Boundary/Title/Posession Lines

I never had a problem with assigns. It seems to me if I am wrong I am libel no matter who the certification is to. Others will disagree.

I do have two problems the first is the encroachment clause, encroachments are a legal issue. Even if something is across a boundary line, if there by permission it may not be an encroachment. I always show possible encroachment and mention these are the above ground visible ones at that.

Second I agree with you about title and possession lines being the same. I would never agree to sign that statement.

Another problem I see is with the encroachments portion, in that it should say "visible encroachments". Unless you have X-Ray vision and can see subsurface utilities and the like, then it should be modified.

I don't like the title/possession portion either. I wouldn't sign it. What is the definition of "actual possession" being used here? If say, there was a small, decorative split rail fence running near the boundary line, and you asked the property owner and adjoiner whose fence it was, and neither knew, what would you do?

> At the end of the new HUD Surveyors report, it ask that you certify that Title/Possession and Lines are the same . I will not sign this .
> Does anyone else see an issue . Plus the successors and assigns issue.
>
>

Title issues are a question of law and I'm not an attorney.

The opening states ...........except as shown on the Survey;

I don't do these kind of surveys. My reading of it would be that you need to show anything on the surveys where the title/possession lines don't line up and if not shown then you certify that they all do.

So the next question is what happens when you show things don't line up. In my county the title lines are so screwed up that they almost never line up (when math applied) to the established boundary lines.

So does HUD kick the loan or do they find a surveyor that shows all lines are in agreement? You won't get the call next time, fine with me, don't want that call!

I have a big problem with the phrase "no encroachments". I can't see underground.

I would change the wording to something like, "There are no visible above ground encroachments".

>"except as shown on the survey"

If you have done the survey properly I see no problem with the certification. If those lines are not the same all you have to do is show the discrepancies.

:good:

This is a survey we have worked on for years and did 3 ALTA surveys on . Now they trying to get a HUD construction loan and I am dealing with 4 sets of lawyers with a check list . Been the craziest thing I have had to go through in a while.

I did have a little fun though with a young check list Attorney as she sent me a comment to mark all streets are public . I say, find the document that shows this is the fact , which I know she will not find . She called back in a couple days and said she could not find it . Oh really . She sounded a bit exhusted . I did not have any problem saying there public as the City claims them to be such for the last 100 years .

i would tell the attorneys that certifying title is their job in NC. NC board frowns on surveyors expressing opinions as to title matters....

Well you thought I shot the Pope . 2 attorneys giving me there legal opines of the certification . How I am going to kill a 20 million dollar deal . etc....
HUD will not budge .

Mexican standoff

lol, i feel your pain, been there...change the cert to read "Attorneys Cert" and send back for them to sign...thats always fun..

Glenn, I like to joke alot,

so I always tell my client that my name is not Clark Kent.

> I have a big problem with the phrase "no encroachments". I can't see underground.
>
> I would change the wording to something like, "There are no visible above ground encroachments".

I said the same thing above. Great minds think alike.

Glenn, I like to joke alot,

> so I always tell my client that my name is not Clark Kent.

Jack, that's always a good preemptive strike.

You contracted to do a HUD survey. These certifications are a standard part of doing a HUD survey. You have to sign it or give them their money back. And maybe pay damages for the delay in getting another survey done.

Show the encroachments you found. Add a note to the map saying that underground facilities may exist. That's what "to the best of my knowledge and belief" and "except as shown" means.

Then don't contract to do any more HUD surveys.

We are in the same camp on this one. When you read the certification as a whole it's actually pretty tame. I cannot fathom contracting to do a survey without getting comfortable with the specs first. If the 'legaleze' is overwhelming have the Attorney look it over. Not a big deal...

Well, I'm not well versed in NC law. I know in California, the Professional Land Surveyors Act makes a specific definition of what "certify" means in terms of survey drawings. It basically states that when a surveyor uses the term "certify" they are expressing professional opinion, but does not express a warranty or guarantee. If there is a similar code in NC, then perhaps there won't be an issue. Or perhaps you can re-word the statement to add the suggestions made so far.