Title Officer Rewriting a Legal Description

"Basically, we clean up the legal description and remove information that is unnecessary, insignificant, or redundant information."

He is unclear on the term "redundant". Otherwise he would not have used the word "information" twice.

I would think there is a law (California, right?) that would prevent him from creating any description. If there is no law on that, then the matter can not be resolved.

The only example I can think of from my experience is one title office that routinely adds the words, "less roads and highways", to every rural description. Their intent is to say they will not insure any land so used, but what they are actually doing is something else when the deed uses that description.

"When I have found offices that take on the task to edit or rewrite my description, I notify them and thank them for taking on the liability of my survey and releasing me from that liabilty, which in my opinion they have by placing their version in the recorded document in place of mine."

:gammon:

A Harris

hey! i like that!

A Harris

> hey! i like that!

Funny!
unfortunately that does not protect the public from a butchered legal in the chain of title.

I consider this a serious problem... but I have not seen it happen in many years.

He probably should have said either "courses" or "bearings and distances". I would think a "course" would include distances. (if he says "well you know what I meant", you can say "yes, but only because of your redundancy")....:-P

bearings and distances are the more insignificant information. The perfect description should be written such that if you stripped out all or most of the b & d calls, it still defines the property. Areas would be relatively insignificant as well. Of course redundancies can help find any possible errors in the description, and are of a great importance. Many times we find a busted distance that can be found because the correct distance might prove the called area. Or we find that they meant to the East line of xxx instead of the west, because the distance helps prove the closure and the correct line of xxx.

If this guy accidentally says NE instead of NW, he will have a legal description that does not work and could be rendered null and void. If there is enough information to help the follower of the deed figure out the intent of the author, then a busted value is "discoverable".

In Ohio I would refer the "Title Officer" to the Ohio Engineers and Surveyors Board opinion 2009-05-27, "Preparation of Legal Descriptions" and copy the Ohio Board on the letter or email. The opinion letter includes the following:

>Based on ORC 4733.01, it is the Board’s opinion that only a registered professional surveyor can correctly determine if the description for a parcel of land accurately describes that parcel of land, its location on the earth’s surface, and its relationship to adjoining lands. Accordingly, the preparation of a metes and bounds legal description is clearly the practice of surveying.

The opinion does make exception for some easement descriptions. However, any description prepared or usable for fee transfer is defined as the practice of surveying and requires a licensed professional surveyor.

Well on the plus side of third party interference to a professionals work and product, you may get a call in a couple years to fix the mess they created.

I thought CA was pretty strict on who can, and who cannot, prepare property descriptions. Namely a PLS, and under municipal scrutiny.

Thus bringing up the perpetual question - is it a property description or a legal description? Ponder that. I always call them property descriptions, let the legalese folks do what they want.

However, over the years I've had lots of farmers, assessors, even stupid realtors, attempt to provide an adequate description - 90% of the time they fell short and I had the luxury of fixing it. As the saying goes - pay now or pay later.

Besides, isn't all that pre-amble stuff required. It is here, as well as MI. Without it they shouldn't be allowed to record it, not that the recorder should be "checking" our stuff, just that yahoo know it alls should not be changing it.

I like it too.

Our task is to protect the interests of the public in the work we perform.

Is our task to actively seek out and stop individuals who are not charged with the protection of the public? If it were then we would have a monumental task. Should we start with attorneys or politicians?

Or tear out my monuments; do you think I then am liable for your fence or building placement after you do that?

I would absolutely call the board and get their guidance on this. that is the only place where you will get a definitive answer.

IDIOTS!!!!!

There's an exception in the law that lets them write descriptions**, but that law was written when title officers had actual training in the construction and interpretation of descriptions. These days, they are little more than insurance sales people and that exception should be removed.

I've fought this battle before and lost, but in your position, perhaps you can find some avenue for education through the insurance commission or get an amendment to the code sections that allow them to tamper with properly written descriptions and make that authority quietly disappear.

** EDIT: I recall having found that description before, but can't find it now. It had been worded something like "this section shall not prohibit an attorney or title officer from determining the content of documents blah, blah, blah in the normal course of their business."

Maybe it has been done away with, or maybe I just forgot where it's located.

I like it too.

> Our task is to protect the interests of the public in the work we perform.
>
> Is our task to actively seek out and stop individuals who are not charged with the protection of the public? If it were then we would have a monumental task. Should we start with attorneys or politicians?

now that is a rather weird spin on things...

Nope, it is not My job (or Your job) to seek out evils in the world, but I do believe we should all take action when we run across it.

Ric is the Executive Officer of the Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors, and Geologists. But that board has no authority over insurance salesmen (title officers).

It shows how ignorant and arrogant they are. Unfortunately there are many of these folks around. Hey, if they don't make the title mess worse they're not doing their job.

And besides, who would ever need more than an abbreviated tax description of the boundaries of land?

Does the state law define the practice of surveying and empower the board to adopt rules and regulations to interpret and enforce the license requirement? As I noted before in Ohio preparation of a description for fee transfer is as much apart of surveying as recovering the monuments and taking the necessary measurements. That means the board has power to issue a cease and desist order. The order is backed by the threat of filing charges of surveying without a license.

Evan, yes we have the authority to issue administrative citations against individuals practicing without the authority to do so and that generally gets the attention of most people.

> IDIOTS!!!!!
>
> There's an exception in the law that lets them write descriptions**, but that law was written when title officers had actual training in the construction and interpretation of descriptions. These days, they are little more than insurance sales people and that exception should be removed.
>
> I've fought this battle before and lost, but in your position, perhaps you can find some avenue for education through the insurance commission or get an amendment to the code sections that allow them to tamper with properly written descriptions and make that authority quietly disappear.
>
> ** EDIT: I recall having found that description before, but can't find it now. It had been worded something like "this section shall not prohibit an attorney or title officer from determining the content of documents blah, blah, blah in the normal course of their business."
>
> Maybe it has been done away with, or maybe I just forgot where it's located.

You recall correctly Evan and I can't quite remember exactly the code section either at this moment. If you remember, we had a similar discussion on the CLSA forum about a year ago and I made an argument then that our legal counsel agreed with as to where title officer's authority ended.

I don't believe in destroying or removing monuments. I have thinned out many a "goat stake".

I have driven them very deep so the ordinary looker could not find them because they had refused to pay.

😉

In 1988 the legislature enacted chapter 817, which added subsection (i) to 8726. However, 817 included a note under section 5: "The amendment in Section 1 of this act is declaratory of existing law and is not intended to restrict the practice of persons licensed to practice law in California, nor is it intended to be applicable to persons licensed pursuant to Part 6 (commencing with Section 12340) of Division 2 of the Insurance Code, nor to persons licensed pursuant to Part 1 (commencing with Section 10000) of division 4 of the Business and Professions Code, so long as those persons engage in the respective practice of their profession, but who may coordinate work pursuant to subdivision (k) of Section 8726 of the Business and Professions Code.