26 V.S.A. § 2502(3) for the
    reasons described above, and the survey plat he created falls
    within the requirements of 27 V.S.A. § 1403(b) and the Board
    rules.
     
       ¶  8.  Both parties agree that the sole issue in this appeal is
  whether respondent engaged in land surveying while preparing the map.  As
  usual, we approach the review question under a limited standard of review. 
  "We will affirm the Board's findings as long as they are supported by
  substantial evidence, and its conclusions if rationally derived from the
  findings and based on a correct interpretation of the law."  Braun v. Bd.
  of Dental Exam'rs, 167 Vt. 110, 114,