[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr

And as far as I'm concerned, that shouldn't be my problem. If the Villages (or anyone for that matter, bought a piece of property that had an issue with the title, and then sold it to me, it should be their problem for not having done their due diligence. Why should be burden and cost be on me to insure that they did their job correctly? Why should I have to pay for their mistake?

Real Estate Law differs from state to state. But if you have a mortgage, the lender really dictates whether you seek clear title, and they should because in essence they own your home and they didn't seek to buy it, you did and you are asking them to borrow their money.


I would NEVER ever pass on getting Title Insurance on a resale, anywhere, ever and from any other entity, even if I were paying cash. And I am not promoting anyone else doing what we did.

[justjim]

In reality, the Government will own your house---then someone else will live in your home if you don't pay your taxes. You really are only "leasing" your home from the Government.

But leasing your home from the Government can prove to be more profitable and a better arrangement than leasing from a landlord who leases the house from the Government.

Sorry, a bit off the subject. Dr. You have no choice in the matter of title insurance when you have a mortgage on the property. The lending institution will require it. Regardless, Title insurance isn't a scam---it's insurance---and to many not a bad idea and to others an unnecessary expense. To each his own. Good luck with your new "lease"!

[Challenger]

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr

And as far as I'm concerned, that shouldn't be my problem. If the Villages (or anyone for that matter, bought a piece of property that had an issue with the title, and then sold it to me, it should be their problem for not having done their due diligence. Why should be burden and cost be on me to insure that they did their job correctly? Why should I have to pay for their mistake?

Depends on the type of conveyence that they made to you. It may state that they are conveying only the title that they received when they acquired the property. Quite commom. Therefore many people feel compelled to do a title search amd additionally buy insurance.

Wishing , hoping, and believing are not cponcepts in Real Estate Law.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

Real Estate Law differs from state to state. But if you have a mortgage, the lender really dictates whether you seek clear title, and they should because in essence they own your home and they didn't seek to buy it, you did and you are asking them to borrow their money.


I would NEVER ever pass on getting Title Insurance on a resale, anywhere, ever and from any other entity, even if I were paying cash. And I am not promoting anyone else doing what we did.

I think that you might have missed the point on two types of title insurance. One that covers the lender is mandatory. In my case, the fee is $25.00. The second type covers the homeowner. In my case it's $1005.

Technically, by law, the lender does not own the home. They have lent you the money to buy it and the buyer legally owns the home. The lender has the right to try to take possession of the property if the buyer defaults on the mortgage. But, they do not own the property. Foreclosure is a long legal process. You basically put up the home that you own as collateral.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Originally Posted by justjim

In reality, the Government will own your house---then someone else will live in your home if you don't pay your taxes. You really are only "leasing" your home from the Government.

But leasing your home from the Government can prove to be more profitable and a better arrangement than leasing from a landlord who leases the house from the Government.

Sorry, a bit off the subject. Dr. You have no choice in the matter of title insurance when you have a mortgage on the property. The lending institution will require it. Regardless, Title insurance isn't a scam---it's insurance---and to many not a bad idea and to others an unnecessary expense. To each his own. Good luck with your new "lease"!

How is it that so many of you missed the point about there being two types of title insurance? One that covers the lender and one that covers the owner. The one that covers the lender is mandatory and much less expensive than the one that covers the owner.

[JohnN]

It's a scam on new homes, there's no past title on a vacant lot.
Existing homes seem to need it

[RVRoadie]

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr

There are two different Title Insurances. One covers the bank and one covers the homeowner. The bank insurance is mandatory. Homeowner's is optional. I'll be closing on July 22 and I'm thinking of rejecting it.

I just looked at my paperwork. The cost for lender's title insurance is $25.00. The cost for homeowner's title insurance is $1,005. Huh? Same coverage.

I think you will find that the bank policy is $25 extra. If you don't get title insurance, the bank policy will be $1,005.

[Villager Joyce]

call any title insurance company in any county and ask for a quote for title insurance. ask them to explain to you about the simultaneous issue mortgagee policy. also ask them to explain how liens against an owner can attach to the property. call any real estate agent in the state of florida and ask them about the standard contract to sell real estate in florida. all contracts have a standard clause that states the seller provides a title insurance policy unless the contract states otherwise. i guess what confuses me is someone is willing to pay $200,000 for a home but not $1000 to guarantee good title. if you want to know what attaches to vacant land, go to the courthouse and ask if you can look at an abstract of title which shows all the documents prior to the land being developed. it is not a villages or mclin scam.

[biker1]

This is where I believe it gets complicated. The developer bought a large tract of land and then divided into a large number of lots. If there was a problem with the title of the large tract of land then presumably every lot has a problem. At that point, there is presumably a large legal problem because potentially thousands of lot would be involved. Presumably there would be a large class action law suite. I did not buy title insurance on my new house because I don't believe there is much chance of that happening. On a resale, there could be a number of issues with the title that someone missed (liens, problems with a will, divorce issues, etc.) and therefore title insurance makes more sense. Essentially, I am betting that the developer's purchase of the large tract of land that contains my new home was done cleanly because there was so much at stake. Perhaps I am naive - time will tell.

Originally Posted by JohnN

It's a scam on new homes, there's no past title on a vacant lot.
Existing homes seem to need it

[Challenger]

Originally Posted by JohnN

It's a scam on new homes, there's no past title on a vacant lot.
Existing homes seem to need it

100 per cent incorrect statement . Read the quote from atty in post 39.

[Allegiance]

Is it public knowledge what percentage of your title premium goes toward paying claims? It appears kickbacks are the biggest title company expense. Politicians will not touch an industry that greatly benefits lawyers.

[jblum315]

I refinanced my mortgage in January and Quicken Loan did purchase title insurance and I had to pay for it They said it is necessary when selling or refinancing.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Originally Posted by Villager Joyce

call any title insurance company in any county and ask for a quote for title insurance. ask them to explain to you about the simultaneous issue mortgagee policy. also ask them to explain how liens against an owner can attach to the property. call any real estate agent in the state of florida and ask them about the standard contract to sell real estate in florida. all contracts have a standard clause that states the seller provides a title insurance policy unless the contract states otherwise. i guess what confuses me is someone is willing to pay $200,000 for a home but not $1000 to guarantee good title. if you want to know what attaches to vacant land, go to the courthouse and ask if you can look at an abstract of title which shows all the documents prior to the land being developed. it is not a villages or mclin scam.

What's confusing me is why the buyer should have to insure himself against bad title. If something goes wrong with the title down the road, shouldn't that be the responsibility of the seller?

If I buy a car from a dealer and find that there's something wrong with the title, would the dealer not have to give me another car?

If I put an air conditioning system in my house and the compressor blows after a week, is it not the responsibility of the seller or installer to replace it?

It maybe the law and it may be standard practice, but it is a scam. It should be up to the owner of anything to insure that what they are selling is what they say it is.

[dewilson58]

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr

What's confusing me is why the buyer should have to insure himself against bad title. If something goes wrong with the title down the road, shouldn't that be the responsibility of the seller?

If I buy a car from a dealer and find that there's something wrong with the title, would the dealer not have to give me another car?

If I put an air conditioning system in my house and the compressor blows after a week, is it not the responsibility of the seller or installer to replace it?

It maybe the law and it may be standard practice, but it is a scam. It should be up to the owner of anything to insure that what they are selling is what they say it is.

It could be the sellers' responsibility down the road..........but where is that seller when you need him/her. Out of state?? Out of country?? Heaven?? Since you are now working with a "dealer" like a car......it just becomes more difficult.

[Jayhawk]

When you are REQUIRED to purchase title insurance, it is only because you are mortgaging the property. You are protecting the lender, which is only fair. If you own free and clear, you are NOT required to buy the title insurance. It would be a risky move to refuse it, but if you can withstand the loss of your money and home, it's your call as the buyer.