I received an email from a law firm representing interested parties concerning a 107 acre power plant site that I had prepared an ALTA survey for back in 2013. The firm asked if I would be willing to just update the ALTA certification on the "drawing I sent them" back in 2013 and include new parties in the certification. I told them that I could not, without returning to the site and verifying the information that was shown on the ALTA survey, and addressing any new easements and or changes to the site, and that I would have to use the new 2016 Minimum Standard Detail Requirements that have been adopted, and that a ballpark fee would be $X,XXX.XX. They responded and asked if I could just provide a reliance letter instead of a re-certification and wanted to know what the fee for that would be.
My knee jerk response is no, and the fee will be original ballpark figure + 25%. However, before I replied I wanted to see if anyone else had ever issued a reliance letter (their wording, not mine), and if so how was it worded?
I have never heard of one. I would back away slowly. sounds like they are still wanting to get you on the hook, without the updated survey.
I am a glass half empty kind of guy on stuff like this.
"I hereby certify that the ALTA/ACSM that was completed in 2013 was reliable regarding the 2011 ALTA/ACSM Minimum Standard Detail Requirements and the standards of the state of Texas, on the date the survey was signed."
Tommy Young, post: 364437, member: 703 wrote: "I hereby certify that the ALTA/ACSM that was completed in 2013 was reliable regarding the 2011 ALTA/ACSM Minimum Standard Detail Requirements and the standards of the state of Texas, on the date the survey was signed."
Somethin' tells me that is not quite what they're looking for....kinda what Jimmy Cleveland was hinting at..
paden cash, post: 364440, member: 20 wrote: Somethin' tells me that is not quite what they're looking for....kinda what Jimmy Cleveland was hinting at..
"Oh, you don't want that? Sounds like you want what I priced for you the last time you called."
See PAGE 99 of "Papering the Deal: FROM LAND ACQUISITION TO DEVELOPMENT"
DDSM:beer:
"I hereby certify that the ALTA/ACSM that was completed in 2013 was reliable regarding the 2011 ALTA/ACSM Minimum Standard Detail Requirements and the standards of the state of Texas, on the date the survey was signed."
"And I further certify that said dated survey cannot be relied upon to show any changes in use and/or title by owner or others since said date."
Paul in PA
kkw_archer, post: 364425, member: 5453 wrote: I received an email from a law firm representing interested parties concerning a 107 acre power plant site that I had prepared an ALTA survey for back in 2013. The firm asked if I would be willing to just update the ALTA certification on the "drawing I sent them" back in 2013 and include new parties in the certification. I told them that I could not, without returning to the site and verifying the information that was shown on the ALTA survey, and addressing any new easements and or changes to the site, and that I would have to use the new 2016 Minimum Standard Detail Requirements that have been adopted, and that a ballpark fee would be $X,XXX.XX. They responded and asked if I could just provide a reliance letter instead of a re-certification and wanted to know what the fee for that would be.
My knee jerk response is no, and the fee will be original ballpark figure + 25%. However, before I replied I wanted to see if anyone else had ever issued a reliance letter (their wording, not mine), and if so how was it worded?
Purely selfish request, but could you ask for an example from the lawyer? I am curious as to what they are asking for, specifically.
Tommy Young, post: 364437, member: 703 wrote: "I hereby certify that the ALTA/ACSM that was completed in 2013 was reliable regarding the 2011 ALTA/ACSM Minimum Standard Detail Requirements and the standards of the state of Texas, on the date the survey was signed."
Never heard of a reliance letter. It seems redundant, given that the above was attested to by the Surveyor's Certification on the map (2016 rev.):
[INDENT=1]To (name of insured, if known), (name of lender, if known), (name of insurer, if known), (names of others as negotiated with the client):[/INDENT]
[INDENT=1]This is to certify that this map or plat and the survey on which it is based were made in accordance with the 2016 Minimum Standard Detail Requirements for ALTA/NSPS Land Title Surveys, jointly established and adopted by ALTA and NSPS, and includes Items ___________ of Table A thereof. The fieldwork was completed on ___________ [date].[/INDENT]
[INDENT=1] [/INDENT]
[INDENT=1] Date of Plat or Map: ___________ (SurveyorÛªs signature, printed name and seal with Registration/License Number[/INDENT]
[INDENT=1] [/INDENT]
I suspect some cub lawyer is trying to indemnify present owners (odd how ownership changes occur soon after the ALTA is delivered:bye:) who, because the surveyor's ALTA certification specifically does not include successors and assigns, are not protected by the liability assumed by the Surveyor's Certification on the face of the ALTA.
Methinks the attorney is barking up the wrong tree:
[INDENT=1]In nearly all instances, the Lender should get the Survey Exception removed from its title policy. To remove the Survey Exception, a Lender may either (1) obtain a new survey, or (2) use an existing survey with an affidavit from the property owner stating that there have been no material changes to the property since the date of the survey.[/INDENT]
[INDENT=1] [/INDENT]
He should be pressuring the seller (owners) to provide an affidavit, not the Surveyor, and if there really have been no material changes since the ALTA survey the seller should have no qualms. If the ALTA was a jackleg drive by the the seller could go after the surveyor, the new owner cannot.
I'd blow off any requests to "certify" that my (possibly decades old) ALTA indemnifies present owners, even with wording that my survey was valid in year xxxx, not today. An ALTA is a snapshot in time between private parties (um, the Title Insurance agency, the owner and the lenders), not something that is filed or recorded at the Courthouse where boundaries are defined and the public can be injured. They want an ALTA update, bill them and resurvey the site. I've gotten emails from lawyers asking for some crazy sh*t, but nope, I won't buy into it; my responsibilities as a Land Surveyor are clearly defined. Stick to the rules, stupid attorneys!
[INDENT=1] [/INDENT]
Tommy Young, post: 364437, member: 703 wrote: "I hereby certify that the ALTA/ACSM that was completed in 2013 was reliable regarding the 2011 ALTA/ACSM Minimum Standard Detail Requirements and the standards of the state of Texas, on the date the survey was signed."
Never heard of a reliance letter. It seems redundant, given that the above was attested to by the Surveyor's Certification on the map (2016 rev.):
[INDENT=1]To (name of insured, if known), (name of lender, if known), (name of insurer, if known), (names of others as negotiated with the client):[/INDENT]
[INDENT=1]This is to certify that this map or plat and the survey on which it is based were made in accordance with the 2016 Minimum Standard Detail Requirements for ALTA/NSPS Land Title Surveys, jointly established and adopted by ALTA and NSPS, and includes Items ___________ of Table A thereof. The fieldwork was completed on ___________ [date].[/INDENT]
[INDENT=1] [/INDENT]
[INDENT=1] Date of Plat or Map: ___________ (SurveyorÛªs signature, printed name and seal with Registration/License Number[/INDENT]
[INDENT=1] [/INDENT]
I suspect some cub lawyer is trying to indemnify present owners (odd how ownership changes occur soon after the ALTA is delivered ) who, because the surveyor's ALTA certification specifically does not include successors and assigns, are not protected by the liability assumed by the Surveyor's Certification on the face of the ALTA.
Methinks the attorney is barking up the wrong tree:
[INDENT=1]In nearly all instances, the Lender should get the Survey Exception removed from its title policy. To remove the Survey Exception, a Lender may either (1) obtain a new survey, or (2) use an existing survey with an affidavit from the property owner stating that there have been no material changes to the property since the date of the survey.[/INDENT]
He should be pressuring the seller (owners) to provide an affidavit, not you, and if there really have been no material changes since the ALTA survey the seller should have no qualms. If the ALTA was a jackleg drive by the the seller (or Title Company) could go after you when sued, the new owner cannot. That's the nature of ALTA surveys.
I'd blow off any requests to "certify" that my (possibly decades old) ALTA indemnifies present owners, even with wording that my survey was valid in year xxxx, not today. An ALTA is a snapshot in time between the Surveyor and private parties (um, the Title Insurance agency, the owner and the lenders), not something that is filed or recorded at the Courthouse where boundaries are defined and the public can be injured. They want an ALTA update, bill them and resurvey the site. I've gotten emails from lawyers asking for some crazy sh*t, but nope, I won't buy into it; my responsibilities as a Land Surveyor are clearly defined. Stick to the rules, incompetent attorneys!
Jimmy Cleveland, post: 364427, member: 91 wrote: I have never heard of one. I would back away slowly. sounds like they are still wanting to get you on the hook, without the updated survey.
I am a glass half empty kind of guy on stuff like this.
I would back away quickly!
Ask them for an example of this "reliance letter." You might also ask Gary Kent what his take is on this... As far as I am aware there is nothing that can replace the ALTA certification.
I was asked to provide a "Reliance letter" several months ago on a previous survey. I said no, but I could update the survey for a fee, and I did.
Mrs. Small didn't raise any kids dippy enough to provide a letter like that, to an attorney no less.
Mike Marks, post: 364468, member: 1108 wrote:
Methinks the attorney is barking up the wrong tree:
[INDENT]In nearly all instances, the Lender should get the Survey Exception removed from its title policy. To remove the Survey Exception, a Lender may either (1) obtain a new survey, or (2) use an existing survey with an affidavit from the property owner stating that there have been no material changes to the property since the date of the survey.
[/INDENT]
He should be pressuring the seller (owners) to provide an affidavit, not the Surveyor, and if there really have been no material changes since the ALTA survey the seller should have no qualms. If the ALTA was a jackleg drive by the the seller could go after the surveyor, the new owner cannot.
If I were buying a property, I'd be extremely wary of an affidavit from the present owner stating there were no material changes to the property. True, the owner may not have made any material improvements to the premises or granted any easements, but such an affidavit does nothing whatsoever to protect the buyer from actions by third parties which may affect the title to the property. Neighbor A build a shed across the line in wooded back portion of the property. However, just eyeballing it, it's impossible to tell where the line is or that tree is a potential encroachment. Neighbor B had the fly-by-night surveyor from the next town over "survey" his property and file a plat showing he "owns" a 10' strip of the property in question. Neighbor C build their dream house and the utility company ran their service lines under the corner of the premises without having an easement. In each of these cases, the current property owner is blissfully unaware of actions by third parties which would be disclosed by a survey of the premises, and will sign an affadavit accepting liability for material changes to the premises. If I'm the buyer, I'm not buying it.
Not just no, but hellllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll no.
kkw_archer, post: 364425, member: 5453 wrote:
My knee jerk response is no, and the fee will be original ballpark figure + 25%. However, before I replied I wanted to see if anyone else had ever issued a reliance letter (their wording, not mine), and if so how was it worded?
Liking this option. If questioned, I would tell them the extra 25% is for preparing the letter, on top of the re-survey!
I'd have to say that the letter would be worthless. You can't certify it with a current date unless you do a new survey, and certifying to the correctness of the previous survey is pointless. The stamp you placed on the old survey did that.
I told them that we would not issue a letter, but would be happy to provide an updated ALTA survey that meets the new 2016 Minimum Standard Detail Requirements for a price to be agreed upon once we receive a copy of the new title commitment.
Some attorneys will try almost anything to get free insurance from other people on behalf of their clients.
As a rule of thumb, an attorney's loyalties lie in this order:
1. Himself.
2. His law firm.
3. His client.
4. His consultants.
5. Everyone else.
When dealing with an attorney, figure out where you are on that list and act accordingly.
Jim Frame, post: 364553, member: 10 wrote: Some attorneys will try almost anything to get free insurance from other people on behalf of their clients.
ABA CANONS OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS
DDSM
My standard response is:
There is no such thing as re-certifying or updating an ALTA according to the ACSM/NSPS regulations.
What we can do is provide a new ALTA.
If the Title Insurance or Attorneys are concerned enough to ask for a new certification with a more recent Date, then they are also concerned that there might be a change to the property that may affect the insurability of the property.
And they are also asking for the surveyor to take on that liability.........