title search/insurance

Look into Entitle Direct. There is a website entitledirect.com

thanks, is title search/insurance a must in this scenario? can someone with similar experience shred some lights, we feel like it's a big rip-off, with only in rare circumstances it could be useful. Is it by law we have to have a title search/insurance?

AFAIK you are not obliged to have title insurance, the reason that most people do is because banks require it before they'll give you a mortgage.

thanks a lot, however my attorney is a bit hesitate to go without it, guess he doesn't want to involve in any risk, which seems to be the case for quite a few attorneies I contacted...

The title search racket in the US is so ridiculous ... in many other countries, a database is maintained by the government, and once the search is done for a property, that's that for all future buyers, whose deed transfers are simply recorded for a nominal fee ... no recourse for future discoveries of lost ownership.

Here, the John Birchers fear "big government," and we're left with expensive anarchy instead.

I could be wrong but I believe that since insurance is a state regulated business, the rates in effect have to be approved by the state. You could shop around but there probably won't be much of a difference. As for needing it, are you sure all the liens on the building are satisfied. The sponsor likely borrowed money and I am personally aware of a situation where the builders mortgage was apportioned by unit. That lien, if the situation is similar, needs to be off the record, and the same is true for mechanics liens, if any. FYI, I tend to be overly cautious. IMHO of course.

There are really two kinds of title insurance: lender's title -- which the mortgage bank will make you buy to insure their part of the deal (let's say 80 percent) and owner's title -- which you buy to protect your part of the deal -- (let's say that's 20 percent).

Since you are paying all cash, you are really buying both portions of the title insurance -- that's why it seems expensive to you. If you have previously bought in financed transactions, you may not have bought owner's title insurance.

but you also may not even have been aware of what you previously spent on lender's title because it might have been buried in the closing costs.

I personally would take the advice of an atty you trust before you decide to skip it -- and you have the answer from your atty...

or to put it another way: if it was their money, Chase and Wells Fargo wouldn't go without it.

ali r.
DG Neary Realty

alanhurt.... Why do you love big government?

julialg, because it has a proven track record of working.

thanks a lot for all the inputs, another question, sponsor is also asking us to cover their part of closing cost, e.g. seller attorney fee...etc. Anyone has experience with that? thanks.

you should have negotiated the sponsor costs when you were negotiating the price. it was typical, until 2 yrs ago, for the buyer to cover those costs. that has changed since in most transactions.

on the topic of title search and title insurance, you can first do the title search that costs a few hudred dollars, then review it and decide if you want to get the insurance. from what i know, the title search and insurance on $350K is about $1800. as always, the more coverage you want, the more the insurance will cost.

Don't forget to get the "Market Value" rider.

Alan: I think you may be misreading the information: I can't believe you wouldn't STILL need to get title insurance. Let's say someone fraudulently conveys title to YOUR unit to someone else. Are you saying it would be great if just because the recording office accepted the fraudulent filing that you are screwed and have no recourse? I think what you are looking at is that there are dates set which are "cut-off"/base dates, and no one can make a title claim for ownership before that date. But as you move forward, since there is ALWAYS the possibility of a title issue.

ouhong: Since we don't know how badly some of the new projects might still crater, not having title insurance could prove costly. We all are aware of the Extel mess at the Rushmore over a simple typo. We also see people losing TONS of money as projects head South (Stuy Town/PCV). There are many things which could happen, especially if you negotiated the price in the Offering Plan down: one scenario - the Sponsor is under water, he gets his tax lots separated for the individual units and starts selling them. he sells 50% at steep discounts and then hands what is left to the lender. The lender makes a claim that the Sponsor had no authority to sell the units they did at such low prices which were below the payoff numbers (and since the loan is on the old, "whole building" tax lot, it's possible things could slip though the cracks and not get the proper releases from the lender). So the lender goes after all the units, even the one's which people thought they purchased, trying to overturn the sale. While there may be a good chance you would win, do you want to pay $50,000 to $200,000 in legal fees and years in Court fighting, or let a Title Company do it for you?

30yrs, I was referring to the search part (whole new search fee every two years if it's sold that frequently), but of course there's always the possibility of a title issue under the rest-of-the-world system, which doesn't use title insurance.

In the rest of the world, the govt. covers its title errors with cash to the party that's been victimized by fraud ... in the hypothetical that you gave, that would not be me (still the rightful owner despite committed by a third party), but rather the hapless buyer. I'd still own the property. Perhaps those courts side with the government to protect against claims payouts, but I haven't heard of that happening.

In any event, title insurance exists pretty much only for the US, while property ownership exists pretty much worldwide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_insurance

thanks so much, so is it safe to use this entitledirect.com? buyers should have right to choose their own title companies, right?

"Title insurance exists in the U.S. in great part because of a comparative deficiency in the U.S. land records laws. Most of the industrialized world uses land registration systems for the transfer of land titles or interests in them. Under these systems, the government makes the determination of title ownership and encumbrances on the title based on the registration of the instruments transferring or otherwise affecting the title in the applicable government office. With only a few exceptions, the government's determination is conclusive. Governmental errors lead to monetary compensation to the person damaged by the error but that aggrieved party usually cannot recover the property. The Torrens Title system is the basis for land registration systems in many common world countries."

So what we really need is not only more government spending to keep better records, but more government spending to cover up it's screw ups (that wouldn't happen with our Gov't employees much, would it?). In other words, a huge shift of something which is currently entirely dealt with in the private sector being transferred to the government. So that way the individuals actually using the service don't pay anything (or as you say, a "nominal amount"), and instead every citizen shares in the expense whether they use it or not. And of course the government would handle everything in a much more cost effective way than the private sector.

Pardon my being jaded, but I think that's exactly what we need less of.

Lets let the government take over life insurance as well. Those guys make too much money also.

PS "in the hypothetical that you gave, that would not be me (still the rightful owner despite committed by a third party), but rather the hapless buyer. I'd still own the property. "

I disagree: if it was transferred on the records, it seems that the transfer would stay, and the injured party would be you. Remember, the claim is that this other system seems to be based on whatever is in the database stands cast in stone, and people don't get their property back, but instead get paid off by the government.

PPS using Wakypudia is useful for a lot of stuff if you want to get general ideas, but is the last place I'd look to get definitive answers for legal issues.

You have to have title insurance in the USA if you want to protect your investment.

I'm sorry, but that's the way it is. This is the USA, this is how we do it here.

My business partner bought a modest property in Queens not knowing that just a couple days before closing, New York City had slapped about $4000 in fines on the property. The paperwork did not show up in the title company's search of the records, and apparently nothing was double-checked just before the closing table--or else, in New York City, the paperwork just wasn't traceable at that point (I don't know which is the case). He found out about it shortly after the closing, called me in a panic. But the title company was responsible for and paid the fines in full.

If you're buying anything bigger than a doghouse in Manhattan, you're paying a lot of money for it. To not protect yourself with title insurance to me is just crazy.

Ask your attorney to get another quote from another established title insurance company. I would not deal with dot-com anything, this is too important.

You should also ask for a market value rider on your title insurance, so that if something goes wrong, you can get the market value of the apartment, not just whatever you paid. It's very cheap.

Do not purchase or refinance without contacting Mike Scarsellato at Entitle Direct (a direct title insurance underwriter) for the absolute lowest title insurace rates/premiums. 877-936-8485x6276