Boundary Line Agreements

[PeteJack]

I have noticed that Title Companies have evolved in their policies (at least in our area) and are no longer insuring Boundary Line Agreements and have taken the position that all of them are violations of the Subdivision Map Act and therefore are a color on title and should not be done. Their position seems to be that lines are being moved and therefore it should be a Lot Line Adjustment. I have personally been told by a Title Officer that the first thought he has when he hears Boundary Line Agreement is "encroachment". I tried to explain that the very definition of encroachment would preclude the use of a Boundary Line Agreement and trigger a Lot Line Adjustment, but the response was "other surveyors do this, so we assume they all do". Is this true? Historically they have always excepted Record of Surveys as opinions and not insured them.

I have had a client who could not sell their property because the buyer was notified of a Boundary Line Agreement, saw it as a violation and demanded they remove it from title.

What then, are we as Surveyor’s supposed to do? I’m sure you have had experiences where ambiguities in deed lines require a remedy where a Boundary Line Agreement is necessary to establish lines. If not Surveyor’s, then who? I have heard of a survey in another county where the private surveyor was hired to establish the lines, noted all of the ambiguities on his Record of Survey and filed the map showing two different locations of the client's line. Does this sound like a solution? What would be the benefit of hiring a surveyor who can’t establish your lines?

I'm hoping to find a solution. In my experience Boundary Line Agreements are necessary, although very rare.

Input so far would include:

A) Lot Line Adjustments without moving lines. This would involve not having a before and after area statement, as well as not depicting a before and after property lines. This option would include review and approval from Local Agency and therefore be insurable by the Title Company. Will the advising Local Agency allow this? Should the client be burdened by the extra cost of review and approval for a Lot Line Adjustment? What about merger clauses, lender approval and Williamson Act issues?

B) Another application through the Local Agency where the County Surveyor reviews the proposed Boundary Line Agreement and prepares a statement "This is not in violation of the Subdivision Map Act". Would County Surveyor's agree to do this? Would Title Companies then insure them?

C) Have CLSA promote legislation to require Title Companies to insure Boundary Line Agreements. What would this look like? Who would then be liable for misuse of Boundary Line Agreements in lieu of a Lot Line Adjustments? Is there enough interest in the Association to remedy this?

Thank you for your attention.

Darrin "Pete" Jackson, PLS

[Warren Smith]

Given that a Boundary Line Agreement requires uncertainty about the location of property lines from descriptions, it is a doctrine that places title where adjacent landowners are in agreement. That is, it is not a change in the described premises, but only a definitive location of the common boundary.
As such, it is not characterized as a lot line adjustment, where ascertainable property lines are adjusted via local agency approval.
The Agreement can take place by reciting required elements by affected landowners, and recording it. Insuring title should then be obtainable.

[PeteJack]

You are correct, with the possible exception of "Insuring title should then be obtainable" I thought my point was that Title Companies are not.

[hellsangle]

Hmmmm . . .

"Traditionally, the insuring language in most standard form title insurance policies provided that the insurer would cover the insured for . . . "unmarketability of title" (the inability to sell or lease the property . . ." (Source CED California Easements & Boundaries: Law & Litigation.)

would a claim of "unmarketability" be at hand?

According to CEB "Title Insurance Practice" - Insuring over known risks:
"if a title company is not willing to write over a matter based simply on its examination of the public records, it may be willing to do so if an indemnity is provided. In this case, the insurer obtains a CLTA 110.7 endorsement against loss by reason of attempted enfocrement of the matter."

[David Kendall]

This is an interesting question. If I understand correctly the problem is that we need a more official document to present to title than the traditional Record of Survey document. I believe Humboldt has a boundary correction ordinance that may be in line with what you describe in option B above but I have had several discussions which indicate that the "not a violation of SMA" part is fuzzy.

I believe Warren has promoted the unconditioned Parcel Map as a viable solution for more efficient and concise LLA processing. That would be my suggestion for the BLA as well, if you could make it work in your jurisdiciton (or statewide, imagine that!) then the document would be binding with regards to title. I would support CLSA pursuing this as a legislative topic.

BLA is certainly a remedy that we need to have in our toolbag and be able to use it without worrying about creating liability for the client or ourselves. I do not see it as a legal problem but if the title mills don't understand the concept and the fundamental principles then it is not viable.

Option D could be to follow every BLA with a quiet title judgment but that adds unnecessary expense as well.

[David Kendall]

I wonder if they will stop insuring exclusive easements next....

[PeteJack]

Hmmmm . . .

"Traditionally, the insuring language in most standard form title insurance policies provided that the insurer would cover the insured for . . . "unmarketability of title" (the inability to sell or lease the property . . ." (Source CED California Easements & Boundaries: Law & Litigation.)

would a claim of "unmarketability" be at hand?

According to CEB "Title Insurance Practice" - Insuring over known risks:
"if a title company is not willing to write over a matter based simply on its examination of the public records, it may be willing to do so if an indemnity is provided. In this case, the insurer obtains a CLTA 110.7 endorsement against loss by reason of attempted enfocrement of the matter."

Interesting take. The Indemnity part makes me think any coverage they offer would be non-existent in a practical sense. Leaving the same option as making it an exception to coverage. Also would a claim of "unmarketability" be something that requires litigation to enforce? Hiring an Attorney to force coverage might deter a client from any agreement.

Anyways, thanks for your thoughts.

[Ian Wilson]

" The Indemnity part makes me think any coverage they offer would be non-existent in a practical sense. "

That's the whole point.

A wise surveyor who worked for title companies once told me that life insurance companies know their policy holders are going to die. They charge premiums high enough to make a profit before they have to pay out. Health insurance companies figure most people will use the "service" and charge accordingly. Title insurance excepts anything they might have to pay out over and charges through the roof because the "system" requires the insurance.

[PeteJack]

This is an interesting question. If I understand correctly the problem is that we need a more official document to present to title than the traditional Record of Survey document. I believe Humboldt has a boundary correction ordinance that may be in line with what you describe in option B above but I have had several discussions which indicate that the "not a violation of SMA" part is fuzzy.

I believe Warren has promoted the unconditioned Parcel Map as a viable solution for more efficient and concise LLA processing. That would be my suggestion for the BLA as well, if you could make it work in your jurisdiciton (or statewide, imagine that!) then the document would be binding with regards to title. I would support CLSA pursuing this as a legislative topic.

BLA is certainly a remedy that we need to have in our toolbag and be able to use it without worrying about creating liability for the client or ourselves. I do not see it as a legal problem but if the title mills don't understand the concept and the fundamental principles then it is not viable.

Option D could be to follow every BLA with a quiet title judgment but that adds unnecessary expense as well.

Thanks for your input.

I understand the fuzzy part of "Not a violation of SMA". I was spit-balling ideas that might get the Title Companies to agree to coverage. Not sure if they would even if you did this.

Mendocino County requires a Boundary Line Adjustment (their term for Lot Line Adjustment) for every quiet title judgement. Does your County?

[hellsangle]

Great thoughts . . .

I wonder if obtaining a Certificates of Compliance, post Boundary Line Agreement, would make the title industry more comfortable having the BLA "blessed" by the powers-that-be? (Of course gov't probably would rather extract fees for a LLA.) If "uncertainty" exists and a BLA is the "fix" - why can't the powers-that-be join with repairing a boundary that may otherwise require a Quiet Title action? Be part of the solution then adding another layer of hoop-jumping!

Those with vested interests agreed . . . why can't the rest of the train get in line with resolving a boundary?

[PeteJack]

Great thoughts . . .

I wonder if obtaining a Certificates of Compliance, post Boundary Line Agreement, would make the title industry more comfortable having the BLA "blessed" by the powers-that-be? (Of course gov't probably would rather extract fees for a LLA.) If "uncertainty" exists and a BLA is the "fix" - why can't the powers-that-be join with repairing a boundary that may otherwise require a Quiet Title action? Be part of the solution then adding another layer of hoop-jumping!

Those with vested interests agreed . . . why can't the rest of the train get in line with resolving a boundary?

Again, another interesting idea. The point being would Title Companies then insure them? It would seem that for every solution, there seems to be a problem. I've been discussing this with a few Title Officers and I'm not seeing any interest in solving this yet. They don't have a problem when their current answer is they hold no liability. Meaning the Title Companies goal is limiting liability, not helping resolve title lines.

As Surveyor's, is it not our duty to find a solution (I might suffer from magical thinking at times)?

It would seem an amendment to the SMA is emerging our best option, unless someone has a better idea?

Having said all that, I'm off to feed the grandkids ice cream for breakfast. Don't tell mom :-)

[Peter Ehlert]

As Phil said, I believe a CoC would probably satisfy the title company.
Has that question been asked?
Yes, getting clarification edits to the sub map act would be ideal, but that would be wishful thinking... probably open another can of worms and cause the public to jump through expensive hurdles

[Mike Mueller]

Title insurance excepts anything they might have to pay out over and charges through the roof because the "system" requires the insurance.

This is my understanding as well. Most policy's also have quite low coverage limits. Anecdotally, about half of the clients that have had boundary problems and gotten the Title Insurance to pay got about 20K. The insurance folks said it was too expensive to litigate, too expensive to even decide who/what was wrong, and paid the limit of the policy and walked away.

Considering title insurance is ultimately based on banks needing assurances on their collateral, any way to use them to gain some leverage on a fix?

In my mind the ideal solution is some sort of blessing by the CS that helps assure the title folks that it is an actual BLA rather than an end run on a LLA. They are the only ones in government that could be expected to understand the nuances. I shudder to think of getting a planner to understand the difference between expensive to locate boundaries vs improperly located boundaries vs actually uncertain.

Considering that it is impossible to have a situation where a BLA is appropriate without triggering a RoS, it seems like some sort of statement similar to 8762.5 might be possible to add to the PLS so that the RoS that will be filed after the BLA is recorded could show the CS's explicit official approval of the BLA? I know opening that law up is pretty iffy these days though....

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[DWoolley]

...
Considering that it is impossible to have a situation where a BLA is appropriate without triggering a RoS, it seems like some sort of statement similar to 8762.5 might be possible to add to the PLS so that the RoS that will be filed after the BLA is recorded could show the CS's explicit official approval of the BLA? I know opening that law up is pretty iffy these days though....

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

I believe the law we cannot open up is 8726 - defining the practice of land surveying. The reason is the last time it was open "the unions" (they each pointed at the other - together or collectively, Operating Engineers, Carpenters and Laborers) attempted to redefine/deregulate the land surveying practice. The did so without a word to any land surveying organizations (why would they?).

As for the balance of the Professional Land Surveyors' Act, anything but 8726, I would not hesitate to wrench on it - even though most people apparently have not read it since passing their test.

DWoolley

[PeteJack]

...
Considering that it is impossible to have a situation where a BLA is appropriate without triggering a RoS, it seems like some sort of statement similar to 8762.5 might be possible to add to the PLS so that the RoS that will be filed after the BLA is recorded could show the CS's explicit official approval of the BLA? I know opening that law up is pretty iffy these days though....

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

I believe the law we cannot open up is 8726 - defining the practice of land surveying. The reason is the last time it was open "the unions" (they each pointed at the other - together or collectively, Operating Engineers, Carpenters and Laborers) attempted to redefine/deregulate the land surveying practice. The did so without a word to any land surveying organizations (why would they?).

As for the balance of the Professional Land Surveyors' Act, anything but 8726, I would not hesitate to wrench on it - even though most people apparently have not read it since passing their test.

DWoolley

What about SMA? Section 66412 Application of Division; Exclusions (e) "Boundary line or exchange agreements to which the State Lands Commission or a local agency holding a trust grant of tide and submerged lands is a party."

Since this is the only place in the B&P that even addresses Boundary Line Agreements, would this be the place to expand the definition and require Title Company involvement? Providing the Title Companies do not lobby against it right?

[DWoolley]

I suggest submitting the idea to Central Office and/or Legislative Committee. There is a form to complete. I believe there is a plan to revise SMA 66212 in the fall. One new idea is to prohibit a LLA and/or a merger on an existing LLA for a period of three years. Surveyors are subverting the SMA by doing series of LLA/mergers to avoid filing a parcel map.

As for the boundary line agreement, my understanding is the same i.e. a title company will not insure it. It is my further understanding is because the agreements do not always (seldom) get picked up in a title search because there are no conveyance documents recorded. If this sounds familiar it is because in 2023 we still have surveyors performing LLAs without perfecting deeds.

My knee-jerk opinion is the boundary line agreements should not be allowed as a matter of public protection. Yes, they are optimal in an exceedingly rare circumstance. However, they are a sophisticated instrument with complex elements that will result in long standing title errors.

Frankly, our community, viewed as a whole, well, it is common to find many (most?) folks do not/have not read the SMA or the PLSA...to expect them to read and apply the law related to a BLA...this is why we cannot have nice things.

DWoolley

[David Kendall]

My knee-jerk opinion is the boundary line agreements should not be allowed as a matter of public protection. Yes, they are optimal in an exceedingly rare circumstance. However, they are a sophisticated instrument with complex elements that will result in long standing title errors.

Two thumbs up on your final sentence!

I believe the frequency of Boundary Line Agreement situations would be a regional circumstance.

Where you live (and where I have no experience but going off of things you have said in the past) everything is previously surveyed and monumented, the ambiguous lot lines are not commonplace. Where I live there are many many many deed subdivisions with no record monuments or tract lots created a hundred years ago and monumented with wood stakes.

I expect the opportunity for BLA to increase and I still feel that it could be an efficient solution to a problem that is difficult both to explain to the general public and to execute in a formulaic approach. This situation also has great potential to entice feuding neighbors into a court battle with the kook surveyor leading the marching band.

I agree that the potential for title errors is great and that the process could be streamlined if we could create a better solution

I encourage CLSA executive and legislative officers to attempt an educational campaign to strengthen the relationship with title companies and County Surveyors and enlighten our professional brethren on the proper ways and options to effect this remedy as a first resort. Maybe a PR flyer to document and outline the hypothetical BLA experience would be a place to start.

Legislating away the boundary line agreement serves no one but the industry of clerks who process and review parcel maps (and attempt to process LLA documents -- as you said, that process is faulty as well). There is plenty of demand there already, I do not support adding to their workload nor further limiting our toolbox.

I support the suggestion of revising the SMA to encourage more effective processing of boundary agreement and adjustment remedies

I do have empathy for your pessimism and critical attitude but I do not feel this is a viable solution that the LS community should present

[Mike Mueller]

The regionalism that David brought up is very significant here. I would extend that regional impact to how a LLA is processed and the viability of the LLA as the tool to fix uncertain old boundaries.

Some places won't allow a LLA that results in a parcel of land that does not conform to current planning requirements. This is mostly felt in the size or setback issues when you have old 50x100 lots that are overbuilt and no one knows where the lines are supposed to be. We have attempted to use the LLA process to help clients that are amicably trying to fix the situation and the planning department says no because the resultant configurations are not in compliance.

The other big issue is the situations that David brought up with horrible boundary situations. Take the two attached maps as an example. 60 years ago a very competent surveyor (George Abbott) wrote about the complications of locating boundaries from these maps. Many subsequent "surveyors"
did not follow Abbott's advice. Consider 288M48 which tied 2nd generation monuments from different maps, across different canyons and did a 2 point tango. These bad maps are often 40-50 years ago, and are the basis for sudivisions, houses being built etc. That guy at least recorded his map so we know what he did wrong. Many folks didn't even do that courtesy. There is often such ambiguity of lines that even if we do a LLA we have to use descriptions that are effectively quitclaim styles, IE "all that portion of Lot 123 that is easterly of following line" style.

One of the crappy aspects of using a BLA solution in these old subdivisions is the issue of subsequent reliance on that position for proration. Since a BLA is supposed to be providing a certain location for an unlocatable position and in practice the BLA is often along the line of occupation it is likely a bad position for a later proration...

If we could get a provision in LLA law that its ok to have non conforming resultant configurations for these sorts of situations I would far more amenable to limiting BLAs.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[hellsangle]

I thought to myself . . . "who better knows the title industry than Gary Kent?"

I emailed Gary with the link to this thread. Which he promptly emailed his thoughts to this thread.

(Upon receiving permission to repost his response . . . Here is some Kent wisdom:

"Hi, Phil. Thanks for the note. I read the thread, but do not have a log-in to join the fray. Acknowledging that I am not as knowledgeable on California law as others, here are my thoughts. Feel free to put them out there...

I would heartily suggest engaging with the CLTA and discussing the issues. Nothing will happen until both sides understand the concerns and ramifications. In fairly short order, a solution will likely become clear; and having a collaborative effort in the legislature would be helpful.

Having said that, and I have obviously not discussed this with the agency or underwriter, but It seems to me that the problem the title company has is that they are concerned about insuring the record title because of the possibility that the boundary line agreement may have altered it. If the parties can come to an agreement on the boundary, surely they can follow up with formalizing the agreement in a way that appears in the chain of title and that can be blessed by the jurisdiction. You have a variety of survey “tools” that can be used to change boundary lines: lot line adjustments, parcel maps, boundary line agreements, and probably more. It seems logical that the more informal methods should be followed with something formal that is approved by the jurisdiction, thus alleviating any concerns over illegal subdivisions, etc. Either that, or pursue some legislation to formalize the boundary line agreement process in such a way that provides enough confidence in the land tenure that title companies will be comfortable insuring the resulting property.

Regarding the comments about title insurance … Unless things are different in CA when it comes to title insurance, and I do not think they are at the basic level, when you receive an owner's title policy, they are covering you for the full value of the property from the effective date, not some arbitrary lesser amount. The lender’s policy is for the value of the loan (hence, its value drops as the loan is paid down), but an owner's policy is for full value from day one. The protection afforded by a title policy is (1) to defend your title against claims, and (2) if there is no defending the claim, or if they lose in that defense, to indemnify you for the value of the loss (because the condition of title differed from how it was represented in the policy). Additional coverages can be bought through one or more of the 60+ endorsements that are available.

I am constantly baffled by criticism that title companies don’t cover the problems identified in the chain of title or on a survey. Why would they? Talk about a bad business model. If I crash my car, I cannot run out and buy auto insurance to cover the damage that already occurred. The title company identifies the potential title problems in the commitment, thus putting the buyer and lender on notice. If the risk resulting from the potential problem is too great, perhaps they should not loan the money or buy the property. Alternately, they could seek some mitigation or solution to the problem prior to closing.

Gary R. Kent, PS"

[DWoolley]

...
I believe the frequency of Boundary Line Agreement situations would be a regional circumstance.

Where you live (and where I have no experience but going off of things you have said in the past) everything is previously surveyed and monumented, the ambiguous lot lines are not commonplace. Where I live there are many many many deed subdivisions with no record monuments or tract lots created a hundred years ago and monumented with wood stakes.
...

From my perspective the unfiled records and establishment of any boundary from any two monuments in the county has created many of the ambiguous lot lines and uncertainty in location in your neck of the woods. However, uncertainty in location is not uncertainty in the land title. Restated, there is nothing inherently wrong with the land title in your area - it is location issue. The location issue was caused by the practices of generations of local land surveyors. Why on God's green earth would you want to create a mechanism for the local surveyors to denigrate the land title? Imagine a local land surveyor does the usual two monument tango, resolves the boundary with an agreement and the second surveyor decides to search for (and finds) monuments/evidence of the original line, now what? The title company is right in keeping our ilk out of their chain of title.

Now imagine of the 10% of the licensees that attend seminars stopping into a John Stahl seminar. John Stahl is 100% correct in teaching land surveyors to discuss the boundary between owners and placing the monuments in "the agreed location" - if you practice in Utah! The seminar goer begins executing boundary line agreements without knowing boundary law is governed by state law. California law does not allow for a boundary line agreement in most every instance. Read Bryant v Blevins for more specifics. In short:

"In Ernie v. Trinity Lutheran Church the requirements of the agreed-boundary doctrine, numerous Court of Appeal decisions have held that the doctrine should not be applied broadly to resolve boundary disputes where there is no evidence that the neighboring owners entered into an agreement to resolve a boundary dispute and where the true boundary is ascertainable from the legal description set forth in an existing deed or survey. (See, e.g., Armitage v. Decker (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 887, 902-904 [267 Cal.Rptr. 399]; Mesnick v. Caton, supra, 183 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1256-1258; Finley v. Yuba County Water Dist. (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 691, 698-701 [160 Cal.Rptr. 423].) The common theme of these decisions is a deference to the sanctity of true and accurate legal descriptions and a concomitant reluctance to allow such descriptions to be invalidated by implication, through reliance upon unreliable boundaries created by fences or foliage, or by other inexact means of demarcation."

If anyone cares to understand the importance of land title to American wealth read "The Mystery of Capital" by Hernando de Soto. de Soto offers a compelling theory that our nation's wealth is due to the stability of the land title system. It would be irresponsible/cataclysmic to create any mechanisms to allow our community, a community that does not want to set monuments or file maps, anywhere near the land title system. We need to move along, nothing to see here.

DWoolley

[PeteJack]

Regarding the comments about title insurance … Unless things are different in CA when it comes to title insurance, and I do not think they are at the basic level, when you receive an owner's title policy, they are covering you for the full value of the property from the effective date, not some arbitrary lesser amount. The lender’s policy is for the value of the loan (hence, its value drops as the loan is paid down), but an owner's policy is for full value from day one. The protection afforded by a title policy is (1) to defend your title against claims, and (2) if there is no defending the claim, or if they lose in that defense, to indemnify you for the value of the loss (because the condition of title differed from how it was represented in the policy). Additional coverages can be bought through one or more of the 60+ endorsements that are available.

I am constantly baffled by criticism that title companies don’t cover the problems identified in the chain of title or on a survey. Why would they? Talk about a bad business model. If I crash my car, I cannot run out and buy auto insurance to cover the damage that already occurred. The title company identifies the potential title problems in the commitment, thus putting the buyer and lender on notice. If the risk resulting from the potential problem is too great, perhaps they should not loan the money or buy the property. Alternately, they could seek some mitigation or solution to the problem prior to closing.

Gary R. Kent, PS"[/i]

I have an email out to Gary. Here's the jist of what's going on:

"Hi Gary,

I’m part of the discussion on the CLSA forum and would love it if I could discuss this with you, or even consult with you if you have the time.
I have a client who I recommended and performed a Boundary Line Agreement in 2012. It was a clear case where a deed call “Chimney Rock” was called for. Two prior surveyors found what they claimed was this deed call rock, with 70’ difference between the two surveys, and neither of the two previous surveyed locations had a definitive rock at their location. I then retraced the deed, found what I thought was “Chimney Rock”, but was 10’ and 60’ different from the previous surveys. Rather than file a Record of Survey showing third opinion on this location because the rock I found (it was not marked Chimney Rock) was subjective and might not be the actual one called in the deed, I thought a Boundary Line Agreement would better serve my client, both parties agreed. We executed and filed a Boundary Line Agreement and Quitclaim Deed.

Last year my client put their property up for sale. The Preliminary Title Report lists the Boundary Line Agreement as an exception to coverage. When the buyer asked the Title Company why, they said it was a violation of the Subdivision Map Act, basically an illegal Lot Line Adjustment. It is now viewed as a color of title issue and my client wants it removed. Their solution is to perform a micro–Lot Line Adjustment, have it reviewed and approved by the County, therefore making it available for coverage.

I spoke with the Title Company. The response I got was “every Boundary Line Agreement they have ever delt with was an encroachment issue” and would be in violation of SMA. I tried to no avail to explain an encroachment is by definition needing a Lot Line Adjustment but could not change their opinion. I also reviewed and discussed this with the County Surveyor and got her to agree and explain to the Title Company that it was not a Lot Line Adjustment.

I’m looking for the appropriate way to handle this. Telling the client that exceptions are typical in this area and does not affect the validity of the location of the actual line does not seem to be helping either. Especially when the Title Company represents otherwise. My client's perspective is that if it were settled, then the Title Company would insure it, because the Title Company won’t, it must be defective.

What do you think is my best option?"

[DWoolley]

...
What do you think is my best option?"

Daannggg. I appreciate you sharing these details. Even though there are very few readers of the forum, I am reluctant to state the various causes of action against a land surveyor in this case. No good deed...

Ask the title company about deed reformation that could incorporate the BLA into an acceptable title document. Their concern is creating deeds to "subdivide" property, I see their issue. I would record a Lot Line Adjustment, post haste. The damages are tolling. This is a good example of a location issue becoming a title issue.

To avoid this situation, I worked around it by executing a boundary line agreement as to the location of the west line of lot 1 (not altering the title description), quitclaim deeds either side of the west line of lot 1 (not altering the original description), filed a record of survey locating lot 1 (the west line was in question as to location), and reformed the deeds with a legal description from "Lot 1, Tract XXX" to "Lot 1, Tract XXX as shown on Record of Survey XXX". It walked like a duck, the title company did not balk. Mileage may vary.

DWoolley

[DWoolley]

Pete Jackson:

I have been stewing on the situation described above. I have couple of ideas to remedy the issues.

If nothing else, we can work together to complete the form to get your legislative ideas in front of the Board of Directors on July 29th. The BoD can vote to authorize the Legislative Committee to work on it - the first step of the process. The fact I am not particularly warm to the idea is immaterial, I am not the arbiter of the legislative agenda.

I am working today. Email me at DWoolley at DWoolley.com and we can schedule a call.

Dave

[PeteJack]

Thanks Dave. I appreciate your thoughts on this. I sent you an email. I would like to discuss this further on the phone. If not today, then Monday.

I recently spoke with a fellow surveyor from Norway. They do not have Licensed Surveyors. Instead, the Local "County Surveyor" is the licensed one authorized to file maps and sub-contracts all of the fieldwork out to qualified non-licensed people, reviews their work, and files the maps with a definitive location of the lines. Is this what we want?

I think my point is that due to recent (last 5 or so years) changes in the Title Companies downsizing and re-structuring, the have replaced all of the experienced Title Officers that used to work with Surveyors to help people, to a more profit minded perspective that limits their liabilities. The statement made by this title officer "all Boundary Line Agreements are due to encroachments" is what I mean. His lack of understanding and experience is leaving surveyors without a remedy to perform our duties. I understand this the way things are, but this puts Surveyors in a position where we "being keepers of the boundaries" are in effect being muted in our ability to help fulfil our role. If not us, then who?

Bottom line: Boundary Line Agreements are real and legitimate and although rare, are necessary. If we don't find a way to correct this, or role as Surveyors may itself become obsolete.

[DWoolley]

...
I think my point is that due to recent (last 5 or so years) changes in the Title Companies downsizing and re-structuring, the have replaced all of the experienced Title Officers that used to work with Surveyors to help people, to a more profit minded perspective that limits their liabilities. The statement made by this title officer "all Boundary Line Agreements are due to encroachments" is what I mean. His lack of understanding and experience is leaving surveyors without a remedy to perform our duties. I understand this the way things are, but this puts Surveyors in a position where we "being keepers of the boundaries" are in effect being muted in our ability to help fulfil our role. If not us, then who?
...

I am familiar with the title insurance industry. You are 100% correct about being a corporate profit center, little more. The title engineers like Gurdon Wattles are long gone and will never return.

According to a 2007 GAO report, the title company business model for every dollar taken in is 70% is paid to the agent, 25% is for expenses and 5% is loss/loss adjustment. Imagine an insurance business that only paid out 5% in claims. Five title companies control 92% of the industry. They do not necessarily compete - they carved up the country. Texas - Old Republic, California- First American, Florida - Fidelity. Iowa is the only state that does not allow title insurance. They also found that if they had folks like Gurdon Wattles around their loss/loss adjustment did not change. In essence, they were wasting money on people that knew the title.

More insurance fun facts: sometime in the 1980s California passed Prop 103 to regulate the casualty, dwellings, auto etc. The Insurance Commissioner limited and monitors the profit margin to 10-15% - similar to health insurance regulations. As a consequence, in 2023, we have the big insurers i.e. State Farm, Allstate, etc pulling out of California. In some areas, homeowners will not be able to get policies or a policy may cost as much at $15k annually with a $5k deductible for home insurance. Compare that to title insurance with a 5% loss/loss adjustment.

I missed you this morning, left a message, we'll catch up on Monday. I also sent you the work product referenced above. It is 20 years old, I suspect I could do better today.

DWoolley