Happens all the time when the buyer gets a mortgage. Often a seller will pay closing costs, and this is one of the higher cost items.

It depends. In some parts of the country, like New England, the only kind of deed you can get is a Quit Claim deed. What you are paying for when a buy a property in this case is for seller give up their right to claim that they own the property. In this case the buyer takes on all the risk of the title not being clear.

Since there is no way to know if there was some obscure land grant or a mistake in the recording of a deed the seller or buyer might want to purchase title insurance to cover their liability if something like that happens. But as always it depends on how the laws of the state treat the sale of property and what the seller an buyer agree to.

When we lived in Massachusetts there were a few instances where home some owners end up with ownership issues because 200 years before some Indian lands were not properly accounted for. I forget the ultimate outcome but I remember that those property owners were not able to sell their properties for years.

Actually, I think that it becomes less difficult with a big dealer like The Villages. do you think that they're not going to be around in 20-30 years?

It might be much more difficult if you bought from a private party. As you say, where are they? If you're dealing with a contractor that has only built a few homes and has only been business for a short while you might have a big problem.

Of course as my lawyer friend has stated, many things can be written into contracts and most of us don't understand half the papers we're signing at a closing. You could very well be signing a contract that absolves the seller of any liability should a title issue come up in the future.

Laws may be made by our representatives, but they are heavily influenced by lobby groups like insurance companies. I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of these laws were written by insurance company lobbies who then made huge contributions to campaigns.

And don't forget, up until a few years ago, lobbyist could legally take our government reps on various junkets designed to pedal their influence.

I don;t want to turn this into a political discussion, but just because something is a law doesn't always mean that it's right or in the best interest of the people.

In the final analysis, I'll probably go along and pay for the title insurance, knowing that I've been taken. There comes a point where you just have to protect yourself because people who are supposed to be protecting you don't.

My experience after a career in community banking , largely financing homes , is that advice from real estate agents is often erroneous or incomplete regarding contract and title issues. For the overwhelming majority of people a real estate attorney should be involved and their advice should be heeded. Title insurance is definitely not a scam. Without owners insurance, in case of a problem , that bank would be protected and the owner could possibly loose all equity and or the property.

Agree 100%. Real estate attorney. But I feel the people who are convinced title insurance is a scam will believe all attorneys just perpetuate the scam.

And yes there are some attorneys who are greedy.

Cristal: This thread is about title insurance. If you wish to discuss roundabouts, you can either start a thread with that topic or do a SEARCH on "roundabouts." There is a wealth of reading there. Good luck.

Agree. Didn't know you were talking about buying from TV. I thought your "seller" reference was more generic. Most homea are purchased from an individual rather than a company, so I went down a different path.

If it's a requirement by the seller to pay/buy title insurance , then the developer should have had to pay when selling the homes to the 1st buyer. How do the title companies not insist on them paying, but only on subsequent sales ? ...

Because TV does not use the standard FARBAR contract. It isn't a trquirement. Tbe standard contract calls fir the seller to provide title unless the contract provides otherwise. TV probably doesn'trovide because they have done their homework and know title is good. But errors do happen.

I think everyone is jumping over the details that may influence your decision. First, consider what the title insurance policy covers. Here is a good article from the American Land Title Association describing the products http://www.alta.org/about/TitleInsuranceOverview.pdf The second issue is for you to look closely at your deed to confirm that the seller is warranting the title and will defend you should that warrant not be true. Also, you will want to be certain the seller is economically sound and will be around when you need them in the future. If your satisfied as to these points you may not need the insurance. Remember the most typical benefit from title insurance is they pay the legal bills to establish your title, this is far more the benefit than people actually loosing title. If you are buying your property from the Villages, not a re-sale, and you clearly within the Villages planned subdivision , you may not need it. It really depends on your tolerance for risk. Good Luck.

I believe that the deed from The Villages is a Warranty Deed not a Special Warranty Deed. If so they are only conveying the title that they were deeded when they acquired the property. If I am correct any previous defects in title are still in existence.

Would you pay $1000 to insure your home against fire forever.

About $1000+- will insure that you have clear title (or defend attacks) for the entirety of your ownership

Reply to Title policy scam.
 

I wish I had an answer other than there are so many residents involved that I have to wonder why every individual continues to pay for this high priced "policy" when there is more than one forum for all involved to attempt to stop it. I also wonder if residents have tried in the past. Years ago I had the option to skip this non-insurance. Today you cannot just have your bank do the closing. They insist on selling you the policy instead. Greed.

I have purchased 2 houses this year and am selling 1 at the moment. I am faced with paying again for a policy to sell a house I titled 6 months ago, albeit at a reduced fee. My question has been has ANYONE ever heard of a homeowner collecting on a policy when there was an error on the title? Never. I don't believe I'd spend the anguish to try. So besides the fact a title here almost has to be clear (unless you installed something partially on your neighbor's property)it's misleading to market as an insurance policy. dB

We wouldn't buy a house without title insurance. There were many problems with people's property in MI caused by history of prior ownerships--farmers, tribes, etc.

In NJ we were the ones with the problem due to sketchy past ownership. Title insurance took care of it in that if a previous owner ever came back at the property, we were covered.

Required "title insurance"
 

Some confusion here. these are 2 different insurances. Lenders have always required mortgage insurance. Title non insurance, as I call it, is separate.