Change to the LS act

[Jim Frame]

"the title company will pay for a third party interest that may have developed into a right"

Has anyone ever known a title insurance company to pay for anything other than an office remodel? It seems to me that they always find some clause in the policy that lets them off the hook.

Personally, I think title insurance as it pertains to California practice is a giant scheme to quietly and efficiently bilk the public. At least in decades past the tons of money paid by befuddled home buyers produced something of value to the surveying community: comprehensive local/regional title plants staffed by title officers who knew what they were doing. Alas, those officers and the repositories of knowledge in which they worked are long gone, the records buried in warehouses (if the records exist at all anymore) and the human capital gone into retirement along with their detailed knowledge of title matters within their area of practice. All that's left is the corporate shell, mindlessly shuffling paper and collecting money while delivering nothing of any apparent value.

.

[Ian Wilson]

Wow, Jim! “All that's left is the corporate shell, mindlessly shuffling paper and collecting money while delivering nothing of any apparent value.” That’s a pretty stiff indictment.

Actually, off the top of my head, I can remember two cases wherein the title company stepped up and paid. One was where the property ended up having no actual means of access…a long story. And one was a case where the deed was defective due to a significant typo. The title company scrambled to get correctory deeds signed and recorded.

Gary Francis (ironically, now retired) and his successor, Kim DelPolito, at First American Title in Riverside, have been unbelievably cooperative and helpful over the years. They have provided great service and value to my clients who were subdividing lands and to me in terms of documents, plats and just all-around knowledge.

Insurance is an interesting thing. Its purpose is to mitigate the effects of a deleterious event by spreading the financial risk over a large group.

Life insurers know full well that their clients will eventually die. They mitigate the obvious loss by collecting and investing premiums to generate income to cover the pay out they know will occur.

Health insurers expect a certain level of claims for health care. They mitigate the expense by charging premiums large enough for them to invest and generate enough money to pay those claims and still be profitable.

Title insurers know what the risks are. They charge relatively low premiums and mitigate the risk by excluding certain things from their policy. That’s what the Schedule “B” is for.

[goodgps]

I'm not sure if I've covered this scenario,
two adjacent owners wish to do a LLA prior to one of them placing a building on his empty lot.
The owners want to see the current lot line and want to hire me to "flag" the corners. (there are no corners)
I tell them that I will need to file a ROS in order to set these corners.

The vacant lot Owner, says a ROS will be fine and he needs it for his building project but only AFTER the LLA is done.
for now, the owners just want to look at the line and figure a suitable adjustment, themselves. I've offered a "topo" survey as part of the LLA but they still want the paint marks.
How far can the "law" be interpreted and how do i correctly serve my clients without violating the law ?

or should i tell them to hire a fence builder to lay out the current PL and then I'll follow up with a LLA ???

signed,
"Hunting for answers in the easter eggs"

[Jim Frame]

Wrap it all up in a single contract, with enough of a deposit up-front to cover the ROS in case client sentiments change. Then you can paint up the current corners, send a letter to the County Surveyor stating that the ROS will be filed after the LLA (because you'll probably exceed the 90-day limit), do the LLA and file the ROS when done. If the LLA falls through, you have enough $$ in hand to file the ROS on the lots as they stand.

.