Board issues letters, dismissals and civil penalties after PDH audit and complaint reviews
December 14, 2024 | Commerce & Insurance, Deparments in Office of the Governor, Organizations, Executive, Tennessee
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Legal counsel presented four complaint summaries and staff recommendations on Nov. 22; the board acted on each recommendation by motion and vote.
Case 1: Expert review of an amended 2012 survey was inconclusive about easement location but found problematic revision dating and potential missing ties. Counsel recommended a letter of warning for record‑keeping and revision‑dating issues (rule citation 0820‑04‑0.08a). The board approved issuing a letter of warning.
Case 2: A property owner alleged a survey crew unearthed and left a corner pin, creating a neighbor dispute and possible conflict of interest. The respondent supplied documentation showing control matches the plat of record; staff recommended dismissal and the board voted to dismiss the complaint.
Case 3: A PDH audit found a licensee failed to provide proof of required PDHs and did not respond to staff requests; legal recommended the maximum civil penalty available under board authority (two violations totalling a $2,000 civil penalty), plus a consent order requiring proof of compliance and an affidavit about any work performed while out of compliance. The board accepted staff’s recommendation and authorized the penalty and consent‑order path.
Case 4: Another PDH audit revealed standards‑of‑practice PDHs claimed were outside the renewal period. Staff had offered an agreed citation of $100 with a 30‑day cure period; because the respondent had not signed or paid, counsel recommended raising the civil penalty to $500 at this stage. The board approved the $500 increase by a recorded vote (motion passed 3–1).
The board recorded the actions in the minutes and authorized staff to proceed with consent orders where applicable.
Case 1: Expert review of an amended 2012 survey was inconclusive about easement location but found problematic revision dating and potential missing ties. Counsel recommended a letter of warning for record‑keeping and revision‑dating issues (rule citation 0820‑04‑0.08a). The board approved issuing a letter of warning.
Case 2: A property owner alleged a survey crew unearthed and left a corner pin, creating a neighbor dispute and possible conflict of interest. The respondent supplied documentation showing control matches the plat of record; staff recommended dismissal and the board voted to dismiss the complaint.
Case 3: A PDH audit found a licensee failed to provide proof of required PDHs and did not respond to staff requests; legal recommended the maximum civil penalty available under board authority (two violations totalling a $2,000 civil penalty), plus a consent order requiring proof of compliance and an affidavit about any work performed while out of compliance. The board accepted staff’s recommendation and authorized the penalty and consent‑order path.
Case 4: Another PDH audit revealed standards‑of‑practice PDHs claimed were outside the renewal period. Staff had offered an agreed citation of $100 with a 30‑day cure period; because the respondent had not signed or paid, counsel recommended raising the civil penalty to $500 at this stage. The board approved the $500 increase by a recorded vote (motion passed 3–1).
The board recorded the actions in the minutes and authorized staff to proceed with consent orders where applicable.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
