2011

The third-party buyer of three pieces of property in Utah, who purchased the property from defaulting borrowers, sued the various defendants who held interests in the property, seeking to prevent foreclosure. The company argued that the defendants had no authority to foreclose because the notes had been securitized, necessitating the approval of each investor in order to foreclose. After each of three cases was dismissed, the purchaser appealed to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

After a property owner got into a series of property disputes with a town in New Hampshire, he turned to his title company to defend him. When the company refused, he sued for breach of contract. The case eventually made it to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire on cross-motions for summary judgment.

The seller of property in Washington state questioned a reconveyance tracking fee on his HUD-1, but went along with the sale anyway. Later on, he sued the title company for charging the fee.

A Georgia lawyer was sued for breach of contract and malpractice after his firm failed to pay off mortgages at a real estate closing. The disbursement of those funds was to be handled by his partner and an escrow account signatory, as instructed. The newly-established lawyer had suspicions about the acts of his partner’s escrow signatory.

After a title insurer in California denied homeowners’ claims, the homeowners sued the state’s trade association for false advertising. They claimed that they relied on the advertisement in making their decision to purchase title insurance and that they lost money as a result of the violations.

A South Carolina homeowner decided to try one last time to appeal the decision in a claim dispute with her underwriter to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The issues in the case had been litigated in a previous case that worked its way up from the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina.

A title insurer refused to release funds held as part of an indemnity agreement, alleging the property owner had failed to perform under the agreement. The property owner sued, A trial court entered a judgment of dismissal on the property owner’s lawsuit against the insurer, but on appeal the court reversed, saying there were too many factual disputes to sustain the demurer.

With a deed of trust still lingering on property in Tennessee, the property owner went through the process of obtaining another loan, providing an owner’s affidavit saying the first deed of trust would be paid off. The title insurer sued the property owner after discovering the property owner had not paid off the first deed of trust.

A court had to determine whether to award damages and how much should be awarded to a property owner who was prevented from developing his property for five years due to an undiscovered easement across his entire property. The easement was eventually shortened due to a settlement between the property owner and the holder of the easement, without the help of the title company.

In a much anticipated decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC), the court held that a third party purchaser at a foreclosure sale did not hold title to a property that had improperly been foreclosed upon by the foreclosing lender.

The Alabama Supreme Court declined answering a certified question from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, which asked the court to determine whether an insured’s valuation evidence is limited to the use to which the property is being devoted as of the date of the discovery of the defect of title.

After being sued in state court by their underwriter for their alleged participation in a mortgage fraud scheme, a title insurance agency, its owners and two employees looked to their liability insurer to defend them. The liability insurer refused and sought declaratory judgment confirming that it was not required to defend the agent in the case.

Can a closing protection letter (CPL) be issued post closing, or is a CPL, by its very nature, legally a prospective, rather than retroactive document? Two Michigan judges wrangled over the contractual language and arrived at far different conclusions.

When a New Jersey couple was taken to court by their neighbors to settle a boundary dispute, the couple turned to their title insurance company to defend them. After the title company denied their claim, they filed suit for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. The case eventually went to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division on the title insurer’s motion to dismiss.

A title insurer that fixed legal descriptions of the warranty deeds for units of a duplex that had been mistakenly switched was sued for negligence by the owner of one of the units after the owner was named in a quiet title suit to address the switched legal descriptions on her mortgagee’s deed of trust.

A warehouse lender sued a title company for breach of contract after discovering the originating lender had defrauded it of millions. It argued that had the title company reported suspicious requests it received from the originator, the warehouse lender would have been able to prevent the fraud.

A federal trial court granted summary judgment to a title insurer in a mechanics’ lien claims case, refusing to grant the lender the ‘windfall’ they sought after they refused to release construction funds to satisfy the lien.

An incarcerated homeowner sued the escrow company that conducted the escrow for a real estate transaction in which the man to whom he had given a power of attorney and his business partner defrauded the homeowner of title to his property in Beverly Hills.

After purchasing title insurance and transferring title to their property several times, property owners in California discovered an encroachment on their property that prevented them from selling it. The claim dispute eventually went to arbitration. When the arbitrator ruled in favor of the property owners, the title insurer appealed.

A federal court awarded restitution to two underwriters and a closing agent, as well as several lending institutions, in a fraud case, refusing to buy the perpetrator’s argument that the value of the security should offset restitution where one of the underwriters had suffered nearly a million dollar loss in claims based on the fraud.

A federal appellate court determined that a marketability problem with a property in Louisiana was not due to a defect in title, but rather due to the condition of the property, where the new owners discovered bomb remnants on the property. The trial court had granted the title insurer summary judgment, concluding that the landowner’s claim was not covered under the title insurance company’s policy. The landowner appealed, arguing that a servitude was created on the property under a Louisiana statute.

Homeowners in California sold a house to their children, receiving a $75,000 promissory note in exchange. When their children refinanced the mortgage on the property, the parents believed they would receive those funds, but didn’t. They turned and sued the title company that conducted the refinance for negligence and breach of trust.

After allegedly being charged an unearned fee for title insurance when he refinanced his mortgage, a Texas homeowner sued his title insurer for money had and received, unjust enrichment, violations of RESPA and breach of implied contract. When the RESPA claims were dismissed, the title insurer motioned for summary judgment on the state law claims, arguing that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over these issues.

A U.S. district court judge in Kentucky denied class certification to a group of homeowners who alleged they received the wrong discount when they refinanced their mortgages.

An appellate court judge in California tossed a shareholder suit against the parent company of one of the nation’s largest title insurers, which alleged that the company knew about misdeeds of its title insurance subsidiary and did nothing to stop them.

After a misunderstanding led an escrow company to pay off the wrong mortgage in a refinance transaction, the owner used money provided to fix the mix-up to purchase additional property. When the escrow company had to pay its title insurer for a claim brought because of that mistake, the escrow company sought restitution from the property owner.

An insured lender sued its title agent and title insurer after failing to get notice that the property it held a lien on was going to be razed by the City of Baltimore because the agent failed to record the deed properly. Read on to find out what the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland had to say when the insurer filed a motion to dismiss the claims against it.

After failing to establish the primacy of an outstanding loan in state court, a defunct bank’s successor filed a federal suit against the title insurer involved in the deal. The court dismissed the complaint under the doctrine of collateral estoppel. The successor asked the court to amend its order, arguing that court’s finding regarding a Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) purchase and assumption agreement should be removed from the record because the issues involved were not litigated at the state level. The court denied the motion, determining that collateral estoppel should apply.

A title insurer was sued for breach of the owner’s policy by a hotel that was unable to expand the property it purchased because of an undisclosed brick wall that attached the purchased property to the next lot. The title insurer demanded that the case be dismissed because the hotel’s lenders had not joined as parties to the suit.

The seller of property in Angola, Ind., sued the title agency that handled his transaction after the company’s independent abstractor failed to discover unpaid property taxes. The case eventually was heard by the Court of Appeals of Indiana.

The First District Court of Appeal of California heard a case in which the holder of a third deed of trust on property sold in a short sale, who did not have his lien satisfied, eventually sued the title company who conducted the title work for attorneys fees after having to defend his lien against the property.

When an insured party to a series of transactions gets sued in multiple cases, it turns to the title insurer to defend it. When the insurer refuses to pay for the insured party’s loss, the insured party sues, leaving it up to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota to decide.

Title insurers for two properties sued the surveyor of buildings for damages after receiving claims from the owners due to encroachments that were not on the “as built” survey provided by the surveyor. After its liability insurer paid out damages to the title companies, the surveyor sued the title insurers to recover those damages. The case was eventually heard by the Appellate Court of Connecticut regarding whether the principles of res judicata had been properly applied in this case.

A Missouri appellate court determined that in releasing its lien in a full reconveyance settlement with defaulting borrowers, a company had effectively wiped out an underwriter’s subrogation rights and therefore was not entitled to reimbursement for nebulous losses under an alleged title impairment.

When a forged deed gave rise to a false chain of title, several lawsuits followed. One of the companies involved attempted to establish that it was entitled to protection under a title insurance policy and that a title company had a duty to defend. An appeals court ruled that even if the company had received a policy, none of the causes of action the company faced gave rise to potential liability.

A bankruptcy appellate court determined that debt owed to Old Republic Title Company of Tennessee, which had been reduced to judgment by a state court settlement agreement, was nondischargeable because the company had proven fraudulent misrepresentation.

As a result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, a California judge sent plaintiff homeowners’ suit alleging their title insurers fixed title prices to arbitration.

A federal court awarded restitution to two underwriters and a closing agent, as well as several lending institutions, in a fraud case, refusing to buy the perpetrator’s argument that the value of the security should offset restitution where one of the underwriters had suffered nearly a million dollar loss in claims based on the fraud.

A federal district court determined that a title insurer was obligated to provide a defense as to all of the claims in a title dispute, in spite of the fact that only one of the claims — a claim alleging public prescriptive easement — was actually covered by the policy. The underwriter had refused to defend the remaining claims on the basis that those causes of action alleged matters not insured against by the policy.

When a would-be developer in New Jersey defaulted on a mortgage, the lender agreed to discharge the mortgage to allow the borrower to refinance. The refinance fell through and the borrower used a copy of the unrecorded discharge to secure another loan. The initial lender attempted to foreclose but a court ruled the discharge belonged to the borrower. An appellate court affirmed the lower court’s decision.

When an Arkansas couple sued several parties following an apparent instance of escrow fraud, some of the alleged conspirators argued that the use of the conspiracy theory of in personam jurisdiction at the federal level violated state law. A U.S. district court presented the matter to the state supreme court in the form of a certified question. That court found that the conspiracy theory does not violate due process rights.

A federal appeals court vacated a district court's class certification order in a reissue rate case and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of a recent decision in which the court determined that individualized inquiries were necessary to determine whether particular persons qualify for a discounted reissue rate.

Citing the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Benavides V. Chicago Title, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined that a class could not be certified in a reissue rate case based on the class description, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to adopt a proposed case management plan that would have created subclasses to overcome a predominance barrier.

A Massachusetts appellate court affirmed the granting of summary judgment to a title insurer, where the insured willingly obtained a mortgage on a property, knowing that the former owner had not filed Massachusetts income taxes for the years 2001 through 2004.

When the discovery of an old city law scuttled a New Orleans- housing project, the developer sued its title insurer seeking to collect under the policy’s zoning endorsement. In determining that the issue was covered under the policy, the court noted that a thorough abstract had apparently never taken place.

A U.S. district court rejected defendants’ attempts to shift blame to PNC, after their indemnification agreement with Old Republic National Title Insurance Co. resulted in alleged losses of over $100,000, saying while it was clear the claims were related, there was little to show how PNC could be liable under an agreement between the defendants and Old Republic. The defendants had claimed that the losses Old Republic incurred — for which Old Republic is now suing to recover from the defendants — were a direct result of PNC’s failure to file a proper no-lien document, allowing a mechanic’s lien to secure a lien position ahead of the bank.

The Appeals Court of Indiana determined that a trial court had erred in denying Meridian Title Corp.’s motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that there was no long-standing, intimate relationship between the buyer and the title company that would justify imposing a duty on the title company beyond its general duty of reasonable care, skill and good faith diligence in obtaining a policy of insurance.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Maine denied one national underwriter’s request for decertification of a class of homeowners who allege they were overcharged for title insurance when they refinanced their home.

Buyers sought determination that contract for construction and purchase of condominium was voidable, based on developer's failure to comply with its escrow obligations under Florida law, and also sought to recover from escrow agent. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, No. 1:08-cv-23444-CMA, Cecilia M. Altonaga, J., 2010 WL 1258086, entered judgment in favor of buyers, and developer and escrow agent appealed.

Lawyers Title of Arizona, Inc. (“Lawyers Title”) appeals from the trial court's judgment after a trial to the court in favor of the Richard L. Jones Revocable Trust (“the Trust”) and Plaza Leyenda, LP, which had sued Lawyers Title for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. The claims arose from the failure of Lawyers Title, the escrow agent, to promptly notify Plaza Leyenda and the Trust that the check provided by the buyer of a piece of property Plaza Leyenda was selling had been returned for non-sufficient funds. Plaza Leyenda contended that, as a consequence, it was unable to accept a bid for construction on the property, resulting in an increase in construction costs. Plaza Leyenda and the Trust appeal the trial court's denial of its request for attorneys' fees. For the following reasons, we hold that Lawyers Title breached no duty to the Trust and so vacate the judgment in favor of the Trust. We affirm the court's verdict in favor of Plaza Leyenda on its claims of negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. We vacate, however, the court's award of damages and remand with an order to recalculate damages in accordance with this decision.

Florida homeowners sued two title insurers alleging they were not provided a reissue rate discount when they refinanced their home loans. After a trial court granted class certification to Florida homeowners who allege they were not provided a reissue rate when they refinanced their home, the title insurers appealed the decision.

The owner of property in Nevada County, Calif., sued his title insurer when the insurer denied his claim. The company had argued that it had already addressed the underlying issue in the claim and that the owner was no longer the insured under the policy after the owner had put the property in a trust.

New Hampshire homeowners filed suit against a national title insurance company, alleging the company used a “network of title agents” to conduct a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act scam, overcharging them for title insurance during their refinance transactions.

The court has before it defendant Lawyers Title of Arizona, Inc.'s motion to dismiss, plaintiff M & I Bank's response , and Lawyers Title's reply. We also have before us defendant First American Title Insurance Company's motion to dismiss (doc. 29), plaintiff's response, and First American's reply. Finally, we have before us First American's joinder in Lawyers Title's motion (doc. 54), plaintiff's response, and First American's reply.

After foreclosing on two properties and purchasing the properties back at the foreclosure sales, U.S. Bank National Association (U.S.Bank), as trustee for the Structured Asset Securities Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-Z; and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Wells Fargo), as trustee for ABFC 2005-OPT 1 Trust, ABFC Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2005-OPT 1 (plaintiffs), filed separate complaints in the Land Court asking a judge to declare that they held clear title to the properties in fee simple. We agree with the judge that the plaintiffs, who were not the original mortgagees, failed to make the required showing that they were the holders of the mortgages at the time of foreclosure. As a result, they did not demonstrate that the foreclosure sales were valid to convey title to the subject properties, and their requests for a declaration of clear title were properly denied.

Appellants, Windsor Village, Ltd. and Jackob Elbaz, appeal from the trial court's judgment awarding damages and attorney's fees to appellee, Stewart Title Company, on its claims for fraud and indemnity. We affirm, in part, and reverse and render, in part.

Plaintiff, Pavilion Park, LLC (“Pavilion Park”) initiated this action against First American Title Insurance Company (“First American”) grounded upon contractual claims under First American's title insurance policy. Both sides have now moved for summary judgment. The Court finds that the contract issues are relatively straightforward. The Court will dismiss Pavilion Park's claims.

Defendants Quarles & Brad LLP, John O'Neal and Lauren Stein (collectively “Quarle Defendants” and, for the purposes of this motion, “Defendants”) move to dismiss Plaintiff' tortious interference with contract and abuse of proces claims. The motion has been fully briefed and the parties do not request oral argument. For the reasons stated below, the Court will grant in part and deny in part Defendants' motion.

A federal court awarded restitution to two underwriters and a closing agent, as well as several lending institutions, in a fraud case, refusing to buy the perpetrator’s argument that the value of the security should offset restitution where one of the underwriters had suffered nearly a million dollar loss in claims based on the fraud.