MUNINET Archives

December 1999

MUNINET@LIST.UVM.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
Vermont Municipal Government Discussion Network <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 17 Dec 1999 14:35:31 -0500
Reply-To:
Vermont Municipal Government Discussion Network <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
MIME-Version:
1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From:
Comments:
SoVerNet Verification (on garnet.sover.net) patsmith from arc0a36.burl.sover.net [207.136.201.36] 207.136.201.36 Fri, 17 Dec 1999 14:35:55 -0500 (EST)
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (17 lines)
coupla things, bobbi.
call deb markowitz (she's probably read this on the list serve already)
the attorney in question sounds a wee bit naiive.
number one, his calling the sec'ty of states office doesn't mean squat
(sorry, deb)...
i am assuming you are an elected official, so tell the questionable attorney
not to vote for you.
we are required to check that a survey is indeed on record (after the law
passed in 1997 or so) prior to recording a deed that references said survey.
if the survey isn't the same, i would be questioning it as well.
it isn't your business whether a survey is correct or not, what is your
business is whether you have the correct survey referenced in the deed to be
recorded.
this is unusual behavior and i'm sorry you have to experience it.
happy holidays anyway.
patty, sudbury

ATOM RSS1 RSS2