I agree. I didn't quit putting certifications on the plat because I was trying to limit liability. I quit putting certifications on because they are, in general, superfluous, in my opinion. If I make a mistake on a survey, I will be liable for that mistake regardless of the wording in the certificate. My seal and signature appearing on a plat make me liable for, at the very least, performing that survey to the minimum technical standards for land surveying in the State of Texas, regardless of wording. If I sign and seal a survey, whether it was made on the ground or not (a common phrase in certifications) or under my direct supervision or not (another common phrase), I am still liable for the survey. So what are we saying? Why are we saying it?
Shawn Billings, post: 330214, member: 6521 wrote: I agree. I didn't quit putting certifications on the plat because I was trying to limit liability. I quit putting certifications on because they are, in general, superfluous, in my opinion. If I make a mistake on a survey, I will be liable for that mistake regardless of the wording in the certificate. My seal and signature appearing on a plat make me liable for, at the very least, performing that survey to the minimum technical standards for land surveying in the State of Texas, regardless of wording. If I sign and seal a survey, whether it was made on the ground or not (a common phrase in certifications) or under my direct supervision or not (another common phrase), I am still liable for the survey. So what are we saying? Why are we saying it?
Why did you put certifications on the survey to begin with? I agree, if no one is asking for them, then no reason for them. Typically we have a written contract that states what the client will get; professional opinion of boundaries shown on map, up to xxx map copies, map to show xxx, corner monuments found and flagged or set. Then title company might want map "certified" to them. So, could just put the words "certified to xxx title company". But the industry is using so many other products that look like a survey, they want some assurance it actually is one when they want one. The only distinction they make is when there are actual field measurements versus not. The plot plans produced around here have a stamp that reads "not an instrument survey". But yeah, if I know I'm preparing the survey for a pending sale, then I'm going to be liable to some title company, but I could argue that I didn't know which one and therefore am not liable to any (not a known party). That's why the title company wants certified to them specifically. Just completed one where the attorney required "to a title company if title insurance is required". I told him it wouldn't work, and it didn't. Had to revise maps, and I charged for it.
If a municipality has standard promises you must place on the map, then you have to decide if you are qualified to make the promise, and you have to have a client willing to pay what it costs. But if you agree to perform a subdivision and don't know the promises required, then you are stuck making them unless your client is really forgiving and is willing to pay the extra and be a good guy/gal. The service must be sufficient for the clients purpose, within reason, or you are breaching the contract even if things are not detailed. Additions by the client on the other hand are negotiations for further contractual bargains. If they fail to pay for the extras they are in breach and you aren't liable for the extras.
An ALTA is just a contract that someone else has negotiated the basics and then the parties have some items to negotiate further. If those basic parts are changed by negotiations, then it's no longer an ALTA contract and calling it one would be misleading at best, fraud at worst, definitely not something one should be talked into. But that doesn't mean that having first agreed to an ALTA contract you can't do away with that and renegotiate something different; just don't call it an ALTA and make sure you charge enough extra to cover the new contract.
Why did you put certifications on the survey to begin with?
Because everyone else was doing it. In Texas, everyone has some certification that they use (at least as far as I know). But per my personal experience, no one really expects one (except for when they do - i.e. ALTA/ACSM).
Shawn Billings, post: 330231, member: 6521 wrote: Why did you put certifications on the survey to begin with?
Because everyone else was doing it. In Texas, everyone has some certification that they use (at least as far as I know). But per my personal experience, no one really expects one (except for when they do - i.e. ALTA/ACSM).
In that case I can only guess that it might stem from a time when surveyors did not have a written contract beforehand. In that case one could argue the certification clarifies what the terms of the verbal contract. If the client accepts it, then after awhile it becomes binding even if the terms were not actually negotiated beforehand. So, a brief and seemingly meaningless certification could clarify that there were no contractual promises to perform work above and beyond the minimal requirements necessary to avoid professional negligence. Otherwise, a client could come back later and claim you verbally promised to do more; such as come back later to stake out a house, or subdivide an acre, or set pins that are not normally included in the fee (some areas are like that) for them under the initial scope of work and fee. But if you have a written contract beforehand, then no need for that kind of thing.
The states I'm familiar with and work in have standard certifications required per their rules and regs.
