Title Insurance

SC Supreme Court disbars real estate lawyer for “robbing Peter to pay Paul”

Standard

…and using title insurance as his tool

In the Matter of Bush* resulted in a disbarment of a dirt lawyer who used a common “robbing Peter to pay Paul” scheme to steal from clients. The case involved three disciplinary complaints.

The first complaint revolved around the failure to wire $334,000 to a lender to pay off a mortgage in a real estate closing. The lawyer eventually admitted he used the money to replace funds he misappropriated from another closing.

The second complaint arose when the lawyer issued a closing protection letter and a title insurance commitment despite the fact that his title insurance company had suspended him as an agent and his title insurance agency license had expired. The lawyer received funds for this closing but, again, failed to satisfy the prior mortgage. The lawyer eventually admitted he used the funds to pay off the underlying mortgage for the closing described in the first complaint.

After the lawyer was placed in interim suspension by the Supreme Court, he responded to a third client whose mortgage had not been satisfied that, “I am going to plow back in to this and let me talk with some colleagues about a way to get a better resolution quickly.”  The lawyer did not tell the third client that he had failed to satisfy her mortgage. Instead, he provided false information to the client regarding the status of the debt. The lawyer finally admitted that he had stolen the funds.

It’s amazing that a few bad apples continue to employ these deceptive techniques that eventually come to light. It is impossible to hide this type of scheme forever because the economy always ebbs and flows. Even a small economic downturn can result in the failure of the next closing to materialize. Without the funds from the next closing, the mortgage from the prior closing is never paid, and the house of cards falls quickly. In this case, the lawyer’s former title insurance company received a claim from one of the lenders who was not paid. A title insurance complaint will also cause the house of cards to fall quickly.

Lawyers, please read this case carefully as a model of what not to do! Be careful out there!

*South Carolina Supreme Court Opinion 28241 (November 6, 2024).

Biden administration announces plans to lower housing costs

Standard

ALTA says the attack on title insurance offers a false promise of savings

This blog never intends to discuss politics, so don’t interpret this post to take a political position. The intent is to inform real estate lawyers of news affecting our industry.

Just ahead of the State of the Union Address, President Biden announced plans to lower housing costs, calling on federal agencies to take all available actions to lower costs of consumers at the closing table and to help more Americans access homeownership. You can read the President’s Fact Sheet here.

Congress is asked to pass a mortgage relief credit that would provide middle-class first-time homebuyers with an annual tax credit of $5,000 a year for two years. Congress is also asked to provide a one-year tax credit of up to $10,000 to middle-class families who sell their starter homes, defined as homes below the area median home price in the county, to another owner-occupant. The intent of this proposal is to offset the loss of a lower interest rate when a homeowner sells. Congress is also asked to provide up to $25,000 in down payment assistance to first-generation homebuyers.

The President also proposes an expansion of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit to build or preserve 1.2 million more affordable rental units. He also proposes a new $20 billion competitive grant fund to support communities to build more housing and lower rents and homebuying costs. Each Federal Home Loan Bank will be asked to double its annual contribution to the Affordable Housing Program. The intent will be to support the financing, acquisition, construction, and rehabilitation of affordable rental units and homes for sale.

Honestly, a lot of this seems like government-speak. We will have to wait to see the language of the actual proposals to form opinions, but lowering housing costs and providing more housing for low-income consumers is a great theory.

The one proposal that should concern practitioners is a pilot program to reduce closing costs by waiving the requirement for lender’s title insurance. At this point, the proposal only covers refinances, and the Fact Sheet indicates closing costs would be reduced by an average of $750. American Land Title Association (ALTA) issued a press release on March 7 stating that this proposal is a false promise of savings.

When I was in private practice, the cost of title insurance was less than the cost of an attorney’s opinion letter, and I believe lawyers would have to raise their charges to cover the additional liability. I’ve spoken many times and written many articles about the advantages of title insurance over title opinions, and I won’t repeat these arguments here. I am confident ALTA and title insurance companies will make those arguments plainly in opposition to this plan.

Magistrate has no jurisdiction when title is in question

Standard

Court of Appeals reverses Circuit Court on this issue

In Rivers v. Smith*, South Carolina’s Court of Appeals reversed Orangeburg County’s Circuit Court order affirming a magistrate’s order of eviction.

Rufus Rivers and Merle Rivers have lived on property once owned by Jessie Mae Smith since 2009, although there was no record of a written lease. In 2013, Jessie Mae Smith signed a power of attorney in favor of her son, James Smith. In 2014, James Smith conveyed his mother’s property to himself by quitclaim deed using the power of attorney.

(The opinion contains no discussion of whether the conveyance of the property by the attorney in fact to himself was a valid transfer, but that would have been my first question.)

Jessie Mae Smith died in 2016. In 2018, James Smith sent the Rivers a letter demanding they vacate the property within 30 days. The Rivers refused. They asked James to cease and desist his efforts to displace them. They argued that James had an invalid power of attorney and alleged he had breached fiduciary duties. Competing lawsuits followed.

The Rivers’ lawsuit in the Circuit Court challenged James’ ownership of the property and alleged constructive fraud, unjust enrichment and other causes of action. The Rivers amended their complaint, alleging that James used an invalid power of attorney and that Jessie Mae Smith had orally given or promised the property to the Rivers.

James filed the subject case in the magistrate court, seeking eviction. The Rivers made various arguments to the magistrate opposing the eviction, including alleging that Jessie Mae Smith had promised the property to them. The Rivers also alerted the magistrate of their claims against James Smith in the circuit court.

James Smith’s main argument to the magistrate centered around the statute of limitations because the alleged gift would have occurred more than three years before the lawsuits were brought. The magistrate ruled that James Smith was the lawful owner of the property and ordered eviction.

On a motion by the Rivers to reconsider, the magistrate found that the case did not involve a question of title and that she had jurisdiction to hear the case. The circuit court affirmed, and this appeal followed.

The issue on appeal was whether South Carolina Code §22-3-20(2), which bars a magistrate from hearing a case when title to the property is in question, prohibited the magistrate from hearing this case.

The Court of Appeals acknowledged that Smith has defenses to Rivers’ claims, and that those defenses may be valid ones, but held that the magistrate’s jurisdiction ended as soon as it became clear that there was a challenge to title. The opinion further stated that the case may end in a second and successful eviction, but they refused to say that outcome is certain.

I will be curious to learn what the future holds in the litigation between these parties. I hope the property is worth the litigation, and I note with interest that the Rivers represented themselves pro se in the subject case.

*South Carolina Court of Appeals Opinion 5992 (June 21, 2023)

Texas Attorney General investigating Home Title Lock

Standard

Several years ago, a prominent Myrtle Beach real estate lawyer called me to suggest that our (title insurance) company should develop a product like Home Title Lock. That company advertises that it alerts homeowners if fraudulent or forged deeds are recorded in their chains of title. I contacted corporate leaders to explore this idea, and it was quickly decided that the product was virtually meaningless.

Last week, another prominent Myrtle Beach-area lawyer emailed me with news that the Attorney General for Texas is investigating the company. Here the South Carolina dirt lawyer’s direct quote, “After the number of older clients I have had who come into a transaction confused and scared by the talking heads on conservative media who have been schilling for this company, I am glad to see law enforcement taking an interest.”

Ken Paxton, the Attorney General, apparently agrees. He issued a press release on January 24, stating, “I won’t tolerate false, misleading, or deceptive advertisements targeted to any Texas consumers—especially Texas seniors. If Home Title Lock is misrepresenting its services or the need for its services I will put a stop to its unlawful behavior.”

The AG announced an investigation of this company for potentially violating the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act by misleading consumers with deceptive statements concerning the prevalence of home title theft and the need for this company’s services.

The press release states that Home Title Lock is a California-based entity that claims to provide 24/7 monitoring of a consumer’s home title. (How could that even be done?) The press release states that the company has received scrutiny in recent months over questionable advertisements, including its claim that the FBI calls home title theft “one of the fastest growing white-collar cyber-crimes in America.” Apparently, Home Title Lock admits that it markets to “older customers.”                      

The Texas AG’s office issued a Civil Investigative Demand on December 15 ordering the company to make documents available substantiating the following, among other matters:

  • Any home title theft resolution services;
  • Representative samples of customer contracts;
  • The claim that the Company monitors the title of consumers 24/7;
  • The claim that the Company provides nationwide monitoring;
  • The claim that like other white-collar crimes, title fraud remains under reported with losses totaling more than $5 million in 2015;”
  • The claim that a victim is responsible for payments incurred due to a fraudulent home equity loan. (“Now thieves take out massive loans using your home’s equity-leaving you with the payments and mountains of legal bills;”) and
  • The claim that the company offers “complete protection – including up to $250,000 in legal fees and expense coverage.”

I’m so glad to see this investigation is starting, and I hope other states follow.

Fannie Mae will accept attorney opinion letters in lieu of title insurance

Standard

Fannie Mae’s updated Selling Guide now allows attorney opinion letters in lieu of title insurance in some circumstances. This change aligns Fannie Mae with Freddie Mac’s similar announcement. Will the marketplace change dramatically because of these policy announcements. I hope not and I doubt it.

Fannie Mae touts its change as a method to reduce costs for borrowers. I don’t believe South Carolina lawyers will issue title opinions for residential loans that will be less expensive than title insurance. I know I wouldn’t.

The guidance indicates opinion letters will not be accepted where the loan is secured by a condominium, a leasehold estate, or a manufactured home.

According to the guidance, the attorney’s title opinion letter must:

  • be addressed to the lender and all successors in interest of the lender
  • be commonly accepted in the area where the subject property is located
  • provide gap coverage for the duration between the loan closing and recordation of the mortgage
  • list all other liens and state they are subordinate
  • state the title condition of the property is acceptable and the mortgage constitutes a lien of the required priority on a fee simple estate in the property

Do you see any problems with this list? I’ve never issued an opinion letter that provided gap coverage and I don’t recommend that you accept that risk in your transactions. What happens if you update title and discover a mechanic’s lien recorded in the gap? That lien would become your problem as the attorney who agreed to cover the gap as of the date of the opinion letter or the closing date.

Before the general use of title insurance, attorney’s routinely issued opinion letters to lenders and buyers. But title insurance has historically been determined to be the better choice.  Attorneys should not be responsible for title problems that cannot be discovered through a title examination.  A forgery in the chain of title, for example, would be covered by title insurance but should not be covered by an attorney’s opinion. The same may be true for missing heirs, matters that may be apparent from a visit to the property and survey matters.

But it concerns me that lenders who accept attorney’s opinions may perceive those items (and others) to be covered. To ensure your opinion letters are not perceived to cover matters outside the title examination, proper “exceptions” should be added to your letters. To protect you, your law firm and your malpractice carrier, your letters should contain many paragraphs of exceptions!

My best advice is to resist this proposed change in the marketplace. I believe title insurance provides the best coverage for owners and lenders, and it indirectly provides protection for closing attorneys. We can be encouraged that Freddie Mac’s similar announcement two years ago has not greatly impacted our industry. Let’s hope Fannie Mae’s announcement will have a similar reaction.

How do you advise clients on issues of insurable title vs. marketable title?

Standard

An age-old question for dirt lawyers: how do you explain the state of title to your client where you have discovered a title defect but you were able to obtain affirmative coverage over that defect from your favorite title insurance company?

I spent over two thirds of my legal career working for a title insurance company. A title insurance underwriter’s job involves, for the most part, fielding title questions from practicing lawyers. Questions go something like this: “Two links back in the chain of title, there is a deed from an attorney-in-fact to herself for no consideration. Is that a problem?”  What the caller really means is: “I found a title defect in the chain of title and want to know whether you will insure over it.”

The underwriter will answer “yes” or “no” and discuss whether the title defect is a real concern or merely a technical defect that will not cause future problems. Often the discussion will include suggestions of how to “fix” the problem if it can be remedied. And often the discussion will lead to how to insure the title. At the end of the discussion, the two lawyers will have determined whether the title is insurable.

The question of whether a title is marketable is an entirely different matter.  My unofficial definition of marketable title is title that is reasonably free from doubt and acceptable by a prudent purchaser or lender and their attorneys. That definition includes a great deal of reasonableness which means that the standard is open to discussion. I often picture the county’s best dirt lawyer and decide whether that person would close on the title without calling a title insurance company.

Most real estate contracts provide that the seller will deliver marketable title. When the standard is marketable title, the arbiter is the prudent purchaser or lender, their lawyers and, ultimately, the courts. Some contracts call for insurable title, a standard that is determined by title insurance company underwriters.

Let’s look at some examples. Take the case of the power of attorney question above. Case law in South Carolina and elsewhere (and common sense) all lead to the conclusion that this title is probably not marketable. Depending on the passage of time and the estate file for the principal, a title insurance underwriter may agree to insure over the defect.

What if you discover a tax deed in your chain of title? Depending on the age of the tax deed and ownership of the property since that deed, an underwriter may insure the title, but this title is most likely not marketable.

What if your title reveals a deed that recites, “we are all the heirs”, but there is no estate confirming the identity of the heirs? That title is probably not marketable but may be insurable, depending on the facts.

Assuming your underwriter can be convinced to insure these titles, how do you advise your client?

I suggest obtaining informed consent confirmed in writing is the only answer that will protect you and your client.

In a real-life example from private practice days, a doctor client purchased a large house in the Hollywood area of Columbia for his newly blended family. The current survey revealed a very tiny (inches!) violation of a side setback line and a reverter in the chain of title. Technically, the property had reverted to the developer when the house was built in the 1950’s.

Because the violation was so small, I was able to talk my friendly and brilliant underwriting counsel into insuring over it. But because the defect was so technically, if not practically, devastating, I wrote a letter to the client, advising him of the problem, telling him to refrain from adding onto the house which would have made the violation larger and more difficult, and suggesting that any sale of the house should involve a contract drafted by me to provide for insurable, not marketable, title.  I added a paragraph at the bottom to the effect that he understood the conundrum and agreed to purchase the house despite the defect. He dutifully signed the letter.

Did he listen to me? Of course not!

How do I remember this tale so well decades later?

The next time I heard from the doctor and his title was in the context of one of those phone calls a dirt lawyer never wants to receive. A lawyer friend called the day before closing of the sale of the property asking how I managed to close in the fact of the huge (yards, not inches) setback violation with a reverter clause in the restrictive covenants. The doctor had added onto the house and had subsequently signed a standard residential contract requiring marketable title. In the minutes between the phone call and retrieving the file, I lost ten years off my life. But thankfully, the file revealed my CYA letter. 

How was the situation resolved? My law firm brought a quiet title action for the client on his dime. The developer corporation was defunct with no apparent survivors. The court quieted the title, and I lived to practice law another day.

Here is my point. Never fail to explain title defects to your client even if you are smart enough to obtain affirmative coverage. And always obtain informed consent confirmed in writing.

Florida condo collapse class action lawsuit reaches settlement

Standard

This blog has previously discussed the June 24, 2021 collapse of the 136-unit Champlain Towers South condominium project in Surfside, Florida and Fannie Mae’s response by issuing Lender Letter (LL-2021-14) which directs lenders to gather information from owners’ associations about potential unsafe conditions.

As we near the anniversary of the disaster, a $997 million settlement has been reached for the wrongful death victims and survivors. The settlement was announced in the Miami-Dade Circuit Courtroom of Judge Michael Hanzman on May 11. The settlement includes insurance companies, developers of the project next door, engineers, architects, a law firm, and the owners’ association. 

The building has now been demolished, and the settlement does not include the potential sale of the underlying real estate, which will be auctioned later this month. The opening bid is $120 million. A prior settlement of $83 million was reached for economic losses.

Judge Hanzman will oversee the division of the settlement funds among the victims. He has announced that he would like to have the process completed by September.

South Carolina has many aging condominium projects, particularly along our coast. And we have an earthquake fault line to consider. Do our local homeowners’ association boards face expensive repair and reserve dangers like those in Florida? Should condominium purchasers consider the financial impact of possible major assessments to address delayed repairs? Should legislation be proposed to address these issues?

I’ve previously recommended Episode 8 of the podcast “Collapse: Disaster in Surfside” produced by Treefort Media and the Miami Herald for an excellent discussion of the legal and financial issues surrounding aging condominium projects.

Once these huge projects are completed, there is no legislative requirement for future inspections. The county in Florida where Champlain Towers South was located has a requirement to inspect tower projects after forty years. Forty years is a long time! Champlain Towers’ forty-year inspection had found the potential problems, but there were no “teeth” requiring the repairs to be made. The property owners of Champlain Towers were aware of the need for expensive repairs, but they continued to kick the can down the road to avoid the expense.

After the collapse, Florida’s legislature considered an act which would have required reserves and inspections, but the legislative effort failed because of the fear of chilling South Florida’s development frenzy. My guess is that South Carolina would face a similar roadblock.

Some condominium projects have served as affordable housing in certain geographic locations and as affordable second homes and rentals in resort areas. The podcast suggests that tacking on the annual cost of reasonable reserves may threaten this affordability. Think about elderly individuals who live in their dream coastal condominiums. Taken to a logical conclusion, these projects, properly run, may become available only to the wealthiest among us.

Residential sellers must disclose sea level rise risk in Hawaii

Standard

Like South Carolina, Hawaii has a mandatory seller disclosure form that must be completed by sellers of residential properties. Unlike South Carolina, Hawaii updated its legislation in 2021 to become the first state to require the disclosure of the risk of sea level rise to the property based on the 3.2-feet Sea Level Rise Exposure Area. The legislation went into effect on May 1 of this year.

Hawaii has developed a sea level rise viewer which you can check out here. To identify a property location relative to a sea level rise exposure, the street address or tax map key of the property must be entered into the viewer. The viewer is intended to provide map data depicting projections for future hazard exposure and assessing economic and other vulnerabilities resulting from rising sea levels.

The viewer was developed by the Pacific Islands Ocean Observing System (PacIOOS) at the University of Hawaii School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology. Mapping is based on an upper-end projection of 3.2 feet of sea level rise by the year 2100.

Like the existing flood zone disclosure requirement, the sea level risk disclosure is intended to help home buyers better understand how the sea level risk will impact their properties. The disclosure requirement applies to oceanfront and near-oceanfront properties as well as properties near streams and other areas likely to flood in times of heavy rainfall.

Will we see similar legislation in South Carolina and other coastal states? My guess is that we probably will.

Should closing attorneys issue opinion letters instead of title insurance?

Standard

Fannie Mae just announced it will accept attorney’s opinion letters in lieu of title insurance policies to reduce closing costs. Is this good news for closing attorneys and their clients? Let’s discuss that issue.

When I was an associate in a law firm in the 1980’s, I was taught by the very smart lawyers who owned the firm that title insurance should be less expensive than attorneys’ opinion letters.  In other words, title insurance would protect everyone, the lender, the buyer, the seller, and even the closing attorney at a relatively nominal cost. The price of an attorney’s opinion (my opinion) would have to be commiserate with the liability directly assumed by the law firm through that letter. The very clear lesson was that I should issue title insurance, not opinion letters. And when a title opinion was demanded, I should charge a hefty fee for it.

I’ve taught law students and others that title insurance is the best choice for several reasons. First, attorneys are only responsible for their negligence, not hidden defects and mistakes in the public records. For example, I heard about a deed recorded in Greenville County where one person forged the signatures of eight individuals, including the witnesses and notary. Forgery is rarely evident on the face of the forged document. An attorney’s opinion of title would not cover that defect. Title insurance would. An attorney’s opinion would not cover a deed, mortgage, or set of restrictive covenants missed in a title examination because of mistaken indexing by a county employee. Title insurance would.

Second, attorneys die, move, are underinsured, allow their malpractice to expire and otherwise become unavailable when a title problem arises. Finally, statutes of limitations may come into play. Title insurance does not expire as long as the lender or owner has an interest in the property, including an interest arising from deed warranties. Title insurance shifts the risk of title defects from the property owner and lender, and, in a manner of speaking, from the closing attorney to a financially sound insurer.

Fannie Mae’s announcement said that acceptable opinion letters must come from properly licensed attorneys with malpractice insurance in an amount “commonly prevailing in the jurisdiction.” The letters must provide gap coverage. Every South Carolina title opinion I’ve seen takes a clear exception to matters arising after the date of the opinion. Fannie Mae will also require the letters to “state the title condition of the property is acceptable.” I’m not sure what that statement means, but I don’t believe I would give that unqualified opinion.

This news from Fannie May could be what politicians are calling a “nothing burger”. Freddie Mac issued a similar announcement two years ago, but that announcement has not had a major impact on the way lawyers and title insurers do business.

Let’s wait and see what happens. But, in the meantime, I don’t advise my friends who close real estate transactions to start issuing title opinions instead of title insurance.

Thoughts of a traveling dirt lawyer in the days of COVID

Standard

I am a planner. In November of 2019 I told my boss I planned to retire in February of 2021, giving us plenty of time to name and train my replacement. Thank goodness, Jennifer Rubin stepped up to learn more than I ever knew about my job. My husband, Frank, had already retired, and we had plans to travel.

But none of us planned for COVID!

Jennifer, the rest of our office and I all worked from home beginning March of 2020. We did manage to put everything in place for my retirement, and Jennifer has taken over like a champ…seamlessly.

After two COVID vaccines, Frank and I decided to put our toes timidly into the travel waters. Six adults flew with masks to Denver and toured Colorado for ten days. We drove over 1,700 miles and saw six National Parks, the Air Force Academy, and many other beautiful sites. (We crossed over to Utah on a whim to visit beautiful Arches National Park.)

 Except for the challenges of breathing at heights up to 14,000 feet above sea level, Colorado is a delightful state! Having grown up in Georgetown, South Carolina, and Panama City, Florida, my lungs are accustomed to breathing at sea level. And compared to Columbia, the temperatures in September were wonderfully cool!

A dirt lawyer can’t travel without having lots of real estate thoughts and raising lots of real estate questions.

Here are just a few from Colorado:  How was all that land accumulated for those National Parks? Were condemnations required? Who was displaced? What kinds of contracts are in place for care and maintenance of the parks?  How does the Federal Government share and manage the Academy’s real estate with the City of Colorado Springs and the State of Colorado? Is the Academy’s real estate treated like the real estate of our Fort Jackson? (I once handled the legal work for the creation of a subdivision from surplus Fort Jackson land, so I learned a good bit about the technicalities.) Where do those people who live in the middle of nowhere buy groceries and deliver babies?  How is that mountainous property surveyed?

I can do the research, but maybe some lawyers who are much smarter than I am will point me in a direction.

Of the six vaccinated, mask wearing adults, three came home and tested positive for COVID! Thankfully, the cases were minor, and everyone is fine by now.

After booster shots, Frank and I decided to travel again. This time, we struck out on our own and drove about 1,400 miles from Columbia to Asheville, Nashville, Memphis, Selma and back to Columbia. What a great trip!

We spent one night at an upscale, relatively new hotel in Asheville, and I was struck with how cramped it seemed, surrounded by busy Asheville streets. I, of course, thought about the developer’s thought process in accumulating the real estate and placing the hotel in that location.

Don’t judge, but it was Halloween week, so we took the “Spooky Asheville Walking Tour”. We didn’t see any ghosts, but I was struck with the stories of covering up cemeteries to create streets. I’m not sure I bought that story from a real estate standpoint. I’ve been involved in many claims involving missed cemeteries!

In fact, I couldn’t decide whether the tour guide was completely making up the stories or whether some of them were based in historical fact. Apparently, a lieutenant of Al Capone was pushed out of Asheville’s Flat Iron Building, and a United Methodist Church is haunted by a nun who predicts futures. I may need to check some of this out. Call me skeptical.

At Graceland, we saw Elvis’ Trust Deed with the notation, “A Title Policy is a Vital Policy.” I couldn’t agree more, and I’m attaching a picture for your enjoyment.

At the Peabody Hotel in Memphis, we watched the ducks leave their fountain in the hotel lobby to return to their “penthouse apartment” for the evening. We watched this show twice and dubbed it the best show in town. (The “rubber ducky” drinks I was imbibing may have added to the attraction.)

At the historic Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, we saw a “Witness Post” advising that we shouldn’t remove a survey market. What dirt lawyer could resist taking a picture of that? It is also attached for your enjoyment.

Thanks for indulging my real estate meandering thoughts and questions. Our next trip will be with children and grandchildren to Disney World for Thanksgiving week. Be prepared!