Re: Assignment of Contract - Posted by Kristine-CA
Posted by Kristine-CA on December 02, 2002 at 08:50:57:
Jim Kennedy: Hmm. I’ve dealt with Northern CA escrow companies only twice–and one officer (in San Francisco) did say something to the effect that procedures are different. But I thought it had mostly to do with a difference regarding preparation of docs.
And, do you know where So. Cal ends and No. Cal starts? Because I don’t.
In the HUD listings, Bakersfield is in Northern CA, so maybe I meant to say Northern California. But Bakersfield isn’t typical. Thank God for that.
HUD thinks Bakersfield is in Northern California?? Wow, that sure demonstrates one more example of the ineptitude of our Federal government. (LOL)
The reason I brought up the issue of who typically pays for the title policy in Northern California, is that twenty-five years ago I owned a small real estate brokerage firm in Southern California. During my license preparation, we were told that by custom, the seller pays in Southern California while the buyer pays in Northern California. Since I moved out of California in 1986, I didn’t know if these customs have changed. Of course, even back then, who paid was an issue that could be negotiated, regardless of what was considered customary.
As for where Southern California ends and Northern California begins, I don’t know either. I suppose one might presume that Southern California could be defined by the San Bernardino base line and meridian, Central California could be defined by the Mt. Diablo base line and meridian, and Northern California could be defined by the Humboldt base line and meridian. However, this doesn’t help to determine where one would conceivably draw a hypothetical demarcation for purposes of deciding who should customarily pay for a title policy.
Perhaps someone who is more knowledgeable about this can chime in and shed some additional light on the subject.