Sealing Work You Did Not Supervise
The principal of a two-person survey firm in Wilmington is preparing three boundary surveys before a Friday recording deadline. An unlicensed technician, who has worked for the firm for 11 months, prepares a metes-and-bounds description and a plat for a 0.9-acre city lot using office records and a 1995 survey. No field check is made. On Thursday afternoon the principal reviews the plat for about 10 minutes, changes one bearing by 0.5°, and applies the seal and signature. The client records the description. Six months later, the adjoining owner's survey shows a 3.2-ft overlap along the rear line and files a complaint with the Delaware board. The technician says the principal 'approved it.'
1. What does applying the seal represent, and was the review adequate?
Read the worked answer
The seal represents that the licensee has responsible charge of the work and can stand behind its accuracy and professional adequacy. That means more than a quick look at a drawing. The principal should have enough knowledge of the field evidence, computations, deed research, boundary analysis, and description closure to defend the survey. A 10-minute review of a plat prepared from office records, with no field check, does not establish that knowledge. Changing one bearing does not cure the missing basis for the boundary. The technician's statement that the principal 'approved it' does not transfer responsibility; the seal is the principal's. If the principal did not have time to supervise and verify the work, the correct choice was to delay the recording, not to seal and hope the deadline justified it.
2. What should the principal have done before sealing?
Read the worked answer
The principal should have reviewed the deed and adjoining deeds, verified the record boundary and any gaps or overlaps, examined the 1995 survey and its monuments, and required field evidence of the controlling corners. The technician's computations and the legal description should have been independently checked for closure, area, bearing basis, and calls to adjoiners. If the principal could not do the field work personally, another qualified person should have checked it and documented the check. The principal should also have confirmed that the description matched the plat and that the plat showed all found monuments and relevant evidence. A written supervision checklist and a second-review initial would have made the process visible. If those steps could not be completed before Friday, the principal should have asked for an extension or declined the recording.
3. How should the firm respond to the complaint and correct the record?
Read the worked answer
Cooperate with the board investigation and provide the complete file, including the technician's draft, the principal's markups, field notes if any, and the recorded description. Notify the client and professional liability insurer promptly. Have a qualified surveyor independently retrace the line and determine the extent of the overlap; then prepare a corrected survey and, if appropriate, a corrective affidavit or revised description for recording. Do not blame the technician alone or alter the file after the complaint. Identify the root cause: inadequate supervision, no field check, deadline pressure, or unclear responsibility. Put a written supervision and review procedure in place, including a requirement that sealed boundary work be based on field evidence and independent checking. The board will care less about a polished story than about whether the licensee accepts responsibility and prevents recurrence.