Chutzpah

[Jim Frame]

Background: In 2006 I did an ALTA on 2 adjacent commercial parcels, one a restaurant and the other a motel. The client didn't pay, and despite a 2007 Small Claims judgment I never collected a dime. A few weeks ago a Sacramento architectural firm contacted me about an ALTA update. They had come across a copy of my 2006 ALTA, and figured that I'd be best positioned to do an update. The title report they provided covered only the restaurant parcel, so I executed a contract with the architect's client (not the 2006 deadbeat client) to update the ALTA on that parcel only.

When the architectural firm saw the update, they contacted me to state that they understood that the update would cover both parcels. I pointed out the title report matter, and laughed to myself that anyone would expect both parcels for the fee I had quoted. I estimated the amount that I thought would cover an update on the motel parcel, conditioned upon review of a revised title report.

Today I received the following e-mail from one of the principal architects:

"I can not ask my client to spend any more as I led him to believe that the proposal was for everything. Can you release to me a cad version of the old ALTA without update? I just need it for the linework of the site to show context of our site in the larger perspective of the rest of the hotel. You can give it to me with linework only and no text, I don't need it to be an ALTA, and I don't need it updated."

How would you have responded?

.

[Ben Lund]

I can't say I'm not surprised and this shows both ignorance and unprofessionalism. I'm semi-alright with the ignorance but the unprofessionalism is beyond me. If I had the time and energy I would like to respond by educating the Architect as to the definitions of land surveying, his liability using CAD linework from another consultant's work (without a contract), etc.

BTW, just give it to me with the linework and no text! Classic.

[Ian Wilson]

It must be something in the water, Jim.

I got a call on Monday from an architect whose working on a project for which I prepared a Land Title Survey early last year. The client at the time backed out of the sale. The survey was made for my client and the title company. The SELLER apparently got a copy and used it for the subsequent transaction. (Anyone else seeing a pattern here?)

The architect wanted me to send him my electronic file for the project. Gratis. No cost. Without remuneration. For free. Why? ‘Cause that would be the professional thing to do!

Talk about professionalism. Hmmm. I liked that house plan of yours that we just staked. Since you don’t have to do any more work, can you send me a full set of the drawings AND the electronic files?

What a Pisher and a Nudnik!

Mazel tov, Jim!

.

[Lee Hixson]

Amazing! My answer would have been a fleshed out version of, "Go take a hike!" (Including the implication that they have crossed over the line, professionally.)

[TTaylor]

This way you can not get paid twice for your work. :-))

[Jim Frame]

For the curious, here's the response I sent yesterday to the architect and my current client (who was cc'd on the architect's request) with names redacted:

-------------------------------------------

"I admire your chutzpah, asking me to forgo payment for my work product and expose myself to additional professional liability so that you can improve your own work product without additional expense. However, I'm afraid the answer is 'No thanks.' If all you need is context I suggest Google Earth, though beware of copyright issues.

"For [current client's] benefit, here's some background on the situation: In 2006 I performed an ALTA survey on both parcels for [deadbeat client]. My internal charges came to $5,964.10 (the contract amount was only $5,360.00). When [deadbeat client] failed to pay, I invested another couple of hundred suing him in Small Claims Court, and won a default judgment in 2007. Alas, [deadbeat client] appears to be judgment-proof, and all efforts to collect have been fruitless. In other words, the reward for my efforts currently totals $0.00. Under the circumstances, I estimate the future value of that judgment to be approximately $0.00 as well. (A side note to [current client]: be very, very careful in your dealings with [deadbeat client]. Having a good attorney handy would probably be a good investment.)

"I lowballed the update on Parcel A because I wanted to have *something* to show for all the work I've done at the site. Due to the extensive changes to the facility since 2006, my internal charges on the update are $3,130.50, so I think [current client] got a heck of a deal.

"The work I did on Parcel B may have some value to someone sometime, and I have no interest in giving it away without compensation. Toward that end, I plan to monitor project submittals to the city to ensure that none of my uncompensated work "accidentally" finds its way into plans for the current project.

"Thanks for your interest."

--------------------------------------------

P.S. The architect has a PDF of my 2006 ALTA, thus the mention of monitoring city submittals.

.

[E_Page]

What your response lacks in diplomacy, it makes up for in honesty and frankness.

Be careful with your comments on [deadbeat client]. Even if your advice is well intentioned and based upon actual experience, [deadbeat client] may add insult to injury by suing you for defamation.

I'm sorry you've gone through this, and hope that your current contract has provisions about ownership of work product.

[dmi]

Jim, my response would be to be strictly professional. For example,thank you for your inquiry and I appreciate your circumstances. We would be happy to provide data to address your needs under the following conditions... and the state what you require.

I feel your pain in this situation, but... I cannot see how anything other than simply stating what you want, will advance your situation.

Thanks for sharing this saga with us

[Jim Frame]

"Jim, my response would be to be strictly professional."

I agree that doing so would is generally the advisable path. In this instance, given my history with the site, I decided that the risks -- losing potential business from the architect or his client, tarnishing my professional reputation, or getting sued for libel -- were small compared to the satisfaction of calling BS on the architect.

On another day I might have decided differently, but sometimes being the bull in the china shop is the right thing to do.

.

[Ian Wilson]

I have always found Jim to err on the side of caution, if that can be called an "err". In a panic situation, Jim would be the one guy I would expect to keep his head and think and react logically when all others have lost it. I'm not saying he's cold and hard. Mr. Spock he is not. Not that this situation is any of my business, but I would trust Jim's judgement, regardless.

The image of Jim being a "...bull in a china shop..." is just such a juxtaposition of his normal demeanor that i have a hard time visualizing it.

Carry on Jim! You've got my vote!

[E_Page]

Jim,

I didn't mean to imply that you were unprofessional. I agree with Dave, "you were as professional as" the situation called for.

As far as defamation, I didn't say that they could win. But [deadbeat client] might make life a little more difficult for you if you were to offer any more negative comments on his character.

I hope that you are able to get more value out of this project or client, but if not, kick the dust from your boots and move on.

[coast]

Dave:

Is this something else that I've got to read?