Today's laugh...

paden cash, post: 351713, member: 20 wrote: "pretty big"....;-)

:good:

That's funny. I've been trying to think of language to use, wherein you have the attorney certify to you all of the things they are saying is true, and you put a statement on your plat that says "according to Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe, the following circumstances exist:...."

Of course they would never sign such a statement, but it seems unfathomable that an attorney wants a land surveyor to make future predictions, and legal interpretations, and divine sizes of underground facilities. As to giving them a size of a buried pipe, clearly the attorney (and therefore client) needs to pay to expose the pipe so it can be measured. I'm sure that's going to happen.

Thanks for the laugh.

paden cash, post: 351713, member: 20 wrote: Within the "Objection Letter" are several things I have been requested to "remove from the survey"...

It's a game that lawyers play. They write a letter requesting that unpleasant things be taken off the map. Might as well take a shot at it, right? You write a letter explaining why you can't or won't. Letters go in files and invoices are generated. If it ends there it's all just life in the 21st century.

I hereby certify that the closing attorney for this project is either delusional or dumb as a box of rocks.

________________________
Smarter than a box of rock RLS

Norman Oklahoma, post: 351759, member: 9981 wrote: It's a game that lawyers play. They write a letter requesting that unpleasant things be taken off the map. Might as well take a shot at it, right? You write a letter explaining why you can't or won't. Letters go in files and invoices are generated. If it ends there it's all just life in the 21st century.

I once told an attorney that I referred to this part of the ALTA survey process as the "ceremonial exchanging of the liabilities"

Ask him if he wants fries with those ALTA changes.

As a survey intern who is getting his office work in, I would like to say that I am glad that I'm not the only one who gets weird stuff from the attorneys when performing and ALTA. I thought it was just me. Great thread!

Timberwolf, post: 351766, member: 10599 wrote: ... Great thread!

Maybe. I'd consider it a SAD thread.;-)

I wish I had kept a diary of all the insipidly stoopit letters I've received from attorneys that feel the need to "tweak" my surveys.

Attorneys are infamous for liking to "throw sh** against the wall and see what sticks". If you aren't paying him (or her) to represent you, it would be best to be wary of anything they say or do. If they're asking you to do them a favor chances are they are trying to unload some responsibility onto you.

I mean they're the legal counsel, why can't they state whether the client is meeting city codes, if there are no encroachments, or if the setback they're at will never cause them problems, etc. If they can't say it, why should you?

Paden,
What's wrong with you?

Present this deal*** and things will proceed from there, you will be a rich surveyor!

***Letter of indemnity agreement and $500K retainer. Hourly rates TBD (minimum 100 hours @ $999.00/hr.)

That ought to do it! 😀

I like how an attorney will send an "objection letter" to a surveyor and think that it causes the surveyor to be required to change the survey. I like to ask those attorneys if they have a little license hanging on the wall that states that they are a licensed land surveyor, duly registered with the state. If their answer is "no" then they don't get to tell me what to show (or not show) on my survey.

I am pretty sure that my fee quote would build about a dozen Arby's.

Someone once said to me that 3 attorneys are in a room and you fill the room with cement up to their chins....what's wrong?

Not enough cement

Rich., post: 351833, member: 10450 wrote: Not enough cement

That's a good one!

I've actually done business with a couple good attorneys. They were knowledgeable about what mattered in the situation at hand, they were reasonable in their fees, and they delivered exactly what was needed in a timely fashion. And if I ever need legal representation in the future, I know who I would call.

That being said, it sure seems that this is not what I encounter with most attorneys. We've all heard the saying about how one bad apple can spoil the whole barrel. Well, it sure seems that with attorneys, most of them apples are already bad and those few good ones don't stand a chance.

skwyd, post: 351784, member: 6874 wrote: .... If their answer is "no" then they don't get to tell me what to show (or not show) on my survey.

Him and I have gone around already a month ago. He took "exception" to this standard sentence I place at the bottom of my comment report:

"This survey relied upon the Title Commitment as stated above. Only those instruments shown within that commitment are addressed hereon. Other instruments affecting this property may exist; recorded, unrecorded or prescriptive."

He wanted me to remove it. I told him no chance because it's TRUE. If he wanted someone to certify that ALL documents affecting the property had been addressed, he needed to get the title company to "certify" that no others documents exist.

He said he thought that's why they ordered a survey.

I told him if he would read a little further up I plainly certify that there is no VISIBLE evidence of utilities or prescriptive use other than what may be shown, but I cannot vouch for the title research. My survey is solely based on research provided by others. I went on to explain that if the statement made him uncomfortable, he might look into purchasing some title insurance....

..he didn't think that was too funny. The statement stayed on the survey.

paden cash, post: 351849, member: 20 wrote: .... The statement stayed on the survey.

That statement is somewhat akin to the non-standard certifications lawyers ask for and surveyors hate so much. The language of the ALTA standard basically already states that in essence, and you adding it may cloud the title. If it should kill an important deal, you might regret adding it.

At last years PLSO Conference a story was told of a surveyor who added a line, dotted, and noted as a deed line clearly in error due to a reversed bearing call (ie/ Nxxå¡E instead of Nxxå¡W). The correct line was also shown, bolded. Notes explaining the discrepancy were there. The dotted line labelled as not being the boundary passed through the building. People who didn't understand what they were being told freaked. The deal died as a result, and the surveyor was successfully sued out of the business. You can go overboard with these things.

skwyd, post: 351784, member: 6874 wrote: I like how an attorney will send an "objection letter" to a surveyor and think that it causes the surveyor to be required to change the survey. I like to ask those attorneys if they have a little license hanging on the wall that states that they are a licensed land surveyor, duly registered with the state. If their answer is "no" then they don't get to tell me what to show (or not show) on my survey.

If their answer is "yes", they still don't get to tell me.

C Billingsley, post: 351868, member: 1965 wrote: If their answer is "yes", they still don't get to tell me.

Good point. If the answer is "yes" then I guess maybe I'll at least listen to what they have to say.