Attorneys want their name in the Alta certification I indicated that I would not do it , as they are trying to cover thier ass with my ass . I told them mine is all ready been spread to thin .
And at what cost will your E%O Insurance carrier charge? I'd ask!....and then charge appropriately after discussing premiums ....present and future ( in other words when the mortgage is sold). Put your business cap on and roll with it. you have been given a chance based on the request.....:)
They aren't the buyer, they aren't the seller, and they aren't the lender. They may be requesting it on the theory that it doesn't hurt to ask. You could politely decline.
Refer to the contract....
🙂
N
$500
Jump for cash!
Bruce,
It's good to hear from you on this forum. As usual ....great advice!, I believe this board to be a bit better with your input....nuff said
The lawyers want you to attach themselves to the plat and other paperwork and give them the ability to reuse your survey without contacting or paying you for that event.
Are you saying the title company wants there name listed on the ALTA or the Attorney (could be the same). Pretty much standard procedure here. I can't recall any ALTA out of many where this was not the case. Never thought much about it. They are usually the ones here who order the survey, usually to go along with a title policy.
We've done that in the past, I didn't see anything to be concerned with.
Alta Bullies at it again>Splitting hairs
What's the difference to you, really?
ALTA/ACSM 23011 standards
"7. Certification - The plat or map of an ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey shall bear only the following
certification, unaltered, except as may be required pursuant to Section 3.B. above:
To (name of insured, if known), (name of lender, if known), (name of insurer, if known), (names of others as
negotiated with the client):
FINAL DRAFT [Version 08/26/10]
5
This is to certify that this map or plat and the survey on which it is based were made in accordance with the
2011 Minimum Standard Detail Requirements for ALTA/ACSM Land Title Surveys, jointly established and
adopted by ALTA and NSPS, and includes Items of Table A thereof. The field work was completed
on ___________.
Date of Plat or Map:_____ (Surveyor’s signature, printed name and seal with Registration/License Number)"
Way to go! Just say no - they have no authority to require it, especially when they are not your client.
> Way to go! Just say no - they have no authority to require it, especially when they are not your client.
This is the typical response that I see from a vast majority of surveyors. Is it really a correct response, though?
A typical survey certification doesn't name any particular individuals to whom the certification applies. When the survey is challenged, the parties first must show that the surveyor owed them a duty apart from the direct contractual relationship. This can be a pretty expensive process. Pretty much anyone who (1) relies upon the survey and (2) is damaged as a result of their reliance can prevail in a tort action against the surveyor as long as they can prove (3) a duty by the surveyor, (4) a breach of that duty, and (5) damages caused by the breach. Anyone can sue the surveyor. It seems to me that the more unnamed parties there are, the more your liability could extend.
The ALTA certification provides a specific limitation directed to named parties who have a direct connection to the survey. In other words, not just anybody can sue the surveyor. They must be named in the certification. Another way to look at it is that the certification "limits" the surveyor's potential claimants pool. The more parties named, the more limitation there is in the "pool."
Is your liability increased by adding more parties? No. The potential pool of parties who could sue for damages might be (but is more likely limited instead). The argument could be made, though. If so, then negotiate that liability by charging for additional named parties. Put a clause in your contract that requires say, $_____ for each additional insured party added to the certification. I would recommend that the number not be too high, or you'll be cutting yourself off at the knees. It's really to your advantage to add them.
Why do we argue with our client about named insures? Instead, we should be gratefully adding them and collecting our negotiated fee. Why not make more money on the survey while accruing less liability in the process?
JBS
Sure, piss-off the attorney, see where that will get you. He is being paid a lot of money to review your survey for either the lender or buyer (in both cases your client) and is giving you notice that he is doing so. Seems to be a professional courtesy on his part.
Yea, what JB said. JB being more eloquent than I.
Got To Disagree With JB Here.
"A typical survey certification doesn't name any particular individuals to whom the certification applies."
All of the surveys I produce have a name or names as "certified to:" especially the ALTA/ASCM Land Title Surveys. One of the worst things you can do, as far as I am concerned, is to issue a survey without someone's name on it for certification.
My answer to an attorney that wants their name on the certs is that I only certify to parties in the transaction, i.e., buyers, lenders, title insurers and public agencies involved in funding.
(Most of the ALTA/ACSM work I do involves HUD, Fannie Mae, and various other state and federal agencies.)
In dozens of instances over the last 30 years, every attorney has eventually backed down. None has ever articulated a good reason for their names to be included.
My opinion is that the Attorney is providing a professional service to the Client as I . Why would I certify to the Attorney if he is responsible for the legal aspects of the transaction . I am using his Title work on the survey . He then becomes clear of any issue related to the survey, mine or his . Does he certify to me that the Title work is correct .
I once talked with a surveyor that was sued for not showing a (save and except) out of a large tract . The surveyor , attorney and title company were all sued . The surveyor tried to settle early and offered a settlement to end it , all three ended up forking up $ 300 thousand . No one caught it . Long story . Is that worth 500 dollars .
I have never put an attorneys name on a survey , I do not see this as an business issue but of an liability issue .
I piss off Attorneys on a regular basis , I do not trust any of them .
Got To Disagree With JB Here.
I agree with sicillian. Naming in the certification removes those named from having to prove you had a duty to them.
It is always good business to shift the 'burden of proof' to the person trying to sue you, and never certify to an attorney who has no direct interest in the land that was surveyed.
Richard Schaut