It has been my practice for some years now to review title reports that come to me and, when I find any item in need of editing, contact the title officer with my suggestions. Might be a typo, or something more serious, in the legal description. Might be an exception that doesn't apply to the property. Might even be something I'm aware of that isn't listed. More often than not, they amend and reissue their report. Some times they explain why they cannot.?ÿ But they always respond in some way, and they almost always thank me.?ÿ I'd wager that 9 out 10 reports can stand amendment.?ÿ
In my current position I'm seeing more reports than ever and often I'm seeing them in conjunction with another surveyors ALTA.?ÿ ?ÿ It seems that, mostly, these other surveyors take their title reports as they come and run with them, warts and all.
So my recommendation to others - review the document and ask for appropriate amendments. These things are not carved in stone.
Excellent advice.?ÿ Bad data will stay bad data until someone corrects it.?ÿ Now, is always the best time for corrections to be made.
Critical reviews are much more necessary now that the work is farmed out to oversea firms instead of being conducted in-house by folks who are familiar with the parcel.
I do so many ALTA surveys and this is a common problem for me as well.?ÿ Doing this extra work ahead of time saves a lot of time and trouble in the long term and it's the right way to do it.?ÿ Great advice.?ÿ?ÿ
So my recommendation to others - review the document and ask for appropriate amendments. These things are not carved in stone.
What sort of amendments do you request??ÿ How do you check them for accuracy?
I see these reports commonly used as due diligence reference material for surveyors and reviewing agencies.?ÿ I use them mostly to identify easements.?ÿ Small cities typically make us list everything shown on the title report as an encumbrance if performing land subdivision.?ÿ Sometimes it is clear that the easements do not apply and I can say that as a surveyor but they must all still be listed (or removed from the report).
I have begun requesting them on projects as part of my service (along with a disclaimer) but the client feels that they are at least performing a cursory search for ownership or conflicts by purchasing this document.?ÿ Are we mistaken in believing this?
I have seen amended title reports and requested amendments but nowhere near 90%.?ÿ?ÿ
What sort of amendments do you request??ÿ
Example 1: Legal Description references a bounding deed Page 81, Volume 274. The appropriate deed was actually Page 817, Volume 274.?ÿ An ALTA Survey had been produced from the unedited report.
Example 2: A TR covered an assemblage of parcels. Two listed easements listed over some of the parcels served other parcels within that assemblage.?ÿ I argued that the easement were voided by merger. The TC wouldn't simply accept that and take those easements off the report but did agree to accept a vacation document from the owner, and upon its recording did remove the easements from the report.?ÿ Another easement for a power line lay 500 feet outside of the boundary of the property in question. It was simply deleted.?ÿ An ALTA Survey had been produced?ÿ from the unedited report, showing about a third of the tract encumbered by these easements.
Example 3: The legal description offered is a rote copy of the vesting deed description, which itself is an amalgamation of description from a number of parcel. The description is thus of the form "Lot 1, except the east 100 feet. TOGETHER WITH the east 100 feet of Lot 1".?ÿ
Example 4: Site Adjacent to the Columbia River. A dyke along the north boundary holds the river back at high water. A breach of the dyke would flood out tens of thousands of people (see Vanport Flood for an example of what could happen). A plat had been recorded 20 years previously and a large multi family building had been built adjacent to the dyke to the east of the current site, and a hotel to the west. Title Report showed no easement for the dyke. Nor had reports on the adjacent properties. When the flood district made us aware of a recently discovered easement document from its files we investigated and found that the adjacent buildings were encroaching into it, and the proposed building on our lot would as well. Naturally, the title company was most interested to learn of this dyke easement, which was recorded but had somehow not attached itself to any title report. If the dyke ever breaches in that area they will be forking over quite a bit.?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ?ÿ
True story from about two months ago.?ÿ Issued an ALTA to a client.?ÿ Client sent us a revised Prelim Title and wanted an updated ALTA.?ÿ No big deal as this happens all the time.?ÿ However, the revised Title had a new Exception referencing the first ALTA that they wanted revised!?ÿ?ÿ
Holding a title company's hand isn't my job, and I've mostly found that calling attention to TR errors falls on deaf ears.?ÿ I recently discovered, after a couple of days of title research, that the description in a PTR included land that wasn't owned by the listed owner.?ÿ I asked when I could get a revised PTR and was told by the title officer that they wouldn't be issuing one, and that "it's better to insure too much land than not enough.". Ooooookay.
It's not uncommon for me to include a note on an ALTA along the lines of "easement per Book xx Page yy does not affect subject property," or "easement per Book aa Page zz may affect subject property and is shown hereon, but is not listed in PTR 12-34567."?ÿ If the title company wants to revise after reviewing my ALTA they're welcome to do so, or not, as they prefer.
World's best client. They rarely ask how much, just want me to go do it, and pay by return mail. This is a note I sent them last month because the title report made no sense at all.
Melissa (to you only):
There are two possibilities:
(A) I have gone completely mad, lost all my marbles, and need to announce my immediate retirement.
(B) I'm really okay, but this is part of a vast conspiracy to make me think I've gone completely mad.
The attached aerial has a heavy black outline of an odd-shaped parcel. That is the site described in the title report. It excludes the East third of the former Toys-R-Us shopping center, excludes a square in the middle of the parking lot, and includes the hotel which they don??t own and can??t sell.
Holding a title company's hand isn't my job ..
True, but looking after my client's interest is. If holding the TC's hand furthers that aim, I'll do it.?ÿ
That is the site described in the title report.
What was the title company response?
@norman-oklahoma?ÿ A week later they got their act together and I had a correct title report. Other than that, no apology. I would have been mortified at a blunder like that.
Holding a title company's hand isn't my job
Mine neither, another of the advantages of the Torrens system 🙂
True story from about two months ago.?ÿ Issued an ALTA to a client.?ÿ Client sent us a revised Prelim Title and wanted an updated ALTA.?ÿ No big deal as this happens all the time.?ÿ However, the revised Title had a new Exception referencing the first ALTA that they wanted revised!?ÿ?ÿ
I see this all the time. How do you address this? I usually say something along the lines of?ÿ "Inst. X, Page Y reviewed during this survey." That usually satisfies them but I recently had a long battle with a junior Title Co. reviewer who asked "What does that mean?"
A week later they got their act together and I had a correct title report.
The long and the short is that you contacted the title company with your concerns and they responded with an amended report. The rest is emotions and personalities. A lot of surveyors would have simply proceeded to produce an ALTA based on the bolloxed report and then charge extras to amend it later.?ÿ ?ÿ
