I recently received a title report from our local land title company and they had included a new reservation that seems to be passing the buck to surveyors.
PROPERTY SUBJECT TO:
Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortages in area, encroachments, or other facts which a correct survey would disclose and which are not shown by the public records.
I asked the owner to please clarify what the statement means and the response was that any discrepancy from one plat to another is a survey issue and not a title issue. This extends to areas, or even location of boundary lines and the resulting repercussions including ?ÿ- buildings over the line.
I asked him how a correct survey was decided and he said ?? that wasn??t his problem?.
This is the first time I have seen this and I was wondering if it is standard down south?
Thanks for the feedback
SOP for as long as I can remember.
The purpose of the ALTA Survey is to remove that exception... and resulting the ALTA being cited in the policy.
Its a Title Insurance Policy,?ÿ not Location.
Looks like the standard ALTA policy survey exception...if it didn't exist there would be no reason for anyone to ever get a survey in conjunction Title Insurance.?ÿ
Standard language.?ÿ A person duly licensed by the state to perform surveys determines what a complete, accurate, correct survey is under the laws of that state.?ÿ?ÿ
SOP. The title company does not want to share any of your liability and will be more than happy for you to share some of theirs.
Title insurance is the client buying E&O insurance for the title company, insurance that almost never pays off cause of all the exceptions.
This is the standard statement and the reason we do ALTA/NSPS Land Title Surveys.?ÿ This is also the reason in a perfect world the cost would be tied to the value of the property.?ÿ Basically, the survey allows the title company to remove the exception and use our E&O as the insurance for boundary / easement discrepancies that rear their ugly heads.
Like all have said, this is standard. They'll typically revise the Title commitment after the ALTA, to exclude coverage for any encroachments specifically shown on the survey. Yes, it's passing liability, that's why ALTA's should be EXPENSIVE regardless of how much work is actually involved.?ÿ
I know of cases where large boundary trouble came up and the title company adduced this language to show that it wasn't covered under their policy and refused to pay up or even contribute toward a solution.
It's title insurance, not boundary insurance.?ÿ They only back up the claim to owning a parcel, against claims by others that might say it was not properly transferred somewhere in the chain of title, and not its extent.
hey only back up the claim to owning a parcel, against claims by others that might say it was not properly transferred somewhere in the chain of title, and not its extent.
As Don Wilson once wrote explaining why surveyors shouldn't rely on title research and assume it's the same as the research needed for a boundary retracement:
Title=what
Survey=where
PROPERTY SUBJECT TO:
Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortages in area, encroachments, or other facts which a correct survey would disclose and which are not shown by the public records.
?ÿ
This exception is what gets us work in my area. It makes many buyers nervous, but it is up to the buyer, the Title Company doesn't push for the survey unless the deed description has issues.
Lender requirements.
few "buyers" notice, or care, or understand.?ÿ all they have to loose is a down-payment...
commercial lenders are more sophisticated. they know they could end up owning a big turkey that is hard to convert back to $$$.
They want some protection, so they want some assurance that they can be made whole if it hits the fan. It is the nature of "insurance".
I know of cases where large boundary trouble came up and the title company adduced this language to show that it wasn't covered under their policy and refused to pay up or even contribute toward a solution.
A property was owned by a married couple the house on the east side of a large lot, a large lawn to the west. The couple divorced and the court wrote a deed to transfer the large lawn to the husband and a deed for the remainder, the wife kept the house.
Husband sells?ÿhis lot and a house is built on it, years later I'm asked to survey the original house: because the court didn't understand how to write the deeds the division line runs through the original house's living room and kitchen, no survey was done by the divorce court, just a lawyer written legal, probably the judge did it.
I tell the client to go to his title insurance provider,,,,,,,,,nope, they?ÿclaim no liability, survey exception.
Just about a block away within a month of the divorce mess coming to light a women showed up at the office. She is trying to sell her house, it has a newer?ÿcity water line running across the SE portion of her lot. There was an easement acquired for it, but it was for the neighbors lot, not hers, so now she has a title issue and can't sell. I tell her to go to her title insurance provider,,,,,,,nope, they claim no liability, survey exception.
As far as I know they pay off when they make a mistake filing deeds, names, missing an access easement, maybe not getting the chain of title correct,,,,,that's it.
It's not really insurance in the way insurance is usually considered.
?ÿ
?ÿ