Glenn,
Wouldn't that bring up an evidentiary scenario where one would have to show how many people relied on a surveyors opinion v. how many didn't? I'm thinking the numbers would show didn't; due to the volume of ILC or plot plan or owners affidavit in transactions.
It's kind of a weird situation. Attorneys say "we don't give title opinions, you have to get title insurance, but we will examine your title and give an opinion for the title company before they will allow insurance".
Surveyors say "we will not give an opinion if the title company says we can't, but we will not examine the premises either because no one will pay for it, but you will get title insurance based on what we report, but don't rely on it, but you don't have to because now you have insurance to cover it". The lenders and title insurance companies tell people they don't need a surveyors opinion. A reasonable person no longer relies on surveyors opinions.
Attorneys still do the same thing, and charge just as much, but are no longer individually liable, yet people are relying on their opinion for the insurance. Surveyors do less than they used to and no one is really relying on the results. The lender relies on a cursory inspection for the location question, but on a team of attorneys and abstractors for the title question. It's an economic decision that leads to more reasonable people that do not rely on a surveyors opinion, than those that do. I don't think there has ever been a case of an insurance company going after a surveyor when an ILC turns out wrong, because they know it's not a professional opinion. They will go after attorneys in their ranks that screw up.
If reasonable people don't rely on a surveyors opinion, but opt for something less, why should it be found that they rely on one when told they are not getting one?
Just venting. Over and out.
> Glenn,
>
> Wouldn't that bring up an evidentiary scenario where one would have to show how many people relied on a surveyors opinion v. how many didn't? I'm thinking the numbers would show didn't; due to the volume of ILC or plot plan or owners affidavit in transactions.
>
> It's kind of a weird situation. Attorneys say "we don't give title opinions, you have to get title insurance, but we will examine your title and give an opinion for the title company before they will allow insurance".
>
> Surveyors say "we will not give an opinion if the title company says we can't, but we will not examine the premises either because no one will pay for it, but you will get title insurance based on what we report, but don't rely on it, but you don't have to because now you have insurance to cover it". The lenders and title insurance companies tell people they don't need a surveyors opinion. A reasonable person no longer relies on surveyors opinions.
>
> Attorneys still do the same thing, and charge just as much, but are no longer individually liable, yet people are relying on their opinion for the insurance. Surveyors do less than they used to and no one is really relying on the results. The lender relies on a cursory inspection for the location question, but on a team of attorneys and abstractors for the title question. It's an economic decision that leads to more reasonable people that do not rely on a surveyors opinion, than those that do. I don't think there has ever been a case of an insurance company going after a surveyor when an ILC turns out wrong, because they know it's not a professional opinion. They will go after attorneys in their ranks that screw up.
>
> If reasonable people don't rely on a surveyors opinion, but opt for something less, why should it be found that they rely on one when told they are not getting one?
>
> Just venting. Over and out.
Duane,
I hear your frustration. We don't have ILC's in Texas. While I know that's not the crux of your reply, generally speaking I believe if folks pay for a survey, they will fight their adjoiner or anyone else who disagrees with it. At the end of the day, I believe a large percentage of property owners do not understand how title insurance works, even after the title company explains it to them. They only know that they have a survey in hand from their closing and will take it as gospel. Additionally, with respect to the simple, exclusive scenario presented by the original poster (laths placed along a lot line), I believe my statement to be correct.
Your points are not lost on me.
