I was just wondering why we as surveyors do not ask the Title Company to certify that the title information that they provide to be used in our surveys is correct and meets a standard of practice for title research? Does such a standard of practice exist in the title industry?
Good question!
Personally, I NEVER trust (without verification) a "Title Commitment" from any Title Company. I HAVE worked with a few really good Title folks, but I have also dealt with some real losers too.
JMTB
Loyal
Bow Tie Surveyor, post: 417173, member: 6939 wrote: I was just wondering why we as surveyors do not ask the Title Company to certify that the title information that they provide to be used in our surveys is correct and meets a standard of practice for title research? Does such a standard of practice exist in the title industry?
Yes! I'm amazed and frustrated that we have to bear the liability for potential mistakes, in a manner that it seems to me, the other professions don't. And we don't get paid what we should for carrying that liability.
That said, I can't imagine doing a survey where all I use is what's pulled together by a title company. They're concerned with title, not necessarily location, and the two don't always intersect.
I think the short answer to the problem is that title research is not a profession. It's a technical occupation that serves lawyers and surveyors--both professionals who must review technicians' work. By almost any standard of professionalization, title researchers do not qualify.
It's the same reason that CAD techs can't certify the accuracy of architectural, engineering, or land surveying drawings, and why instrument men can't certify the location of monuments or bridge abutments. They're technicians supplying information to you, the professional.
FrozenNorth, post: 417200, member: 10219 wrote: I think the short answer to the problem is that title research is not a profession. It's a technical occupation that serves lawyers and surveyors--both professionals who must review technicians' work. By almost any standard of professionalization, title researchers do not qualify.
It's the same reason that CAD techs can't certify the accuracy of architectural, engineering, or land surveying drawings, and why instrument men can't certify the location of monuments or bridge abutments. They're technicians supplying information to you, the professional.
Isn't the legal profession responsible for providing opinions of title? I was talking to a title insurance underwriter the other day and they stated that your typical title insurance commitment does not include an opinion of title. Has anyone else heard that? Does that mean that there is no professional standing behind these reports we are using?
Bow Tie Surveyor, post: 417223, member: 6939 wrote: Isn't the legal profession responsible for providing opinions of title? I was talking to a title insurance underwriter the other day and they stated that your typical title insurance commitment does not include an opinion of title. Has anyone else heard that? Does that mean that there is no professional standing behind these reports we are using?
They sell insurance. Its a contract to pay if something they insure goes bad. I think the opinion they use is how much risk is there vs the premium they receive (internal to the company). I'd think if you want some assurance that the documents they supply are reliable you'd have to buy their insurance for that (if they sell that).
The surveyor does issue an professional opinion. Your protection is that you met the standard of care. You can purchase professional liability insurance for this but not from a title insurance company.
Title Commitment contains a property description of the property and what encumbrances affected the property during the time of the last known Title Policy and nothing more.
Basically it offers a beginning to the your surveying services.
Lawyers continue to reduce their liability and responsibility. Surveyors seem to keep adding to our responsibilities and liabilities. Or is it the attorneys?
I had one where the client and his non local attorney wanted an ALTA and provided me with as complete a title as you can acquire in these parts (like happy stories? Stop reading). The local attorney convinced the non local attorney that he did not need some expensive ALTA from me.
I just saw the conveyance. They missed Parcel 4, The Beach Lot. 4.6 million dollar sale missing the private water frontage... perhaps an ALTA with some written descriptions would have helped.
I think in recent history (post WWII) Tile company's not only sold insurance but also acted as a public service for other intenties such as banks and public agencies that relied on preliminary title reports as good source of information to base decisions on that they would be in the dark on if not for the PTR. In very recent history (last 20 years) like many professional services their product has been getting less and less dependable, to the point that that we now want them to certify what they are providing. I don't think that certification is going to happen but if they continue down this path society is going to question why do we need them. Maybe society can re-organize how we track land title. With electronic data, computer systems and gis maybe it is time to go back to a torrents system on steroids???? Jp
Title Companies are mostly owned by Lawyers and guess who writes the State Codes............:8ball:
Maybe surveyors should adopt the title insurance business model and stop offering opinions on the location of the boundary. Instead, just survey a boundary that we are willing to insure to a preset amount to a specific party for a premium. We can have exceptions for aparent encroachments just the title insurer to reduce risk. Instead of just certifying to the title insurer and the bank, we can just sell them boundary insurance policies (probably at a reduced rate like the title insurers bo for the banks, as long as the owner pays the full premium). Wouldn't that eliminate the surveyors tort liability? After all it's not going to be a professional opinion anymore.
Bow Tie Surveyor, post: 417173, member: 6939 wrote: I was just wondering why we as surveyors do not ask the Title Company to certify that the title information that they provide to be used in our surveys is correct and meets a standard of practice for title research? Does such a standard of practice exist in the title industry?
I am curious as to what types of situations you are referring to where a surveyor would be held liable for a Title Co.'s mistakes or omissions. For example with an ALTA survey they list easements appurtenant to or encumbering a parcel based on their search or public records, and our survey is based on this particular commitment. Are we responsible to check their work, i.e. check the public record to see if there is anything that they missed? If an easement were missed, I'd think that would be on them if any damages were to be incurred.
Bow Tie Surveyor, post: 417262, member: 6939 wrote: Maybe surveyors should adopt the title insurance business model and stop offering opinions on the location of the boundary. Instead, just survey a boundary that we are willing to insure to a preset amount to a specific party for a premium. We can have exceptions for aparent encroachments just the title insurer to reduce risk. Instead of just certifying to the title insurer and the bank, we can just sell them boundary insurance policies (probably at a reduced rate like the title insurers bo for the banks, as long as the owner pays the full premium). Wouldn't that eliminate the surveyors tort liability? After all it's not going to be a professional opinion anymore.
One particular lecture provider seems to think thats what we do. My License doesn't say 'boundary monitor'. Either i make decisions and form an opinion or i present the options to the owners. If we go the direction of the Title Companies I'll find a new career.
A lot of good comments on this one.
While I agree that the accuracy of the title reports is getting bad. I also understand that we are paying what amounts to a county checking fee(here in California) for a report.
Personally I prefer the team approach to completing projects. I believe that behind every good project is a set of professionals checking each other's work while also getting their portion completed. Yes some are professionals, and some or techinal personnel, but we all have a common goal of completing the project.
It does frustrate me that some reports contain more blanket statements such as, "Rights of the public in and to that portion of the herein described Land lying within: Road 123 and Avenue 456".
I had one that the street right of way had been adjust back years ago, but noone knew how so they put the above statement to cover themselves. There was a surveyor that months before me set the corners along it but failed to identify how the right-of-way was taken on his corner record. (Another issue topic) 2 weeks of phone calls. Many phone conversations with County and City officials led me to a old City Records office and a copy of the final judgement where the court ordered it taken for public use in 1910. And there was several other deeds from the time period that described the area. In total It affected a half a mile of roadway of small city lots both sides of the right-of-way. It should have been on every report for about 60 properties.
All of that to say. While the client did not like the time it took. The lawyer has given me many repeat jobs because they understand and value the level of service that can be provided.
Find a title officer that you can trust their level of work. And pay them quickly. If you're using their work right now then pay them right now.
roger_LS, post: 417297, member: 11550 wrote: Are we responsible to check their work, i.e. check the public record to see if there is anything that they missed? If an easement were missed, I'd think that would be on them if any damages were to be incurred.
In this type of case I would hope a judgement would not be against the surveyor, but I think professionally we have a responsibility to keep our eyes open and make our client and the title company aware of something that we find. If there's a poleline running through the property would you not call it out?
We have PG&E (electric and gas provider) easements that were not recorded in public record because they did not have to in the 1970's but they are legitimate signed easements.
A client hoped that the electric company would have to pay for their line to be rerouted based on looking at the title report, but because I had seen this before I let them know before I started that I would contact the company and get the easement that cover this line.
Gripe On.
I am now on the verge of crying. The attorney provided the title and the client is now asking me my opinion on the legitimacy of the "special reservations, conditions and agreements" applied to a 1963 deed with a follow up agreement stating these are to be in force and effect in perpetuity. Of course, agreement #4 is that both parties can mutually dissolve the other items within the agreement, but I do not see that document anywhere. It seems like the agreement is dissolved as one of the adjacent property owners installed a landscape berm in contradiction to the terms of the agreement.
I did have to explain to my client that I show the where and the attorney describes the quality.
I will write up my report with multiple title questions and I will e-mail it this evening around midnight. Hopefully the attorney can provide the answers before the end of their diligence period: tomorrow.
Of course they want a draft ALTA tomorrow... I have limited hours and if they had provided me with a complete title from the onset, I would not have to even consider the questions the attorney should answer.
I think I will enjoy a shot of vodka this evening. That is the proven solution to life's frustrating problems.
Gripe Off.
So how were all of your days?
roger_LS, post: 417297, member: 11550 wrote: I am curious as to what types of situations you are referring to where a surveyor would be held liable for a Title Co.'s mistakes or omissions. For example with an ALTA survey they list easements appurtenant to or encumbering a parcel based on their search or public records, and our survey is based on this particular commitment. Are we responsible to check their work, i.e. check the public record to see if there is anything that they missed? If an easement were missed, I'd think that would be on them if any damages were to be incurred.
In short yes, once you certify it is your responsibility, whether it was included in the title commitment or not.
The whole purpose of an ALTA survey is to shift liability to the surveyor. Period!!!
Read the Alta regulations, who determines what a "prudent" surveyor would find and show on an ALTA that the unregulated title examiner missed.
Ron Lang, post: 417583, member: 6445 wrote: In short yes, once you certify it is your responsibility, whether it was included in the title commitment or not.
The whole purpose of an ALTA survey is to shift liability to the surveyor. Period!!!
Read the Alta regulations, who determines what a "prudent" surveyor would find and show on an ALTA that the unregulated title examiner missed.
The purpose of ALTA standards (they cant make regulations) is so we get a known set of parameters and the Title Companies know what to expect. Once we provide the survey the Title Company renoves the exceptions for coverage of survey related matters and assumes more liability.
In 38 years ive never even seen the threat of a lawsuit over an ALTA performed to any reasonable standard. I would rather do a thousand ALTA surveys than drive another hub.
thebionicman, post: 417601, member: 8136 wrote: The purpose of ALTA standards (they cant make regulations) is so we get a known set of parameters and the Title Companies know what to expect. Once we provide the survey the Title Company renoves the exceptions for coverage of survey related matters and assumes more liability.
In 38 years ive never even seen the threat of a lawsuit over an ALTA performed to any reasonable standard. I would rather do a thousand ALTA surveys than drive another hub.
You're correct, standards not regulations. I used the wrong vernacular. And I too would rather do ALTA surveys than construction. But my point was that our liability is not limited to the information the title company provides. Just because the title company missed an easement in the search does not limit our liability if we do not catch/show the easement. Ultimately we are the professionals.
Very sad, but very true. We simply cannot rely on what is provided in the commitment. I can think of a property where there would not be any access to the property provided by a title commitment. An access lane was spelled out in an 1870-something split of the property as being reserved. That one deed is the only time such access lane was ever mentioned by both the dominant and servient tracts.