Posted by Kent C on June 05, 2002 at 01:30:40:
Its not that title insurane is unnecesary. Its that the title co makes us purchase it in the first place that is a scam. First you pay a lawyer for his “opinion” during abstracting, then you pay him again to guarantee it. Of course lenders need this guarantee so it is a moot point about whether to get it. When I buy houses using my cash, I still get the insurance as I too want a guarantee that I paid for “something”.
Kent C
Title insurance, do you REALLY need… - Posted by David Krulac
Posted by David Krulac on June 04, 2002 at 19:06:05:
to what I wrote last year, link below, I can add another example:
property bought with title insurance, title search. No problem detected. a couple of years later, same attorney is supposed to handle settlement for a new buyer of the property. he now finds a cloud on the title, which existed 2 years earlier when he searched, missed and issued title insurance. anothr owner is claiming 100% of this property.
so far no pay off, all that has transpired is exchange of some lawyer letters. this attorney has several hats on, he represented the first seller, he sold the second owner title insurance, and declined to sell title insurance to the prospective buyer, who wanted to be the third owner. Its a mess, but it would be a bigger mess without title insurance. The insurance company is going to fight like heck to not make any payment, as it is they’re on the hook for the full purchase price of the third owner.
here the prior link:
http://www.creonline.com/wwwboard/messages/arc_2001/arc_53/53129.html
David Krulac
Central Pennsylvania
Re: Title insurance, do you REALLY need… - Posted by Paula
Posted by Paula on June 04, 2002 at 19:50:52:
Hi all,
It is scenarios such as these that make me think that title insurance is a good investment. But through my reading of the archives, it seems that many people feel that title insurance is not necessary for Subject To purchases. Why is that? What am I not understanding?
Paula