Ethics XIX – 1.5 Contact Hours
The case-in-chief is Open Lake Sporting Club v. Lauderdale Haywood Angling Club, Tennessee Court of Appeals, 2011-2015. The parties in the case, Open Lake and Lauderdale Haywood, were adjoining landowners whose club members were in peaceful coexistence for over 80 years, enjoying their respective facilitates on Open Lake, in western Tennessee near the Mississippi River, when a dispute over the use of Open Lake erupted. The dispute eventually boiled over into an argument over the common boundary line between their respective properties. The controversy eventually made its way to the courts. The trial judge ultimately was unable to make a decision on the boundary line based on the evidence presented at trial. The parties agreed to a court appointed surveyor to review all of the evidence, including an on-the-ground survey, and to render a binding decision on the location of the boundary line. The surveyor’s surprising decision moved the boundary 200 feet north of where it had traditionally been known to exist, to the benefit of Open Lake. Open Lake argued that the survey was binding on the parties and Lauderdale Haywood argued that the surveyor had not followed the court order because the surveyor had not considered the evidence presented at trial. Did the surveyor follow the court order? Does it matter? The National Society of Professional Surveyor’s (NSPS) “Surveyor’s Creed and Canons” is the barometer for measuring the ethics in the case. This is a 2-Page Letter covering 2 Appellate Court Opinions consisting of 14 pages. This is a 16-Page document with a 10-Question examination based on the text of the newsletter, the Creed and Canons, and the case-in-chief.
OBJECTIVES: To present everyday professional ethical issues based on actual court cases and opinions, resulting in real consequences for the professional(s) and the other parties involved.