# Identify Issues In Title Commitment > Guides identification and severity-ranked analysis of title commitment issues for a land acquisition by comparing the title commitment against the survey, purchase agreement requirements, lender requirements, and trust documentation, with curative recommendations for each material issue. - Skill: `finchipaiorg/identify-issues-in-title-commitment` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add finchipaiorg/identify-issues-in-title-commitment` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/finchipaiorg/identify-issues-in-title-commitment/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Docs & Writing - Author: FinchipAIOrg (https://skillmd.com/u/finchipaiorg) - Updated: 2026-09-22 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/finchipaiorg/identify-issues-in-title-commitment --- # Skill: Identify Issues in Title Commitment — Issue Memorandum for Land Acquisition ## 1. Subject-matter triage - Treat the title commitment, survey, purchase agreement excerpts, lender requirements, and trust documents as a single diligence set. - Start by confirming whether the seller’s chain of authority and the target estate are sufficient to close; if trust authority is unresolved, treat that as threshold risk before lower-order exception review. - If multiple parcels, tracts, title commitments, or trust instruments are in scope, enumerate them first and analyze each separately rather than collapsing them into one pass. - The memorandum should be issue-focused, not a recitation of all title pages. ## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting - The review lists title exceptions descriptively but does not explain whether each item is permitted, curable, lender-problematic, or project-blocking. - The review reads the commitment in isolation and misses mismatches among the legal description, acreage, easements, and survey depiction. - The review ignores trust authority questions, including whether the trustee may convey, whether the trust has terminated, and whether beneficiary consent is required. - The review satisfies the purchase agreement standard but omits independent lender conditions that can still prevent funding. - The review identifies issues but stops at diagnosis, without a practical cure path, owner, and timing anchor. - The review fails to tie each issue to the transaction’s closing consequence, leaving the memo non-actionable. ## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply - Title commitment structure: Schedule A states the insured estate, proposed insured parties, and legal description; Schedule B-I lists pre-issuance requirements; Schedule B-II lists exceptions from coverage, each of which must be evaluated on its own terms. - Purchase agreement title standard: compare the commitment against the seller’s promised title condition and permitted-exception regime, including any buyer-consent mechanism for new exceptions. - Lender title package: assess title requirements, endorsements, survey certifications, and exception removals independently of the purchase agreement because lender conditions may be stricter. - Survey-title consistency: the survey should align with the commitment on legal description, acreage, access, setback-relevant boundaries, and plotted encumbrances; discrepancies are diligence issues even if not yet deal-breakers. - Trust authority: review the trust instrument and any related certificates or consents for trustee power to convey, expiration or termination concerns, and beneficiary-consent requirements; treat unresolved authority as a conveyancing defect. - Energy-project sensitivity: for solar or similar development land, assess whether title burdens interfere with use, access, setbacks, height-related restrictions, conservation limitations, or other project-specific siting needs. ## 4. Analytical scaffolds - Read Schedule A first to confirm the insured estate, proposed insureds, and legal description match the deal documents. - Read Schedule B-I next and assign each requirement to the party responsible for satisfying it before closing. - Read Schedule B-II line by line and classify each exception as: - permitted under the purchase agreement, - removable or endorsable to satisfy lender requirements, - curable by seller or trustee action, - or requiring buyer follow-up / further factual review. - Cross-check every exception against the survey and flag any easement, restriction, boundary issue, or access issue that appears in one document but not the other. - Review the trust materials for authority, term, and consent mechanics before treating title as deliverable. - For each issue, include: - the source and commitment reference, - a concise description, - the governing standard or document hook, - why it matters to closing or project use, - a severity classification, - and a concrete curative recommendation. - Use an ordinal severity scale defined once at the top of the memorandum and apply it uniformly across all issues. - Support each legal proposition with the controlling authority named in the source materials or the applicable title / trust convention that supports the conclusion. - For each issue, close the analysis by tying together scale or scope, the interacting document(s), and the downstream consequence to the client. ## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships - Treat seller authority to convey as logically upstream from Schedule B analysis; if authority is unclear, downstream title cures may be irrelevant until the trust issue is fixed. - Treat survey certification, if required, as a gating closing condition rather than a clerical detail. - Treat lender conditions as additive to, not replaced by, the purchase agreement standard; where they diverge, the stricter requirement governs the closing path. - Order issues from highest severity to lowest, but preserve category coherence within each severity tier. - For curative items, note who must act and when the action must occur relative to closing or lender funding. ## 6. Output structure conventions - Deliver a title issue memorandum organized by severity tiers using an ordinal scale such as Blocking / Material / Informational, defined in the memo itself. - Open with a short executive summary identifying the critical-path items and any closing blockers. - For each issue entry, include: - severity, - document and schedule reference, - issue statement, - interaction with other documents, - project or financing consequence, - curative recommendation, - responsible party, - and timing anchor. - Keep the analysis concise but complete; do not bury a blocking issue inside narrative text. - End with a Recommended Actions section listing imperative next steps by responsible role and timing. - Use conventional issue-memo headings rather than copying any checker-specific rubric headings. - The required file name is `title-issue-memorandum.docx`.