Case Law - Court Cases

After a mistake on a mortgage was fixed, the borrower defaulted on the mortgage and the lender’s assignee attempted to foreclose on the unit. At the same time, the condominium association for the unit foreclosed on its lien on the property. An entity purchased the unit at the condominium association’s foreclosure auction and sought to quiet title to the property. The case eventually went before the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

When a couple purchased property in Woodinville, Wash., from a bank that had acquired the property after foreclosing on the previous owners, it agreed to do so as-is. It also obtained title insurance and later sought coverage for alleged title defects. The insurer denied all but one of the claims, and the couple sued.

The Supreme Court of Nevada recently heard an appeal from a district court order granting a motion for summary judgment in an insurance coverage and bad faith dispute arising out of an homeowners’ association foreclosure.

A party to real estate transactions filed suit against bank and title and escrow entities, alleging they violated her constitutional rights by racially discriminating against her and thwarting her transactions by breaching and interfering with contracts.

The owners of adjacent property both claim ownership of a 1.63-acre parcel of land on the Little Red River in Arkansas. After escalating actions, one party filed a quiet title suit to the property. The case eventually went before the Court of Appeals of Arkansas.

The Court of Appeals of Georgia considered whether a defective security deed, which does not provide constructive notice to future bona-fide purchasers of the subject property, may provide inquiry notice in view of a purchaser’s failure to inquire into the chain of title prior to purchasing the property.

The Supreme Court of Washington recently heard a case where the owner of property sued the lender that wrongly foreclosed on the property. The owner prevailed at trial court on both quiet title and damages for slander of title, and the trial court awarded substantial fees based on the slander of title claim. The appellate court reversed the slander of title claim but awarded fees to the owner on a new theory before the case was reviewed by the highest court of the state.

After a seller was unsuccessful in obtaining title insurance as required under the sales contract, it returned the buyer’s earnest money and canceled the contract. The buyer filed suit, seeking performance of the contract.

When a trust purchased property from a developer, the purchase and sales agreement required it to develop the lot within two years or the developer would have the right to repurchase the lot. The trust failed to do so and eventually settled with the developer, seeking coverage from its title insurer. The insurer declined coverage of the losses and the trust sued.

A couple, as themselves and as trustees of a trust, filed suit against a title insurer for the purported wrongful foreclosure on their property. Two related cases are also making their way through the court system, and the court ruled it was necessary to stay this case pending appeal in the others.

After a mortgage holder filed suit against a title insurer, the mortgage holder sought to seal an unredacted version of certain documents, including an unredacted version of its reply in support of its motion for partial summary judgment and its response to the title insurer’s motion to file a sur-reply. The title insurer moved to seal its response to the mortgage holder’s motion to seal.

After receiving a default judgment against a buyer and seller for unjust enrichment, a title insurer provided information at an inquest to provide evidence of the damages incurred. The court denied the request for damages and, after the court denied the request to reopen the inquest, the insurer appealed the decision.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia heard renewed cross-motions for summary judgment from an insurer and its insured in a breach of contract case. The insured party alleged that its title insurer breached the policy contract in part by failing to compensate it for losses allegedly covered under the policy.

The owners of adjacent properties disputed the ownership of land between the two properties. One party filed a quiet title suit and was found to have superior title. The other party appealed.

A title company filed an interpleader action against a buyer and seller to resolve the conflicting claims to earnest money for a failed sale. The seller appealed a trial court’s order directing that interpleader funds be released to the buyer following a directed verdict in favor of the buyer.

A title company sued its professional liability insurer for failure to indemnify it in two lawsuits. The court recently heard the professional liability insurer’s motion for summary judgment and the title company’s motion to seal.

A group of owners of property stemming from a decades-old land swap transaction sued the city of Phoenix and the title company that conducted the transaction, arguing that the deed and escrow instructions of the land swap prohibited the construction of trails on the subject property.

After a title insurer and its employee were sued for allegedly participating in a fraudulent scheme, they moved to compel arbitration. A trial court denied their motion, so they appealed to the Court of Appeals of Utah.

A title insurer moved to dismiss a first amended complaint against it regarding coverage for a notice of abatement. The insurer argued the claims were time barred under the statute of limitations.

A buyer purchased hundreds of acres of property out of bankruptcy, as well as title insurance to cover the property, and later entered into a timber agreement to cut timber on part of the property. The previous owner had entered into a debt for nature conservation contract with the U.S. Department of Agriculture which prevented the harvesting of timber. Eventually, the buyer sued the title insurer to determine coverage under the policy for this issue.

A title insurer sued an insured seeking a declaratory judgment to determine the parties’ duties under the title policy after the insured refused to allow the insurer to pursue efforts to cure the alleged invalidity of the insureds’ deed.

A man sued his title company for consumer fraud and breach of contract. In 2021, a district court dismissed his complaint for failure to state a claim. A year later, after the court denied a motion to reconsider, the man filed a series of post-judgment motions. The district court denied those motions and the man appealed the decision to the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

As part of extensive litigation between numerous parties, a title insurer and its employee who acted as the escrow agent for the purchases of commercial real estate sought the dismissal of the claims against them. The plaintiff in the case sought to lift the stay of litigation pending arbitration.

The successor-in-interest to a loan servicer sued a title insurer for breach of contract for denying a claim to recover the value of loss under the title insurance policy. The U. District Court for the Western District of Texas denied the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment and dismissed the case for failure to join a required party. The parties appealed to the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

A title insurer sought a stay in a coverage dispute brought by a lender stemming from litigation over a homeowner’s association’s foreclosure sale. There are two cases raising similar issues pending before the Nevada Supreme Court.

After the change to a county ordinance threatened a couple’s access to their property, they filed a claim with their title insurer. The insurer denied coverage and the couple filed suit against it.

A realty company sued their title insurer seeking indemnification and defense after several third parties alleged claims adverse to, or defects on, the title to property it purchased in Catskill, N.Y.

The former owner of property in Chesterfield County, Va., appealed a trial court’s order dismissing his claim for partition of the property and for damages against the new owner of the property after discovering an error on the deed that omitted one of the lots from the property. The new owner purchased the property from the former owner’s lender after the lender foreclosed and the former owner surrendered the property.

The holder of a judgment against property in Queens, N.Y., filed a third-party complaint against the settlement company that issued the title policy, seeking to recover damages for fraudulent concealment and prima facie tort asserted against it. After the trial court denied the settlement company’s motion to dismiss, the settlement company appealed.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau filed an action against a Kentucky law firm, alleging that the firm violated RESPA’s kickback provisions. The bureau alleged that the firm, Borders & Borders PLC, and its principals, used a network of sham affiliated business arrangements to pay kickbacks in return for real estate settlement referrals.

A mortgage company filed suit over a dispute with its title insurer concerning the scope of coverage provided by a construction title insurance policy. The company believed it was covered by the policy because the mechanics liens at issue were filed before the insurer’s last date-down endorsement. The insurer disagreed.

The Superior Court of Suffolk County, Mass., handed down a judgment in an unauthorized practice of law (UPL) suit against a national closing company doing business in the state. Much like the case the Real Estate Bar Association for Massachusetts Inc. (REBA) brought against National Real Estate Information Services Inc. (NREIS), the company, National Loan Closers Inc., had hired Massachusetts attorneys to close real estate transactions it had worked on for companies doing business in the state.

First American Title Insurance Co. filed an answer to the FDIC’s allegations that it failed to address claims on closing protection letters the insurer issued to Washington Mutual Bank.

Stewart Title Guaranty Co. responded to allegations from the Federal Deposit Insurance Co. by filing a motion for a more definite statement. The FDIC, acting as receiver for Washington Mutual Bank had been seeking to recover funds from underwriters after discovering their title agents had allegedly defrauded the bank.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals partially reversed a lower-court decision to dismiss quiet title claims in a suit against MERS and the loan servicer who handled the foreclosures on several Minnesota properties while affirming the dismissal of the remaining counts against the defendants.

Attorneys’ Title Insurance Fund filed its response to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.’s closing protection letter suit by filing a motion for a more definite statement. It alleges that the allegations cannot be lumped into two claims.

After a circuit court in Kentucky certified two classes of consumers in a reissue rate suit against Stewart Title Guaranty Co., the insurer appealed to the Court of Appeals of Kentucky. The appeal revolved around a subgroup certification the court had made.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rejected a significant challenge to Massachusetts foreclosure procedures. Now it will be harder to challenge foreclosures in the state.

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas granted Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc.’s motion to dismiss a case against it that alleged improper foreclosure using “robo-signed” documents. Read on for the court’s reasoning.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., acting as receiver for Washington Mutual Bank, sued Attorneys’ Title Insurance Fund Inc., seeking to enforce closing protection letters Attorneys’ Title issued to WaMu.

A managing member of an Illinois title agency and another company employee sought dismissal of the claims brought against them as part of a suit against the agency. Two former customers alleged in the suit that they were the victims of a mortgage fraud scheme involving the misappropriation of funds they deposited into escrow accounts with the company. The employees’ motion went before the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Illinois.

A U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania rejected Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc.’s arguments that it was not required to record an assignment of mortgage every time a mortgage for which it was nominee was bought and sold on the secondary market.

After reaching a settlement with the current owners of property in Wisconsin, former owners counter-sued the current owners’ title insurer for breach of bad faith and breach of contract for not covering an easement dispute. The case eventually went before the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin.

The FDIC brought a complaint against First American, alleging the insurer did not honor its commitments under several closing protection letters.

The FDIC brought a complaint against Stewart Title, alleging the insurer did not honor its commitments under several closing protection letters.

A Texas woman sued Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. and others, alleging statutory fraud, fraudulent foreclosure and negligent misrepresentation.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., acting as receiver for Washington Mutual Bank, sued Attorneys’ Title Insurance Fund Inc., seeking to enforced closing protection letters Attorneys’ Title issued to WaMu.

A bank that got caught in a dispute between a developer and general contractor sought the defense of its title insurer in handling the dispute. When the title insurer refused, the bank sued for breach of contract. The trial court ruled in favor of the title insurer, but the bank appealed.

The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey approved a motion for reconsideration regarding its decision to deny motions for summary judgment by both a warehouse lender and its title insurers stemming from a fraudulent scheme involving 220 mortgages the lender funded.

After the wrong mortgage was paid off, causing a homeowner to accrue fees and charges, she sued the mortgage servicer and title company who helped with the refinance. They, in turn, sued the refinance loan originator for providing them with the wrong loan number, causing the suit. The question that came before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana is, “Can the servicer and title company sue the originator when the original suit is still in progress?”

After being sued by a warehouse lender for breaching its duties as a bailee, a national underwriter sought a third-party complaint against the person who misappropriated the lender’s funds. The lender moved to strike the third-party complaint. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky granted the motion, finding that the insurer was not entitled to an apportionment instruction.

While a district court ruled that a title insurer was liable under the policy for an unremovable defect, it left it up to the South Carolina Supreme Court to determine how to calculate the damages. Read

After it was discovered that a title agent and straw buyer defrauded a lender, the lender went to its title insurer for coverage. The underwriter denied the claim. In the suit that followed, the underwriter argued that it was not required to indemnify the lender because if the lender had better underwriting practices, it would have discovered the scam. The case eventually went before the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

After discovering they were victims of a real estate investment scheme, two investors sued the escrow company that conducted the scam, as well as the company’s title insurer. The title insurer argued that it should not be party to the suit because the escrow company wasn’t its agent for escrow purposes. Its motion to dismiss the claims against it went before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

In the latest news on county recorders’ efforts to recover funds from secondary market entities, a U.S. District Court judge in Iowa dismissed a claim against Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. and its partners brought by the Plymouth County recorder of deeds. Read on for the court’s reasoning.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that, though a homeowner had to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing a claim for unjust enrichment and money had and received against a title insurer she claims overcharged her for title insurance, she could proceed against the title company on her claim for a violation of the state’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.

After selling a second parcel of land to a company in Kansas, the sellers discovered they had already conveyed more property than they had planned during the first sale. The deed had been recorded with the wrong acreage. The couple attempted to remedy the problem with the buyer, but ended up suing the company and the title insurer who conducted the transaction.

A title company refused to give a claims report to the successor in interest to a loan policy it issued. The policy holder moved to compel the information. The case went before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

A home owner in Connecticut brought a suit against her title insurer, alleging the insurer overcharged her, as well as others, for title insurance when they were refinancing the mortgages on their property. The insurer attempted to have the case dismissed in a judgment on the pleadings, but was unsuccessful.

After having to make several payoffs that should have been made through an attorney’s escrow account, a national title insurer sued the attorney, his family and their other businesses. However, the underwriter also sued the bank where the attorney held his escrow accounts. The attorney filed a counterclaim against the bank as well, arguing that the bank should have notified him directly and returned insufficient checks rather than allowing the account to go into overdraft.

Following its reversal in Benavides v. Chicago Title based on similar issues, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a Texas district court’s grant of class certification in a reissue rate case against another national underwriter.

After receiving answers to certified questions by the Virginia Supreme Court, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal determined that a title insurer was covered as subrogee for a lender under a required surety bond.

A national title insurer sought reimbursement from its agent after indemnifying an insured in a series of court actions stemming in part from the agent’s negligent acts. The agent refused and sought to dismiss the suit that followed.

A federal court granted a fidelity bond claimant partial summary judgment against the insurer, after the claimant’s escrow funds were embezzled by the escrow officer. The insurer had denied the claim for a host of reasons, including that the bond had been cancelled 10 days before the claimant had deposited funds with the escrow company.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts found a national title insurer liable for a negligent title search that was done by its agent. The insured sued the title insurer after discovering he had been sold fictitious condominiums as part of a Ponzi scheme.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota broke down the parties’ arguments in determining what duties a title insurer had to a lender who had discovered it was a victim of a real estate investment scam. The buyer had made the loan unknowingly, thinking it was part of a group of real estate investors. The lender and buyer reached a settlement on the amount owed before the lender sued the title company for breach of contract.

A Texas appellate court affirmed a judgment against homebuilders in favor of a title company who had paid off mechanic’s liens on behalf of the new homeowners. The homebuilders had signed affidavits allegedly claiming all contractors had been paid. The court also affirmed a judgment on behalf of the flooring company who filed the mechanic’s liens, noting that the homebuilders had provided personal guaranties in their individual capacities to obtain a line of credit with the flooring company.

In a second attempt to certify a class of Washington state homeowners who had allegedly been overcharged for title insurance during a refinance transaction, a couple once again fell short of providing the needed information to prove to the court that they can efficiently and reliably identify class members.

National underwriter Stewart Title Guaranty Co. went after the co-conspirator of one of its agents, seeking the money the conspirator received from the agent’s escrow account. The magistrate judge assigned to the case was asked to make a recommendation as to Stewart’s motion for default judgment as to the co-conspirator.

When refinancing her property, a homeowner in New York found that Home Heating Oil Corp. had obtained a UCC-1 fixture filing against her property to cover debt owed by the previous owner. After the title insurer denied coverage because the fixture was not part of the property, a trial court in New York had to determine whether such a lien was actually covered.

A purchaser and seller hammered out an unrecorded purchase agreement, unaware of a judgment lien placed on the property. The title company who insured the transaction didn’t identify the lien, but paid off the most senior lien, a construction loan. When the issue of who had priority came before a trial court in Illinois, the trial court sided with the judgment lien holder, saying the title company should be the real party in interest because it was providing the defense because of its mistake in not identifying the judgment lien. The purchaser appealed the decision to the Fourth District Appellate Court of Illinois.

A California homeowner who had resolved issues surrounding a sewer line that ran through his property by reaching a settlement with his title insurer tried to get the insurer to indemnify him against a suit his neighbor brought against him regarding the sewer line. One condition of the settlement was that the homeowner would not bring any related claims to the insurer in the future.

Finding the plaintiffs had not alleged factual content to support their claim that title insurers in New York paid kickbacks to their title agents for business referrals, the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court decision dismissing the case.

After months of anticipation and concern on the part of consumer advocates and members of all aspects of the mortgage industry, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) handed down a decision in Henrietta Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Association (No. SJC-11041), and the answer they gave provided something for both sides to cheer about.

Sometime after the sale of property in Utah, the purchasers discovered an oil and gas company was going to drill on their property, making part of the property unusable. They sued the sellers and the escrow company, who they felt breached the title policy and engaged in negligent misrepresentation by not informing them of the lease. Read on to find out what the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah had to say when the escrow company filed a motion for summary judgment against the buyer.

Wilmington Plantation LLC, the purchaser of property to be used to build condominium units, sued its title insurer, Fidelity National Title Insurance Co., for breach of contract after discovering that the use of the property was restricted by agreements the seller made to condominium unit purchasers before the sale. The developer alleged it had no knowledge of the defect and that Fidelity broke the agreement by not providing title in fee simple. The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee had to determine whether Wilmington had, or should have had, knowledge of the defect when ruling on Fidelity’s motion for summary judgment.

An escrow company and a mortgage lender in Ohio challenged the certification of a class in a suit against it in which the class representative alleges the companies have overcharged sellers and buyers since 1987.

An Arizona homeowner failed to persuade the Arizona Supreme Court that a trustee must hold the promissory note before foreclosing on a deed of trust. The court affirmed the decision of both the trial court and the appellate court in making its decision on this case of first impression in the state.

As part of a case in which the insured was seeking coverage after discovering she did not receive title to a portion of the property she purchase, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania had to determine when it was appropriate to grant abstention. The insured had filed suit in state court and federal court alleging claims of bad faith in handling her claim.

After spending several months building on property he thought he purchased, a man in Oregon found that he had actually purchased an adjacent lot in the same development. As part of a series of court proceedings, he sued the title company for changing the lot number in the title commitment and deed without informing him or the seller of the property.

A division of First Tennessee Bank loaned money to an individual under the assumption the company was secured by a second mortgage. First Tennessee soon realized, however, that Countrywide Home Loans had obtained a superior lien, making First Tennessee a third mortgage. Countrywide Home Loans began a foreclosure proceeding, causing First Tennessee Bank to fight for indemnification.

An insured tried to SLAPP down a lawsuit filed against it by an underwriter trying to regain money it spent to clear a judgment lien. The company argued the insured misrepresented the status of the property and the judgment lien. Read on to find out what happened when the case went before the Court of Appeal, Fifth District, California.

After an alleged swindle, Michelle Dyer attempted to recover monetary damages she lost. Her payments, held in the defendant’s Title Connection escrow, were disclosed to two individuals working for Harbor Funding without an established loan commitment or a loan closing schedule. Dyer files suit for securities fraud, breach of contract and professional negligence.

After it was discovered that a closing agent failed to pay off prior mortgages when conducting several refinance transactions, the lender went to the underwriter to make it whole. When the underwriter denied the claim, the lender sued for breach of contract, among other things.

The Supreme Court of Hawaii recently decided whether a title company had a duty to defend an insured homeowner in a dispute with the state over the state’s claims on the property. The insurer argued that it was not required to defend the insured because no actual claims to the title were being made. The insured disagreed, saying that the potential for a claim was cause for the insurer to step in.

A dispute over allegedly improper closing costs caused a U.S. District Court judge in Washington to examine the role of the escrow agent. Read on to find out what he had to say about the escrow agent’s responsibilities.

After an escrow company was sued for failing to disburse escrow funds to satisfy buyers’ obligations, it turned to its liability insurer to defend it in court. When the liability insurer denied coverage, the escrow company filed suit against it.

After two underwriters successfully convinced a Maryland court that homeowners must first seek an administrative remedy before suing the insurers in a reissue rate dispute, they were awarded costs. The homeowners sought reconsideration, claiming that the insurers were not prevailing parties under the law. The motion was brought before the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

After a liability insurer sued a title agent it insured, the agent’s underwriter tried to step in. Both parties to the suit opposed intervention when the motion came before the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah.

After a mistake on a deed provided the buyer more land than agreed upon, the seller sued the purchaser to fix the deed. Fighting the suit against it, the purchaser tendered defense of the suit to its title company. The title company then filed suit against the purchaser, seeking declaratory judgment finding it did not have to defend the initial suit. Read on to find out what the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware had to say about the case.

After being sued by the county for placing improvements on their property based on an incorrect survey provided at closing, homeowners in Texas sued their title company. They made claims for negligent misrepresentation and deceptive trade practices because the title company gave them the survey at closing. Read on to find out what the Court of Appeals of Texas had to say on the matter.

A Connecticut property owner sued the attorney who conducted the title search and closing on the property after the city of Hartford bulldozed the building for violations of city code and emergency repair, notifications of which were in the property records before she purchased the property. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the attorney and the case went to the Connecticut Appellate Court.

A national underwriter’s attorney title agent program in Illinois was called into question by homeowners who felt the program violated RESPA Section 8, as well as state laws. The plaintiffs tried to get class certification, but were denied twice by the district court. Read on to find out how the 7th U.S. Court of Appeals ruled on the matter.

After an order of sale in a foreclosure action had already been entered, and without either party objecting to the procedure, a trial court in Ohio brought into question a law governing foreclosures in the state. The Ohio Attorney General stepped in and asked for an appeal of the court’s decision.

The Virginia Supreme Court ruled that title insurance companies operating in the state can sue under a surety bond issued as required under the Virginia Consumer Real Estate Settlement Protection Act, a question that had been plaguing the state’s trial courts.

In a win for industry members seeking access to property records at a reasonable cost, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled in favor of two title search companies who sought a writ of mandamus ordering the Cuyahoga County Fiscal Officer to provide electronic copies of real estate title documents at the actual cost of copying the digital images of the requested documents. Read on to find out the court’s reasoning.

Chicago Title Insurance Co. recently sought reversal of a Washington State Office of the Insurance Commissioner ruling, arguing that the ruling erroneously imposed vicarious liability on the title insurer for the regulatory violations of its agent, merely because the insurer underwrites the agent’s insurance policies. Read on to find out what the Court of Appeals of Washington had to say when it ruled in the case.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts is asking the state’s Supreme Judicial Court to answer certified questions regarding whether a title insurer was obligated to defend a lender against all related claims after curing a title defect through litigation. This is a case of first impression in the state.

A California appellate court upheld a lower court’s dismissal of the title insurance defendants from a negligence case for failure to state a cause of action, noting that the plaintiff failed to allege facts to show the companies owed it any duty of care and opining that no amendment could cure the defects.

The Supreme Court of Georgia recently heard a case involving title to a house in Forsyth County, Ga., in which title to the property was clouded when a man transferred property via quitclaim deed to his wife and children and later purportedly transferred the property back to himself. The property was later foreclosed upon, purchased by another lender and re-sold to third-party buyers.

A district court denied a title insurance company’s motion to dismiss in an equity skimming case, saying the caselaw was unclear as to whether the plaintiffs could properly plead a violation of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law under the circumstances. The court also refused to dismiss a civil conspiracy claim, saying at this stage of the proceedings, the exact relationship of the parties cannot be ascertained for the purposes of determining the relevance of the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine.

The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that prospective purchaser sufficiently alleged a cause of action against escrow agent for breach of fiduciary duty, overturning the lower courts granting of the escrow agent’s motion to dismiss, and returning the case to trial. The court said the defendant had failed to “utterly refute the allegations” in the plaintiffs’ complaint.

A federal district court ordered a plaintiff to join additional parties to a lien dispute case, saying the title insurer could not establish liability for loss or damage until there was a final determination of ownership and/or lien priority. Read on for details about the complicated land transaction that led to the dispute.

A California appellate court determined that a title company was not liable for damages where the agent recorded the deeds provided by the client and issued the insurance policy. In its role as escrow holder, the court said, the company had no duty to determine whether the property description was accurate. The owner of the property contended that had asked for two sections of a property to be transferred and insured, while the legal description on the deeds referred to only one section.

The purchaser of property in Hawaii who had to fight to gain possession of his property after discovering a couple occupying the house sought reimbursement of the cost to defend the suit from the title company, which refused to defend the owner in the matter.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal of Florida reversed a circuit court judgment, finding that an assignment endorsed in blank of a promissory note and an allegation that it was the owner and holder of the note at the time of a foreclosure filing was enough to establish standing.

Last year the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the Federal Arbitration Act preempted a California law regarding the unconscionability of arbitration waivers. Until that point, a class action suit against several title insurers alleging their settlement agents violated individual closing protection letters did not address the letters’ arbitration clause. Once the decision was rendered, however, the title insurers indicated their intent to arbitrate and asked the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to compel arbitration.

A borrower who feels he was wrongfully foreclosed upon sued numerous entitles involved in the origination and servicing of his loan, including the title company that handled his closing. Read on to find out what the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California had to say when the defendants filed a motion to dismiss several of his claims.

To fulfill a capital contribution requirement with his investment company, the owner of property in Scottsdale, Ariz., delivered the property to the company by quitclaim deed. When it was discovered that there was a mortgage on the property and it was being sold at trustee’s sale, the owner sued his title company to enforce the policy.

After purchasing property with what it thought was clear title at a foreclosure sale, an insured purchaser was drawn into a lien dispute. Though the title company defended the owner and cleared title to the property, the owner sued its title agent and underwriter for not clearing title sooner.

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.

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.