Sun, Nov 22, 2009
|
Unmarketability of Title
| | Monday, October 25, 2004 @ 12:00 PM EDT
|  Printer Friendly Page
 Send this Story to a Friend |
Contributed by: Inactive Account
Inactive Account Properties
Read more archived articles about Law and Legal Issues
One of the great benefits of title insurance, and perhaps the least understood, is coverage against unmarketability of the title.
Look at it this way: If you have fire insurance you will have a covered claim only when you have a fire. You have life insurance you're covered only if you die. But with title insurance you're covered against a potential title defect--even where there's no adverse claim and no current problem.
Consider the decision in Nelson v. Anderson, 286 Ill.App.3d 706, 676 N.E.2d 735 (1997).
In April 1993 Jon and Anne Nelson contracted to sell their home to Walter and Shelly Anderson. The contract required buyers to pay $1,500 earnest money, with the contract balance payable upon delivery of title free and clear of encumbrances except those
 | |
| Advertisement |
mentioned in the contract. Sellers were to obtain a preliminary (title) report which buyers would have 10 days to object to. If buyers objected to any matter disclosed by the report then sellers would have 90 days to satisfy the objection(s).
Chicago Title issued a preliminary report disclosing that the home was located less than 10 feet from the property's north boundary line, in violation of a setback covenant contained in the applicable subdivision plat.
In fact, it turned out the house was only 4.7 feet from the northern boundary.
Buyers objected and sellers obtained written assurance from the title company that for an additional fee it would, as the Court said, "insure over the building line exception." The Court's decision is unclear as to how this "insuring over" was to be done--and whether "forced removal" language may have been involved. Let's assume Chicago Title offered to insure over by simply deleting the exception for the setback violation.
In any case, buyers found the title unacceptable and proceeded to buy another house. Sellers sold the property to someone else for a lesser price.
The buyers filed suit to collect the earnest money, and sellers sued for damages. The cases were consolidated for trial.
The trial court ruled in favor of buyers and the sellers appealed.
The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the title was sufficiently clouded by the violation in question as to be unmarketable. In so holding the Court said that a reasonable person could fear both the threat of future litigation and an unfavorable effect on market value of the property. The Court noted that the nature of the covenant involved would allow any other homeowner in the subdivision to sue to enforce the restriction, and said "(t)he law has long recognized that a buyer cannot be compelled to buy a lawsuit."
Comment: I've heard it said no title is perfect--there will likely be potential issues and unanswered questions after a careful exam of the chain of title to almost any property. Heck--in years past we had a local "expert" who made the rounds as a speaker for service clubs and whoever else would listen, claiming that all property boundaries in south Orange County were mislocated by three feet.
But the question of whether or not a perceived "cloud" renders a given title unmarketable has no clear "plumb line" test. As the Court says in the Nelson case, it's a question of law for a court to decide.
Which means it's also something the average homeowner doesn't want to fool with. Can't blame `em. My guess is a court will usually tend to side with a buyer who has bailed out in these marketability suits.
Marketability questions can give rise to claims which are among the most challenging for our claims handlers --because if a prospective buyer isn't persuaded to accept our indemnity and offer to continue to insure over the matter, then where are we? If we hire outside counsel to quiet title we may stir up opposition--and it may take months or years to resolve non-issues in court, during which the frustrated insured owner/seller will feel they are in limbo.
And, even if the prospective buyer accepts our indemnity --what about the next time the issue might come up? Should we try to put the matter to rest now--or let sleeping dogs lie?
When you stop and consider the many ways a question of marketability might arise--an old unreleased mortgage, a missing signature in the chain of title, a transfer from a decedent without a probate or a right of survivorship, a "wild" deed or mortgage, an apparent violation of restrictions or covenants, an encroachment or question of boundary location, a questionable signature in the chain of title, a deed recorded long after the grantor was dead, a vesting in reliance on an off-record or illegible power of attorney, tax or judgment liens against a name matching a grantor's, ambiguous docs in the chain of title...not to mention the case we've seen where both vestees underwent assesment change operations so that Harold became a Shirley and Janet became a Robert...enough!
By Bert Rush_____________________
Word Cloud:
unmarketability buyer where buyers court over title which will only report chain violation />
in said insurance with covered have against sellers />
the question would nelson were
|
|
| |
Average Score: 4
Votes: 1
|
|
|
|
|
Logged In members can moderate all comments.
|
|
