I did an ALTA last year to the old standards, it was about 150 acre lease area. I just received an updated commitment dated March 2, 2016, and was asked to update the survey. There are a few changes in the exceptions, that will have to addressed on the plat. I was contracted under the 2011 standards and signed to those requirements. How should I handle this? Would a new survey be in order or an update to the old survey. Who else has had a commitment get updated since the new standards became effective? What say you?
New standards = new contract
Jim, it is the same policy number as before. Would that change anything?
Charge them 90% of what you charged last time, and use the new ALTA standards. You have to go back anyways to check on the property corners, and the tract itself, the new standards are not that different then the old ones, and they did get rid of a few as well, like was it an old dump site.
Adam, post: 361320, member: 8900 wrote: Jim, it is the same policy number as before. Would that change anything?
Not for me...
Scott Ellis, post: 361323, member: 7154 wrote: Charge them 90% of what you charged last time, and use the new ALTA standards. You have to go back anyways to check on the property corners, and the tract itself, the new standards are not that different then the old ones, and they did get rid of a few as well, like was it an old dump site.
Thanks Scott, I would love to charge that much to update it. I am pretty sure the client is gonna think I'm trying to bend them over the barrel.
The ALTA minimum standards are, for all intents and purposes, standardized contract language that is made part of your contract when you reference them in your proposal/contract. If you make a contract for an ALTA/NSPS survey on or after the effective date of the current standards, then the current standards are made a part of your contract.
I'm not sure I would do it, but the only way I could see performing the update in your situation under the previous standards, was if there was a mechanism to perform this work under the existing contract signed contract referencing the previous standards. When the client or I have known that settlement might be a ways off, I've written proposals in the past that had a fee for the survey and a fee for an update within a certain time frame. I might use the previous standards in that situation...depends on the situation.
FWIW - I'm already seeing lender survey requirements that call for the new standards. Remember the golden rule: the people with lending the gold make the rules.
Adam, post: 361326, member: 8900 wrote: Thanks Scott, I would love to charge that much to update it. I am pretty sure the client is gonna think I'm trying to bend them over the barrel.
Charge them for the value, not the time it will take to update, maybe 80% then. Its a new survey with new liability.
James Fleming, post: 361330, member: 136 wrote: The ALTA minimum standards are, for all intents and purposes, standardized contract language that is made part of your contract when you reference them in your proposal/contract. If you make a contract for an ALTA/NSPS survey on or after the effective date of the current standards, then the current standards are made a part of your contract.
I'm not sure I would do it, but the only way I could see performing the update in your situation under the previous standards, was if there was a mechanism to perform this work under the existing contract signed contract referencing the previous standards. When the client or I have known that settlement might be a ways off, I've written proposals in the past that had a fee for the survey and a fee for an update within a certain time frame. I might use the previous standards in that situation...depends on the situation.
FWIW - I'm already seeing lender survey requirements that call for the new standards. Remember the golden rule: the people
withlending the gold make the rules.
James there was no language in the existing contract about updating but the term on the contract was for a year, I didn't think about this coming up last summer during negotiations.
Adam, post: 361332, member: 8900 wrote: James there was no language in the existing contract about updating but the term on the contract was for a year, I didn't think about this coming up last summer during negotiations.
Jim in AZ: New standards = new contract
Jim in MD: New contract = new standards
😀
Adam, post: 361332, member: 8900 wrote: James there was no language in the existing contract about updating but the term on the contract was for a year, I didn't think about this coming up last summer during negotiations.
"...the term on the contract was for a year"
I don't understand what you mean that the contract was for a year but didn't include updating. Do you mean to say that you had a year to complete the work? (I think that once the work is complete and you have been paid the contract is terminated.) I can easily see the other party's attorney claiming that you should have known that the new Standards were coming - it hasn't exactly been a secret. The issue of whether or not you have to use the new Standards is another matter. Technically speaking the old ones became obsolete when the new ones became effective. I suppose if all parties agreed to the old ones they could be used.
Jim in AZ, post: 361350, member: 249 wrote: "...the term on the contract was for a year"
I don't understand what you mean that the contract was for a year but didn't include updating. Do you mean to say that you had a year to complete the work? (I think that once the work is complete and you have been paid the contract is terminated.) I can easily see the other party's attorney claiming that you should have known that the new Standards were coming - it hasn't exactly been a secret. The issue of whether or not you have to use the new Standards is another matter. Technically speaking the old ones became obsolete when the new ones became effective. I suppose if all parties agreed to the old ones they could be used.
No I didn't have a year to complete the work but in the contract there was a term of one year, It was the clients contract. I am going to read it again maybe you are right about the contract being terminated when the works done and payment is recieved. I did know the standards were changing but It didn't register at the time.
We don't "bend them over the barrel", we provide what they need. The real estate firm charges the same fee every time they sell the same property and the title insurance policy is the same amount. Why should the survey fee be a tiny fraction?
Holy Cow, post: 361396, member: 50 wrote: We don't "bend them over the barrel", we provide what they need. The real estate firm charges the same fee every time they sell the same property and the title insurance policy is the same amount. Why should the survey fee be a tiny fraction?
AMEN COW - You are incurring the same amount of liability, why would your fee be much lower (if at all) the second time around. If we would all charge our clients "what it is worth" instead of "what does it cost to produce" we would be far better off!
Thanks for the encouragement Ya'll, that's what I need to here! Beers on me:beer::beer::beer::beer:
The way I see it, if in the certificate the "last date of field work" is going to change, and/or the signature line date is going to change. Then it is an updated ALTA, and needs to meet the new 2016 standards.
And though the standards did not change much, they did change, and it will take time to make sure that the old survey meets the new standards. That is how I explain it to clients all the time, and every time they understand.
Here's some info from a recent edition of NSPS News and Views - I think the response is from Gary Kent.
NSPS
Question:
A question has been brought to my attention as to prior ALTA Standards. If a client requests that we use a prior set of ALTA Standards for their survey, as if they asked us to use the 2005 Standards (today), is there anything that keeps us from using those standards? When the 2016 Standards come into effect this month, will the answer be the same?
Response:
Any contract signed after 2/23/11 must be to the 2011 Standards. Any contract signed after 2/23/16 must be to the 2016 standards. You can do a survey using the old standards, but it cannot be identified or certified as an ALTA/ACSM (or ALTA/NSPS starting 2/23/16) Land Title Survey.
Jim in AZ, post: 361586, member: 249 wrote: Here's some info from a recent edition of NSPS News and Views - I think the response is from Gary Kent.
NSPS
Question:
A question has been brought to my attention as to prior ALTA Standards. If a client requests that we use a prior set of ALTA Standards for their survey, as if they asked us to use the 2005 Standards (today), is there anything that keeps us from using those standards? When the 2016 Standards come into effect this month, will the answer be the same?
Response:
Any contract signed after 2/23/11 must be to the 2011 Standards. Any contract signed after 2/23/16 must be to the 2016 standards. You can do a survey using the old standards, but it cannot be identified or certified as an ALTA/ACSM (or ALTA/NSPS starting 2/23/16) Land Title Survey.
Thanks Jim, I emailed Gary and got the same response yesterday.
