# Title Insurance



## Woodroe (Oct 28, 2005)

Has anyone ever purchased title insurance when buying property? I have always assumed that the attorney handling the closing would carry that liability insurance.
It seems redundant and rather pricey to me.


----------



## Guest (Jan 31, 2008)

I have always purchased Title insurance..the last homestead which I bought in Missouri had a clear title..supposedly..after a title search done by the Title Company ..a year later, we discovered that the local town had an easement running through the land, which WOULD have been picked up in the courthouse documents if a decent title search had been done. The easement permitted the town "UNLIMITED" access right across our driveway and across the pasture..we found that out when we began fencing and the town hall guy showed up with a cease and desist order. Because we had title insurance, we collected a nice chunk of change for the error..and yes, had we known about that easement, we would NOT have purchased that property. 

The $ offset the decreased value of the property due to the undisclosed easement..IMHO, it's penny wise and pound foolish to not purchase title insurance.


----------



## SimplerTimez (Jan 20, 2008)

I agree - I've always purchased title insurance. It insures that YOU are protected if someone does not do their job correctly when researching the title. While I've never had to use mine, I wouldn't consider purchasing a property without it.


----------



## hillsidedigger (Sep 19, 2006)

The attorney is not responsible for anything unless a title opinion is prepared. You do not get the title opinion without buying title insurance (at least in some states). The title insurance is not to protect the buyer but rather to protect the closing attorney in case of oversight.

Further, at least around here, a current professional survey is often required before an attorney will even attempt a title exam because they could only conjecture about what they are examining. (Note - property history in my area is a joke, requiring very time consuming, property specific and knowledgable effort to decipher, completely out of the realm of attornies, although they can determine if there's an uncanceled lien on the property, thats about all). I expect 'rural south central Virginia' is much the same. 

Areas of the country where title companies handle the closings are entirely different from what I just stated.


----------



## MN Gardener (Jan 23, 2008)

Definitely get title insurance. For the past 12 years I have been in the mortgage / real estate field and will almost always suggest getting title insurance. I have even been a witness in a trial where someone deeded their property to another person the day before they refinanced. In that case the mortgage company lost $300,000+ and the title company covered it. Even though this was for the mortgage company, it could easily be the seller of the property you are buying deeding it to someone else the day before you close, collecting the money from you and taking off to Mexico. If you don't have title insurance, you would be the one who would have to pay for the attorney and court costs and then you would have to try and collect any judgement that you get reward from the sellers. If you have title insurance, you make a claim, they pay it and go after the seller on their dime. Of course, this all depends on the state you live in and what your title policy covers, so ask the closer / attorney who does your closing what is and isn't cover. Also, if you are getting a mortgage (although, technically, you give a mortgage! LOL) then your lender will require you to buy a Lender's policy that only covers them so make sure you get an Owner's Policy, which will cover you.


----------



## agmantoo (May 23, 2003)

Get title insurance but do NOT buy it through the bank or the attorney. Title insurance is rather cheap in itself. The fees the bank or the attorney add to the purchase price of the title insurance is what runs the bill way up. I have seen where title insurance through a bank would have cost over $1300 of which the bank charges were in excess of $1000. The title insurance itself was less than $300. Unless you are buying from a known trusted person that has owned the property for 30 to 40 years the insurance at either price will seem cheap if major problems arise. The attorney that did the title search will have errors and omission insurance but it is difficult to get a settlement. I have found these people http://www.oldrepublictitle.com/newnational/Index.asp to be helpful and competitively priced. They will help you to buy the insurance directly from them if you will call. You have the right to do this direct purchase, do not let the mortgage company tell you otherwise.


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

I have always required the seller to provide title insurance to me as the buyer (means a search has been done). I have always asked it be looked over by the lawyer handling the "deal" - I would NEVER purchase a piece of property with it.


----------



## Woodroe (Oct 28, 2005)

Thank you all for the insight.


----------



## tiogacounty (Oct 27, 2005)

I just ran into an old business associate that had an interesting story about why you really should get title insurance. Ten years ago he bought a 280 acre farm that had been strung together from 8 or 10 seperate plots over the last 150 years. He regrettable did the survey a few years AFTER he bought it. He then discovered that 30 acres on his deed, was also owned by a neighbor. It turns out that roughly ninety years ago the farmer sold a piece to his brother and (both parties assumed) never recorded it. The property changed hands several times since then and nobody surveyed it, or did a proper title search. He got together with the other party and reviewed an old diary that mentioned selling the land and had a date in the 1920s. He then discovered that the deed WAS recorded at the time and it was ignored since then. He then bought the land AGAIN and sent the title insurance company the bill. They refused to pay until they were summoned to appear in county court. They wrote a check for the full amount just before the trial was scheduled to start. Title claims are rare, but they can be ugly and expensive. In this case a few thousand for title insurance was money well spent.


----------



## hillsidedigger (Sep 19, 2006)

tiogacounty said:


> I just ran into an old business associate that had an interesting story about why you really should get title insurance. Ten years ago he bought a 280 acre farm that had been strung together from 8 or 10 seperate plots over the last 150 years. He regrettable did the survey a few years AFTER he bought it. He then discovered that 30 acres on his deed, was also owned by a neighbor. It turns out that roughly ninety years ago the farmer sold a piece to his brother and (both parties assumed) never recorded it. The property changed hands several times since then and nobody surveyed it, or did a proper title search. He got together with the other party and reviewed an old diary that mentioned selling the land and had a date in the 1920s. He then discovered that the deed WAS recorded at the time and it was ignored since then. He then bought the land AGAIN and sent the title insurance company the bill. They refused to pay until they were summoned to appear in county court. They wrote a check for the full amount just before the trial was scheduled to start. Title claims are rare, but they can be ugly and expensive. In this case a few thousand for title insurance was money well spent.


Its amazing that you and many people do not see the folly in what you just wrote.

He bought without a current survey and then later reluctantly got a survey if I read your post correctly and low and behold the survey discovered problems. Why were the problems not uncovered (by a survey) before the purchase.

A current survey is much more informative and protective than title insurance although a lot of places the 2 functions work in tandem.


----------



## CJ (May 10, 2002)

A survey can only show property boundaries... of record. A title company only insures deeds... of record.

If so and so deeded 20 acres of the 100 that he owns to his niece, who never recorded the deed, she still owns it, but the title company will not find any record of it in their search.

Same goes for easements.


----------



## hillsidedigger (Sep 19, 2006)

Surveyors, unlike title searchers, look at and consider adjoining property descriptions, conduct ground investigations, acquire extensive networks of extremely precise measurements and generally interview anyone in the neighborhood who can be found

so often discovering ground conditions (like fencelines or other evidence of occupation and possession) which are in conflict with the patchwork of recorded deeds and documents (often indicating the existence of and allowing the identifying of and mapping of unrecorded deeds, property that has passed by wills or has passed to heirs with no document at all, or matters that might be a case of overlapping title, gapped title, adverse possession, acquiesence, estoppel, prescriptive easement, unlawful trespass, unwritten conveyances in general, etc.). Title searches (without the benfit of a current survey) often cannot find anything but the simply obvious and maybe not that.

Once such a conflict is discovered, a prudent surveyor will dig deeper into the recorded documents and further interrogate anyone of relevance that can be found until the truth of the matter is discovered.

The coordinate geometry and spatial relationship of property descriptions just 'blows the mind' of title searchers and so often renders their task difficult to impossible and they simply sign-off on a property without thoroughly being aware of the facts.

Surveys tend to solve problems, title-searches tend to perpetuate problems although the title-searcher who has the benefit of a current and thorough survey in hand is the better situation.


----------



## TNHMSTDR (Mar 10, 2008)

I work for a title company as a settlement agent in Tennessee. I've seen some good information here but want to add a few things. One thing to remember (a big thing) is that if a title issue arises and you choose to sue the title company or attorney you can only sue them for their services rendered. So in my case the most you could sue for is a $300 title search. Every state is different and every market is different. Here the seller rarely purchases title insurance for the buyer, 30 minutes down the road it is always purchased for the buyer. Title insurance is the best thing someone can pass on to the buyer when selling their house. If the buyer later comes back with a title defect you then refer them to the title insurance company. Also not all insurance policies insure the accuracy of acreage. When given the option (and you always have the option) choose the "enhanced" policy over the standard. There is usually a price difference of around $75-100, but it is well worth it in the end. Also ALWAYS have the land surveyed! The title searcher's main purpose is to insure clear title (no liens) and the surveryor's main purpose is to insure boundaries. We will not close on non-platted property without a survey. Also we will not close anything without some form of title insurance, either lenders or owners. So in the long winded end... Yes please purchase title insurance. It's not a scam, it can protect what may be your biggest investment. 
PS.. Also you can purchase title insurance at any time. You just need a title search before it can be issued.


----------



## MADSCOTSMAN (Mar 14, 2008)

I'm in the process of buying a 22 acre farm in Maine that is a foreclosure. The Mortgage company that holds the property is paying for the Title insurance. I Look at it as a gift from them, saving me about $400.00. If all is well and comes back clear, i feel i'm money ahead.:goodjob:


----------

