A couple of years ago I did an ALTA survey on a big box retailer.?ÿ Last year I provided an update on the survey.?ÿ Now they've come back with a request for something different.?ÿ They say they don't need an updated survey, but instead would like me to sign what they call a reliance letter.
Here is what they sent me:
RE:?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ [insert project name]
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter will serve to revise the parties benefited by my ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey entitled ??[name of survey]? in the City of [city], [state], last signed and revised [date], as Job No. [job number]. No other revisions or changes have been made since the field date referenced on the survey.
This survey is hereby revised to read as follows:
This survey is also made for the benefit of:
[new party ]
[new party ]
__________________________________________
Professional Land Surveyor No.__________?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ Date ____________
What do you think about this??ÿ I'm a little leery of signing this thing.
Sign it only after doing all the things you would do for an update - assuming nothing has changed on the ground or in the record.?ÿ
Tommy,
Right now you owe them nothing from your previous work, once you sign the reliance letter you are extending your liability to new parties and should be compensated for it.?ÿ Like someone said on here the other day, they asked someone what they did for a living and then they asked if they did that for free.
Ed
?ÿ
It sounds like they want a new ALTA without a new ALTA.?ÿ I haven't completed many ALTAs lately but I don't believe that statement is listed or identified in the current ALTA standards.?ÿ ?ÿIf you are going to sign it I would be sure to complete all work necessary in the field and office first, as Norman stated.?ÿ?ÿ
Tell them that your fee is the same for Reliance Letters as it is for an Update.
"No other revisions or changes have been made since the field date referenced on the survey. This survey is hereby revised to read as follows:"
The only way you can say there are no other changes since the last field date is to get a new title package, review it and return to the field and resurvey it. Price accordingly and send them a quote.
Paul in PA
You are incurring the same amount of liability this time as you did before. Your fee for a new survey (NOT a "Reliance Letter") should be at least what it was for the first one. That feeling of unease you have is there for a reason...
Your last survey still stands as your professional opinion to everything you know about property.
In Texas, and I would believe everywhere in some form, there is an existing statement signed by the owners of the property that basically states that they have not built or changed anything on the property since the last survey for Title Insurance purposes.
This statement has a price tag on it at a $$$ value according to the worth of the property.
I have many people contact me about similar letters and copy of old drawings needing signed and stamped and only send them to the original client when they call.
The Title Company will take the letter and a signed and certified drawing and then charge the owners a hefty fee, usually 50% or more of my fee to update their survey.
Clients always take the cheapest route when someone offers one to them.
No surveyor can truthfully say there have been no changes on a property since their last time there, even when you last onsite visit was last week.
?ÿ
"This letter will serve to revise the parties benefited by my ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey entitled ??[name of survey]? in the City of [city], [state], last signed and revised [date], as Job No. [job number]. No other revisions or changes have been made since the field date referenced on the survey."
?ÿ
"revise the parties benefited" is the phrase that would scare me. Basically it says "I hereby make myself liable" to the following additional players to whom I'm not currently liable.
"revise the parties benefited" is the phrase that would scare me. Basically it says "I hereby make myself liable" to the following additional players to whom I'm not currently liable.
I wonder what your professional liability insurance company would say if you were to file a claim based on this letter? You might want to ask them in advance if they would cover a claim based on this letter.
A couple of years ago I did an ALTA survey on a big box retailer.?ÿ Last year I provided an update on the survey.?ÿ Now they've come back with a request for something different.?ÿ They say they don't need an updated survey, but instead would like me to sign what they call a reliance letter.
Here is what they sent me:
RE:?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ [insert project name]
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter will serve to revise the parties benefited by my ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey entitled ??[name of survey]? in the City of [city], [state], last signed and revised [date], as Job No. [job number]. No other revisions or changes have been made since the field date referenced on the survey.
This survey is hereby revised to read as follows:
This survey is also made for the benefit of:
[new party ]
[new party ]
__________________________________________
Professional Land Surveyor No.__________?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ Date ____________
What do you think about this??ÿ I'm a little leery of signing this thing.
& you would need a commitment made to you by the title attorney stating the same.
If it's for the same transaction and they just changed financing or something, then I think it's fair to do.?ÿ However, I would revise their wording.?ÿ
Something like (and maybe your insurance carrier attorneys could help with the language):?ÿ It is agreed by myself and xyz, inc. that certification to them on said map is hereby withdrawn and revoked and authorized signatures of both parties are below.?ÿ It is also agreed that I will certify to abc, inc. in place of xyz, inc. as compensation for this bargain (release of liability from original parties).?ÿ Said exchange of parties certified to is not further work on the project (does not restart the liability clock) and only replaces one party for another at the time of original certification and for purposes originally certified to.
I would charge maybe $600 or so if quick and easy, but if they want to go back and forth it might be more.?ÿ Doing this quick so sure there's problems with my example language.?ÿ But if you're replacing you have to get the original parties out, and avoid extending liability without compensation.?ÿ And again, if not the transaction you prepared the survey for, or if many months have passed, then I would say update needed.
I will be far more blunt and succinct as something like that would just pi$$ me off.
No way in hell would I sign that without the price for a completely new survey. No discount will be provided based on having done the previous survey either. That attorney is no friend and is not to be trusted.?ÿ Is he doing free work? How are you gonna know if nothing has changed unless you are provided a new title commitment.?ÿ
Turn the tables on him and try this, Draft up a letter asking the lawyer as a representative of his firm, the law firm itself and the lawyer as an individual as well as the client to indemnify you against any claim for as long as you live, as well as your heirs and assigns.
When I get a call for an 'update' ALTA, I explain that no such animal exists. If you want me to certify a new map I'm going to repeat every step of the process to some degree. Granted the measurement portion will be shortcut, but I'm not going to simply recertify my prior mistakes and charge a few hundred bucks. You're going to get real work and pay the value of the product. I'm not a drywall hanger charging wages plus gas.
As for the certification, RUN. The ALTA standards are clear. You cannot add certifications to the map and still call it an ALTA. Signing a map that departs from the standards and (falsely) certifying that it meets those standards is begging for trouble. Making that certification on a separate sheet of paper won't help.
I think I'd set a value on the liability extension and offer to sign the reliance letter for a fee of that amount.?ÿ I don't think it needs to be a full update, you're just extending your liability to additional parties.?ÿ $1k has a nice ring to it.
