Can someone shed some light on certifying an ALTA survey to a law firm? I am used to certifying to the buyer, lender, and title company. I just received a request to certify to buyer, lender, title company, and some law firm. Thank you in advance for your thoughts!
Who is asking?
I only certify to what my paying client requests in the original survey order.
Everything after that is negotiable.
😉
> Can someone shed some light on certifying an ALTA survey to a law firm? I am used to certifying to the buyer, lender, and title company. I just received a request to certify to buyer, lender, title company, and some law firm. Thank you in advance for your thoughts!
The only reason to certify to a law firm is they want you to open the door to the law firm being able to sue you.
My advice, don't do it. When they ask (and trust me they will) remind them that the buyer, lender and title company are fine. Other parties are to be negotiated. You will have to discuss the additional charge with the client. When you speak to them let them know that you will need an additional fee for the additional liability. Once they get the point that putting the attorney's name on the plat will cost an additional $10 to %15 thousand dollars, the client will tell you it isn't necessary to certify to the lawyer.
Larry P
I'm not really sure it matters one way or another. If something goes South and the law firm can show that they had reasonably relied on your work and your mistake cost them they will find a way to come after you whether you listed them or not.
I had another thought or two last night after I shut down the computer. If the law firm members are acting as the trustees in a Deed of Trust they have a valid reason to be included. Or if they are some how needing to participate in the deed (existing trustees, estate executor, etc.) those could be additional valid reasons.
This should make them happy...
Just use this certification language on all of your future ALTA surveys and you won't get those kind of calls anymore:
To anybody and/or everybody in the whole wide world:
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...
This should make them happy...
Funny, it reminds me of a post from several years ago, I think it was Deral Paulk, that the lawyers wanted to certify or a question in court about how far back he researched title, or wanted him to research further and he'd already researched about 100 years back, so he went all the way back and then quoted the book of Genesis or said God created Heaven and Earth. (Don't sound as funny from me not remembering it right)
This should make them happy...
Sort of reminds me of a letter I wrote after I had done a (lack of) flood determination and the lawyer wanted a letter saying it would never flood. I wrote a response along the line of the fact that flood studies were based on repeatability of events and since God had let it rain 40 days and nights already he might do it again.
> I'm not really sure it matters one way or another. If something goes South and the law firm can show that they had reasonably relied on your work and your mistake cost them they will find a way to come after you whether you listed them or not.
Dave,
This topic has been discussed many times.
Here is one previous thread with the logic detailed.
[msg=210239]Alta Certifications.[/msg]
There is a reason the attorneys want their name specifically on the plat. If it was a slam dunk and they are included whether referenced or not, they wouldn't ask you to add their name. The fact they are asking tells me the attorney isn't sure this is 100% certain.
Larry P