About Amerisurv| Contact    
Magazine | Newsletter    
Flickr Photos | Advertise    
HomeNewsNewsletterAmerisurv DirectoryJobsStoreAuthorsHistoryArchivesBlogVideosEvents
 
advertisement


Subscriptions
Sponsored By

Software Reviews
Continuing Series
     RTN
An RTN expert provides everything you need to know about network-corrected real-time GNSS observations.
Click Here to begin the series,
or view the Article PDF's Here
76-PageFlip Compilation
of the entire series
Test Yourself

Got Answers?
Test your knowledge with NCEES-level questions.
  Start HERE
Meet the Authors
Check out our fine lineup of writers. Each an expert in his or her field.
Wow Factor
Sponsored By


Product Reviews
Partner Sites

machinecontrolonline 


lbszone.com

GISuser.com

GeoJobs.biz

GeoLearn

 

Spatial Media LLC properties

Associates

ASPRS

newsnow 

Home arrow Archives   The American Surveyor     

Reconnaissance: Lender's Certificates—The Ridiculous and the Ludicrous Print E-mail
Written by Gary Kent, PS   
Friday, 10 July 2015

A 316Kb PDF of this article as it appeared in the magazine—complete with images—is available by clicking HERE

Recently I heard from a surveyor who had performed an ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey on a property three years earlier. The lender--who shall remain unnamed-- now wanted an "update" with a certification that included the following clauses:

1. [T]he undersigned certifies that [choose one of the following] (i) Relative Positional Precision of this survey does not exceed that which is specified therein or (ii) the maximum Relative Positional Precision is ____ [feet].

2. The survey was made on the ground by an instrument survey and correctly shows the location and type of all buildings, structures and other improvements situated on the subject property and any other matters situated on the subject property.

3. The location of all improvements on the subject property is in accord with minimum setback, side yard and rear yard lines, provisions and restrictions of record affecting the Property.

4. Municipal water, municipal storm sewer and municipal sanitary sewer facilities and telephone, gas and electric services of public utilities are available at the boundary of the property in the locations indicated hereon.

5. The subject property does not serve any adjoining property for visible subsurface drainage structures, visible water courses, utilities or structural support.

6. Except as shown on the survey, there are no wetlands located on the property.

7. The parties listed above and their successors and assigns are entitled to rely on the survey and this certificate as being true and accurate.

The surveyor reported that he refused to execute this certification as the lender demanded, so the lender told the buyer's attorney to find another surveyor. The transaction involved about 30 sites across the country and apparently (or perhaps the correct word is "supposedly") every other surveyor had agreed to provide the certificate.

Now, I know that I am not the only surveyor who sees major problems with this certification wording--I have written about such issues in this column in the past--but apparently there are many surveyors who (a) do not see a problem with any of it, (b) sign it without reading it, (c) don't mind violating their registration acts (d) don't mind practicing law while they are at it, (e) are intimidated into signing it by the lender's attorney, or (f) are afraid of losing the work. Or maybe all of the above.

What's wrong? Let's dissect this train crash.

First of all, even if a surveyor was inclined to work with the lender to provide an alternate certificate, pursuant to Section 7 of the 2011 ALTA/ACSM Standards that additional certificate cannot appear on the face of the plat or map. It would have to be provided on a separate sheet of paper.

Beyond that, item 1 of the certificate is a mashup that draws from wording out of the 2005 ALTA/ACSM Standards. It is not consistent with, and goes beyond, the mandatory certification wording in Section 7 of the 2011 Standards.

As worded, item 2 states that the surveyor has shown "all" buildings, structures and "other improvements" (whatever those might be) including all subsurface buildings, structures and improvements ­ much of which the surveyor could not possibly have observed. If you think that, in a dispute caused by a utility vault not appearing on the survey because the surveyor did not observe it, the plaintiff will amenably agree that "all" did not include subsurface features, you are woefully misinformed. The surveyor will be held to unqualified certification wording. This is why the 2011 standards use the phrase "observed in the process of conducting the survey" throughout. That you can certify to; "All" you cannot.

The word "correctly" in item 2 implies "without error." And worst of all, if anyone can explain what "any other matters situated on the subject property" means, then I suppose they would be safe certifying to have shown those. In my opinion, however, that phrase is fatally ambiguous and any surveyor certifying to it has just certified to having shown pretty much everything on the property--observable or not--including anything the lender decides (after the fact) that you should have shown.

Regarding item 3, surveying is a "where" exercise, it is not a "what" exercise. The building is 18 feet from the boundary line. The setback is 20 feet. Those are matters of survey. Whether that condition is in accord with a setback, provision or restrictions is most assuredly not the practice of surveying.

Certifying to the unqualified wording of item 4 requires surveyors to practice their X­ray vision. Good luck defending your misreported location of that gas line in court after they had to redesign around it.

Item 5 calls for an engineering analysis (structural support) and a topographic survey. And that ignores the obvious Catch 22 of whatever constitutes a "visible subsurface" drainage structure.

Unless the surveyor is a qualified wetlands biologist, he or she had better run away from item 6 as fast as possible.

There is no word to describe the wording of item 7 other than "ludicrous." Seriously: I have listed the certified parties at the top of the certificate, yet I still have to state that they are actually entitled to rely on the survey and certificate?!

We have addressed "successors and assigns" in this column in the past. Despite the phrasing "the parties ... and their successors and assigns" this is not about anyone other than the lender. And there is no harm in certifying to the lender's successors and assigns. If you want to charge an additional fee for that, do so, but there is not really any additional liability because you are liable to a lender for the length of the loan. If the original lender sells the loan to another entity, it does not lengthen the term of the loan and you are still liable to a lender.

Title companies do not need "successors and assigns." And any surveyor who certifies to the owner or buyer's successors and assigns is obviously not thinking about what that really means.

Lenders require these ridiculous certifications because there are ignorant surveyors who continue to bow to their unreasonable demands. In the process, those surveyors are practicing law, violating statutes and rules, and taking on an unacceptable amount of liability. What does it take to educate them?

Gary Kent is Director, Integrated Services at The Schneider Corporation in Indianapolis. He is past-president of ACSM and chairs the ALTA/ACSM Committee for NSPS and the Liaison Committee for ALTA. He is on the Indiana Board of Registration and lectures both locally and nationally.

A 316Kb PDF of this article as it appeared in the magazine—complete with images—is available by clicking HERE

 
< Prev

 American Surveyor Recent Articles
Editorial 
Thought Leader: Land is Too Important to Be Left to Land Specialists
A while back I was searching the Internet for an old treatise on land titles. A Google query yielded a book published in 1914. The author was Charles Claudius Kagey and the book was titled "Land Survey and Land Titles, a book for boys and girls, a reference volume for property owners, a text ....
Read the Article
Jason E. Foose, PS 
Decided Guidance: Wacker vs. Price - Irony in Sevenfold
This month's case takes us to Phoenix, Arizona in 1950. The Arizona Supreme Court went all guns-a-blazin' in Wacker vs. Price (216 P.2d 707 (Ariz. 1950)). Maybe it's just me, but I'm sensing plenty of irony and have taken license to point it out along the way. I like what the Court did with this case ....
Read the Article
Allen E. Cheves 
Around the Bend - A Visit to Carlson Software
The Ohio River is one of America's greatest, running near 1,000 miles between Pittsburgh and the Mighty Mississippi. Much of the coal and other products that fueled our nation's industrial expansion flowed between the shores of this maritime ....
Read the Article
Lee Lovell, PS 
Surveying & Mapping Economics Part 3 - Customers & Services
This article continues an inquiry into the economic conditions of the Surveying and Mapping industry (NAICS 541370) using data from the U.S. Census Bureau. This time we will look at customers and services. The data comes from the Economic Census conducted every 5 years on American ....
Read the Article
Jerry Penry, PS 
True Elevation: Black Elk Peak
Black Elk Peak, located in the Black Hills region of South Dakota, is the state's highest natural point. It is frequently referred to as the highest summit in the United States east of the Rocky Mountains. Two other peaks, Guadalupe Peak in Texas and ....
Read the Article
Larry Trojak 
Bringing The Goods - Mobile Scanning an Integral Component
When Jim Smith, Jerrad Burns and Charlie Patton left the Memphis division of a major construction company in 2015, they took with them the knowledge of how to get even the most complex jobs done and what equipment could best serve them in making that happen. So when they joined West ....
Read the Article
 
Lee Lovell, PS 
Test Yourself 41: Integers, Integers, and Integers
ABF is a 5:12:13 triangle, ACF is a 48:55:73 triangle, ADF is a 3:4:5 triangle, and AEF is a 7:24:25 triangle, all with integer sides and inscribed in a semi-circle. What are the lengths of BC, CD, and DE? ....
Read the Article
Wendy Lathrop, PS, CFM 
Vantage Point: Sunset or Sunrise?
While we often think of legislated government programs as static, they do change over time. Such evolution and opportunity for transformation are part of the dialogue in reauthorizing these programs. Every so many years there is a sunset on each government program, and this September is the ....
Read the Article
 

deliciousrssnewsletterlinkedinfacebooktwitter

Amerisurv Exclusive Online-only Article ticker
Featured Amerisurv Events
List Your Event Here
please
contact Amerisurv


Google
 
AMERISURV TOP NEWS

JAVAD Intros
Spoofer Buster

GOT NEWS? Send To
press [at] amerisurv.com
Online Internet Content

Sponsor


News Feeds

 
Subscribe to Amerisurv news & updates via RSS or get our Feedburn
xml feed

Need Help? See this RSS Tutorial

Historic Maps
Careers

post a job
Reach our audience of Professional land surveyors and Geo-Technology professionals with your GeoJobs career ad. Feel free to contact us if you need additional information.

 

Social Bookmarks

Amerisurv on Facebook 

Amerisurv LinkedIn Group 

Amerisurv Flickr Photos 

Amerisurv videos on YouTube 

twitter

 




The American Surveyor © All rights reserved / Privacy Statement
Spatial Media LLC
905 W 7th St #331
Frederick MD 21701
301-620-0784
301-695-1538 - fax