[skyguy79]

Originally Posted by Russ_Boston

That's about right but most of my cost was forced on me because I mortgaged. About $1000 for their coverage and $325 for mine.

Russ, I think you switched those figures, but I do concur with what you've stated. I checked my paperwork and got figures similar to the post you quoted... just higher on my purchase. (a Gardenia)

[Boomer]

Originally Posted by Challenger

Not buying title insurance is generally a pennywise and pound folish move IMHO, especially if you do not have a mortgage. A home is the largest single investment most people will ever have . I have be involved with community banks for over fifty years and have seen large payoffs by title insurance companies. Sometimes this takes the form of defending the owner against unjustified claims. The premium is paid once and covers the insured for the duration of ownership. A small price to pay .

We are spending time in TV, off and on, as we decide if buying a second home is what we really want to do. We are not there right now, but when I saw this thread appear, I thought it could be an appropriate place to make a suggestion.

First of all, I completely agree with Challenger's post. In fact, Challenger has used a phrase that I often find myself using to describe pickles that people can get themselves into. "Penny wise and pound-foolish" Another phrase I use when thinking through financial decisions is "What is the cost of sleep?" (answers will vary on that one)

Sometimes people are so happy with being able to pay cash for a home that they forget to stop and think through the title insurance issue of bank requirement. No mortgage. No bank. Yay! But......cash buyers sometimes forget that when you pay cash, you are the bank. You need to think like a bank.

I hope I do not come off as heavy-handed when I start in on these topics. Generally, what I try to do is to help those who might be interested in finding more information to consider before they make big financial decisions. (And I always include my disclaimer to let you know that I have no pieces of paper that say I am a financial adviser and could even be an English major for all anybody knows.) For some reason, I have, for many years, had a pretty decent comfort-level with making financial decisions. I hope I stay that way, but who knows. These things I write are only for your consideration. I hope I never sound like I am trying to act like I know everything because I sure don't. But I digress.....

So anyway, here is what I want to suggest to anybody who's into learning more about what they might not know about financial stuff....

One day when we were in TV, I saw an ad in the paper for a law firm that was offering a little seminar on FSBO's and other real estate topics that included title insurance. Well, I thought it sounded interesting so I signed up. When I got there, I found that there were other topics covered, too. The topics included trusts and other things that pertain to financial life. Pre-nups came up. They also talked about things that those who live together as committed, loving, though unmarried, couples need to know about how financial matters can affect them -- but maybe not in the way they thought they had planned.

Good info was presented and also they addressed some of those "penny-wise and pound foolish" decisions that people make while thinking they know what they don't know. One had to with titling your house with an adult-child or someone who would be an heir. (Doing so possibly could introduce extremely serious risk to the asset while the real homeowners are still alive. But people do this all the time thinking they are avoiding probate or taxes or whatever I guess. But it should not be done without seeking good legal advice first to learn about the risks that could be involved.)

And a long time ago, I started a thread here where we discussed pre-nups. So, of course, I thought that was interesting.

So anyway, I am not a financial adviser nor am I a lawyer. (although I sometimes wonder if I could have been going to law school for the past 3 years instead of sitting here posting on TOTV. I would have been taking the bar by now probably. ) I digress once more.....

Back to the seminar.....There were different attorneys who spoke on the various topics. It was time well-spent. A lot of information in a relatively short time period.

So if you see an ad in The Daily Sun for one of these seminars, I suggest that if you are interested in learning more about this stuff, sign yourself up. The office was located north of TV on 441 somewhere close to a Lutheran church as I recall.

Nobody tried to pressure anybody about anything. They were just making their services known.

Also, as a little added bonus, while we were learning all kinds of things from the attorneys who were speaking and answering questions, Mr. Boomer was especially happy because we were sitting near the table where they had some wonderful cookies for us.

So anyway, just a suggestion. I am recommending the seminar. I have not used the attorneys. Of course, they are into title insurance there, but they explain some good reasons for it. Surveys anyone?

And, Challenger, I am a big fan of those good, solid, community banks who did things right throughout this mess that continues to grow arms and legs reaching into so many aspects of our economy. I am a small investor in individual stocks. I welcome a good market, but I also strongly believe that "Unrestrained greed is not only bad morals, it's bad economics." (I think I just digressed again.)

Boomer

[Sherman931]

Bought the Title Insurance...with all the publicity (good and bad) that the Morse family gets....well, you never know.

[JimJoe]

Before you close, does not the owner have to produce to the buyer's lawyer an UPDATED abstract of the property that proves their ownership and that it is clear from liens? Doesn't The abstract becomes the property of the new owner upon closing? Do you not have a lawyer examine it to make sure that the seller has free and clear title? Does Florida have a "root of title" law that only requires the owner to prove title only back a specific number of years because all ownership claims older than that are barred by the root of title law? When you get the title opinion letter from YOUR lawyer saying the seller has clear title and there are no current liens on the property, what is the need for title insurance, especially since the lawyer should have malpractice insurance to cover such mistakes?
I am not familiar with Florida. Can anyone clarify this with their knowledge and experience?

When I buy in TV I will have a Florida real estate attorney check all the documents including the title to the property, and give me a written opinion.

[skyguy79]

Originally Posted by JimJoe

Before you close, does not the owner have to produce to the buyer's lawyer an UPDATED abstract of the property that proves their ownership and that it is clear from liens? Doesn't The abstract becomes the property of the new owner upon closing? Do you not have a lawyer examine it to make sure that the seller has free and clear title? Does Florida have a "root of title" law that only requires the owner to prove title only back a specific number of years because all ownership claims older than that are barred by the root of title law? When you get the title opinion letter from YOUR lawyer saying the seller has clear title and there are no current liens on the property, what is the need for title insurance, especially since the lawyer should have malpractice insurance to cover such mistakes?
I am not familiar with Florida. Can anyone clarify this with their knowledge and experience?

When I buy in TV I will have a Florida real estate attorney check all the documents including the title to the property, and give me a written opinion.

Is this your first home purchase? All this assumes that once you're closed that no unknown entity can then come in, file suit for the land then obtain a favorable verdict from the courts. And you know what they say about assume!

[JimJoe]

Originally Posted by skyguy79

Is this your first home purchase? All this assumes that once you're closed that no unknown entity can then come in, file suit for the land then obtain a favorable verdict from the courts. And you know what they say about assume!

I guess I would rather know I have good title and no liens, a legal opinion and their malpractice insurance backing it up, and the protection from lawsuits that a root of title law provides, than assume some title insurance company will still be in business 20 years from now when a problem arises, and they will comply with their insurance contract.

[skyguy79]

Originally Posted by JimJoe

I guess I would rather know I have good title and no liens, a legal opinion and their malpractice insurance backing it up, and the protection from lawsuits that a root of title law provides, than assume some title insurance company will still be in business 20 years from now when a problem arises, and they will comply with their insurance contract.

I think you're missing my point, being that even the clearest of titles and the best of legal minds cannot forsee the forseeable or research for what was created prior to governmental records being kept... and no malpractice insurance is going to pay for any such incidences. Also, what makes you think that there will be a law firm still existing or any malpractice insurance you're refering to 20 years down the road any more than there will be that title insurance company? If betting on this, I'd certainly not put my money on the law firm existing and the title insurance company not - come 20 years down the road!

[JimJoe]

Originally Posted by skyguy79

I think you're missing my point, being that even the clearest of titles and the best of legal minds cannot forsee the forseeable or research for what was created prior to governmental records being kept... and no malpractice insurance is going to pay for any such incidences. Also, what makes you think that there will be a law firm still existing or any malpractice insurance you're refering to 20 years down the road any more than there will be that title insurance company? If betting on this, I'd certainly not put my money on the law firm existing and the title insurance company not - come 20 years down the road!

The law firm would not have to still exist.. you would sue the lawyer and he would notify his insurer.... so it is an insurance carrier either way.. but I would have an abstract and opinion that I could examine and analyze before I closed.. information is always better than just an insurance contract... and the title opinion is usually not much money.. $100 or so.. because if there is a root of title law, you look at the abstract, find the root based on the sales and time periods, and it usually is pretty obvious if the seller has good title.

I have no problem with title insurance if you think you need it for peace of mind.. but realize all you are doing is paying a pile of money to an insurance company for their promise to pay IF something unlikely happens, and the right to sue them if they dont pay,, all assuming they are still in business years or decades later. I would rather have the title researched, have an experienced real estate attorney look at it and, and show me and put in writing why the seller has good title.
Keep in mind most of these properties have in their title history the developer's corporation. Do you think they checked out the title before they bought the land? I am thinking yes.

[skyguy79]

Originally Posted by JimJoe

I guess I would rather know I have good title and no liens, a legal opinion and their malpractice insurance backing it up, and the protection from lawsuits that a root of title law provides, than assume some title insurance company will still be in business 20 years from now when a problem arises, and they will comply with their insurance contract.

What would "their" malpractice insurance back up, that there was no existing documentation available at the time of the title search? That evidence that did exist was not uncovered or discovered prior to the title search? Also, what makes you think that the malpractice insurance company might still be there 20 years from now any more that the title insurance company might not? If I were to bet, I'd bet that the malpractice insurance might cease to exist before the title insurance ever would!

[Pturner]

Hi Golfermike,

Welcome to TOTV and welcome to The Villages. Congratulations on your new home here!

I agree with all those who said to get title insurance. In addition to the excellent points already raised, I'll offer another thought. It might or might not be a valid concern, but in case it is, I'll throw it out:

One day, you or your heirs might want to sell your home here. (Maybe you'll want a bigger or smaller one or a different view or whatever.) The new owner will not be the first owner and will want title insurance. I don't know whether you're having had an insurance company do the appropriate independent research and issue insurance would help the next owner get title insurance. But if it would, that's something else to think about.

Does anybody know whether a future owner's ability to get title insurance would be affected by the previous owner having cleared and insured the title?

[JimJoe]

Originally Posted by skyguy79

What would "their" malpractice insurance back up, that there was no existing documentation available at the time of the title search? That evidence that did exist was not uncovered or discovered prior to the title search? Also, what makes you think that the malpractice insurance company might still be there 20 years from now any more that the title insurance company might not? If I were to bet, I'd bet that the malpractice insurance might cease to exist before the title insurance ever would!

I agree that it is insurance companies both ways.. but my way there is also the lawyer's research, explanation to me before I close, and the lawyer's deep pockets.. and possibly his firm's deep pockets. It is possible the abstracting company could make a mistake and you'd have them to go after also.
I don't know about the real estate law here... but when I buy, if there is an updated abstract, and a title opinion letter, I will not buy title insurance.
I seriously doubt that out of the 40,000 or so homes in TV now, there has ever been a title problem, other than an unpaid lien that was cured prior to closing.
Do you really think the developer would have bought all this land, built all these houses, all without checking out the title to the land? I would be much more concerned about seller liens than title problems, and with an updated abstract, you should know that before you close.

[Challenger]

We are all free to make choices. For the relatively small premium involved in relation to the investment I'm buying the Ins. Caveat Emptor

[skyguy79]

Originally Posted by JimJoe

I agree that it is insurance companies both ways.. but my way there is also the lawyer's research, explanation to me before I close, and the lawyer's deep pockets.. and possibly his firm's deep pockets. It is possible the abstracting company could make a mistake and you'd have them to go after also.
I don't know about the real estate law here... but when I buy, if there is an updated abstract, and a title opinion letter, I will not buy title insurance.
I seriously doubt that out of the 40,000 or so homes in TV now, there has ever been a title problem, other than an unpaid lien that was cured prior to closing.
Do you really think the developer would have bought all this land, built all these houses, all without checking out the title to the land? I would be much more concerned about seller liens than title problems, and with an updated abstract, you should know that before you close.

I don't disagree with a lot of what you say, but at this point I would only strongly suggest that you discuss this with your attorney before you decide on not buying the title insurance. Without it you would probably be safe, but there is always a small chance something could go wrong later on, and that small chance is what the title insurance is all about. Good luck on finding a nice home!

[JimJoe]

Originally Posted by skyguy79

I don't disagree with a lot of what you say, but at this point I would only strongly suggest that you discuss this with your attorney before you decide on not buying the title insurance. Without it you would probably be safe, but there is always a small chance something could go wrong later on, and that small chance is what the title insurance is all about. Good luck on finding a nice home!

Thank you very much!
JJ

[Russ_Boston]

Originally Posted by skyguy79

Russ, I think you switched those figures, but I do concur with what you've stated. I checked my paperwork and got figures similar to the post you quoted... just higher on my purchase. (a Gardenia)

No I got them right. My optional cost to cover me was $326.56 to be exact. This is for a Begonia.

The cost that I was obliged to pay for Citizens First Wholesale Mortgage title was just over $1100.