Brad, The Title Company requests that you remove the Title Notes in the bottom left hand corner of the survey with the references to the easement exceptions #17 & 18 raised in the Title Company January 2015 title commitment. The easements are not raised as exceptions in the current commitment due to the merger of title, consolidation of the parcels and construction on the property, and no longer need to be separately referenced and platted in the survey. If you have any questions, IÛªve copied Mrs. So and So, the Title Company underwriter in on this email and you can contact her. Her contact info is below.
To which Brad replies:
I cannot do that without reviewing specific documents that remove those easements referenced on the survey. It is disappointing that counsel as well as a title insurance company would ask a land surveyor to simply ignore or forget specific easements that all are aware of based on the previous title work and the previous survey.
To which she replies (very quickly):
Just remove the reference to prior commitment and leave the easements if you prefer. But note they are not shown on the current commitment.
Thank you
The note I use in cases like this is "Easement for abc purposes per 1234 O.R. 567 may affect subject property but a determination cannot be made from the documents furnished to the surveyor."
Brad Ott, post: 394670, member: 197 wrote: Just remove the reference to prior commitment and leave the easements if you prefer. But note they are not shown on the current commitment.
Mr. Surveyor: "no", [end of conversation] 😎
If the Title Company is wanting you to remove the recording information of the easements you have shown on your drawing, they have exceeded their authority and entered the realm of criminal activity.
By the standards of your BOR you place this and other sufficient information on the drawings.
Asking for you to do any less than BOR requires and to purposely omit data from your drawing is asking you to join them in what could be considered a criminal activity.
IMO it is fraud to not submit and reveal the existence and location of encumbrances that you have knowledge of and know to exist.
FL/GA PLS., post: 394676, member: 379 wrote: Mr. Surveyor: "no", [end of conversation] 😎
What was the problem with this request?
If the easements were for the benefit of one of the merged parcels for the benefit of another of the merged parcels, then, as long as they are not also appurtenant to any other parcels not a part of this merger, the easements would cease to exist once the parcels were merged.
If that is the case, I don't see the problem with the request.
If the easements are appurtenant to other lands, or cross other lands, then they need to be shown.
This is a proper request from the title company, and I would comply. They are the experts on title matters, not me.
Tommy Young, post: 394684, member: 703 wrote: What was the problem with this request?
Liability.
It's in a building?
Adam, post: 394708, member: 8900 wrote: It's in a building?
Drive through?
Easements do not have an expiration date because the property merges and becomes a part of larger tract.
Unless the easement contains a clause that keeps the easement from transferring to the next owner or gives terms of ending, they carry forth and remain an encumbrance to the property.
These encumbrance to property can be terminated and the document would be of public record and that should be shown to document the event and update the present conditions of the property.
I walked out of jobs before because the company was not showing the facts about a roadway that was the private entrance to property since wagon days.
That drive remains the private entrance to that same property today and any of the underhanded attempts to close that property owners rights have not succeeded.
Do not allow the integrity of your status of a licensed surveyor be swayed because the client or attorney or title company wants to shortcut the process of events by having you certify to some future event.
If it exists today and your drawing is dated today, show it how it is today.
When events occur to change, make an update to document the change.
Until then your only allowance would be to show what they want to show and attach the declaration that your drawing is a proposal and do not sign and/or certify.
eapls2708, post: 394694, member: 589 wrote: If the easements were for the benefit of one of the merged parcels for the benefit of another of the merged parcels, then, as long as they are not also appurtenant to any other parcels not a part of this merger, the easements would cease to exist once the parcels were merged.
If that is the case, I don't see the problem with the request.
If the easements are appurtenant to other lands, or cross other lands, then they need to be shown.
+1
Bruce Small, post: 394697, member: 1201 wrote: This is a proper request from the title company, and I would comply. They are the experts on title matters, not me.
Don't be so sure. Some are experts and some are not - there are no education or training requirements to become a title examiner in many (maybe most - maybe all) states. It looks like Indiana land title folks have some self awarded designations titled "Indiana Title Professional" but these don't appear to be mandatory or regulated by the state.
It is unusual to find title insurance staff with the title expertise of a seasoned boundary surveyor. Yes, there are some title insurance folks who do know there stuff really well - just don't take it for granted that they do - at $13-19.50/hour (per indianaskills.com) it's hard to come by experts.
And... don't forget, title insurance is a negotiated thing - they can insure or exclude existing easements as they choose - just because they aren't excepting it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
More often than not - title company staff telling competent surveyors what should/shouldn't be on the plat or as-built or ALTA/NSPS Survey is the tail wagging the dog.
FL/GA PLS., post: 394706, member: 379 wrote: Liability.
You're going to have to explain that one. How are you liable for not referencing an old title commitment? I could understand leaving the easements off that were in the old commitment, but not the new one.
Easements can be extinguished by unity of title. As has been pointed out, that only happens when they are exclusive to the property coming under joint ownership.
I have noted 'potentially extinguished under unity of title', but I do not remove them as if they never existed.
So, in case of doubt, why not label the easement as "_________ Easement desc. Vol. _______ Pg. ________ that XYZ Title Company has informed the undersigned surveyor has been extinguished by merger of estates".
From my reference material concerning unity of ownership, which is more slanted toward title examination than surveying:
"..This illustrates the necessity of fully researching both dominant and servient chains of title fully from the creation of an easement to date, to determine whether an extinguishment may have occurred through merger of title. As noted, the extinguishment is automatic upon the merger, and no additional documentation or recordation is necessary, or is likely to be found."
The instructions to "Just remove the reference to prior commitment and leave the easements if you prefer. But note they are not shown on the current commitment." seems like a reasonable request that would satisfy both parties.
It sounds like the Title company is right for a change. Why would you show an easement on your plat that has been estiguished by merger of title?
Tommy Young, post: 394723, member: 703 wrote: How are you liable for not referencing an old title commitment?
My bad, I didn't read the OP fully. You are correct. 😎
