Concerning Title Insurance Claims and FEMA Floodplains

[LS_8750]

I thought this was an interesting read from JD Supra entitled, "Fifth Circuit Adds A Third Dimension to Title Insurance Claims."

Here is the link:

http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/fifth- ... -to-75399/

[dewardkb]

http://600camp.com/wp-content/uploads/2 ... s-L.P..pdf

[btaylor]

I am definitely interested to know more about the mapping discrepancies when it comes to showing areas under a certain elevation. I am surprised the surveyor did not get into more trouble. I suspect the Board outcome would not be the same had this occurred in CA.

[dewardkb]

I am familiar with this case. This has little to do with the FIRM. There is a lot more back story to it than meets the eye.

I suggest we have not seen the end of this case.

I happen to agree with this ruling and I hope that the case can be settled and that Doubletree can recover.

My opinion is the Land Surveyor's actions in this case do not rise to the level of negligence but clearly the Land Surveyor made some errors and omissions.

The Land Surveyor in this case is a stand up guy and he contends that it was reasonable to show the flowage easement based on the FIRM (which was grossly in error). While you may or may not agree with this argument the Board failed to pursue this matter.

This inaction on the Board's part could have something to do with the fact that the same Land Surveyor was facing another problem regarding yet another land survey he had performed. That problem had to do with a gap (yes you read that right, a gap) that he failed to identify in his initial survey of this other property. Later he was surveying the adjoiner and realized he had missed a "scratch" or "scrap" file which indicated his original survey of the other property was incorrect and he had included lands in that survey that had never been conveyed by the State. The notation for the scratch file was extremely obscure appearing only in the original conveyance of the property from the State. Subsequent conveyances of the subject tract spanning more than 100 years never mentioned the scratch file.

The Land Surveyor issued a corrected survey unfortunately his client had already found fossil fuel on the property and was pumping it from the site in question.

A sitting Board member issued an Affidavit of Merit on the gap case allowing legal action against this Land Surveyor to proceed.

In the gap case I urged the powers that be to seek an ethics review regarding the Board member's behavior because I felt that they had a conflict of interest and crossed the line making themselves judge, jury and executioner by utilizing their position on the Board and issuing the Affidavit of Merit.

I don't know the outcome of the gap case but from what I understand all matters regarding it have been resolved including the ethics issue.

Needless to say it has been rough on this Land Surveyor.

[dewardkb]

I am familiar with this case. This has little to do with the FIRM. There is a lot more back story to it than meets the eye.

I suggest we have not seen the end of this case.

I happen to agree with this ruling and I hope that the case can be settled and that Doubletree can recover.

My opinion is the Land Surveyor's actions in this case do not rise to the level of negligence but clearly the Land Surveyor made some errors and omissions.

The Land Surveyor in this case is a stand up guy and he contends that it was reasonable to show the flowage easement based on the FIRM (which was grossly in error). While you may or may not agree with this argument the Board failed to pursue this matter.

This inaction on the Board's part could have something to do with the fact that the same Land Surveyor was facing another problem regarding yet another land survey he had performed. That problem had to do with a gap (yes you read that right, a gap) that he failed to identify in his initial survey of this other property. Later he was surveying the adjoiner and realized he had missed a "scratch" or "scrap" file which indicated his original survey of the other property was incorrect and he had included lands in that survey that had never been conveyed by the State. The notation for the scratch file was extremely obscure appearing only in the original conveyance of the property from the State. Subsequent conveyances of the subject tract spanning more than 100 years never mentioned the scratch file.

The Land Surveyor issued a corrected survey unfortunately his client had already found fossil fuel on the property and was pumping it from the site in question.

A sitting Board member issued an Affidavit of Merit on the gap case allowing legal action against this Land Surveyor to proceed.

In the gap case I urged the powers that be to seek an ethics review regarding the Board member's behavior because I felt that they had a conflict of interest and crossed the line making themselves judge, jury and executioner by utilizing their position on the Board and issuing the Affidavit of Merit.

I don't know the outcome of the gap case but from what I understand all matters regarding it have been resolved including the ethics issue.

Needless to say it has been rough on this Land Surveyor.

[btaylor]

I would be hard pressed to rely on a FIRM over my own topographic survey. It sounds like this is what is happening here.

Also raises the question: is there some kind of accuracy statement one can derive from a FIRM? I get it in urban areas where random improvements by each homeowner make FIRMs inaccurate. This sounds like an open area, easily mapped from the air.

[dewardkb]

Bryan the Land Surveyor in this case did not perform a topographic survey on the site in question in order to perform his boundary survey for the purchase,

[btaylor]

I realize that, but if someone asks me to define this easement, it sounds like some kind of topography is required to show it.

[dewardkb]

Bryan....I have to agree with you. The easement was to a certain elevation so it would occur to me to try and exactly define that.

Now arguing that you could rely on a FIRM for that information is another ball of wax.

Having some experience with this kind of issue it is easy for me to see fault in such an assertion but then again you live and you learn.

[land butcher]

20-20 hindsight is great but in the gap case finding a 100 yo deed in ny experience is not very easy. If it was me I would be all over the title company for not including it.

The more I read lately the less faith I have in anything the govt prints, such as FIRMS.