Sovrun Paraleguls

[The Observer]

In the US, tltle insurance is often required by a lender. However, many buyers have a misconception about it. It protects the LENDER, not the BUYER. If I buy a house with a mortgage, and someone comes along and proves a superior title, he gets the house, the lender collects on the title insurance, and I'm left out in the cold, probably losing my down payment, closing costs, etc.

I think that is not the correct scenario. The title insurance company is the one who is going to be the one left out in the cold if they insure a title, fail to identify a senior creditor and then fail to satisfy the senior encumbrance. Both the lender and the purchaser of the property will have causes of action against the title insurance for breach of contract. I have dealt with too many title insurance companies who, when dragging their feet on a claim I filed with them, got very nervous when I said that I would have to notify the home owner that we would be pursuing our senior encumbrance against their property and they would have to go court. The insurance lawyers at that point immediately made some firm commitments to cutting a check in lieu of me paying a visit to the homeowner(s).

[fortinbras]

Yes, the title insurance company is supposed to conduct its own verification of the chain of title, otherwise it stands to lose money by relying on some stranger's title research of unknown quality. As a generality, there are relatively few instances of a title insurance company having to pay out. The lender (the bank or mortgage company) usually does its own title research, but paying the modest price of title insurance effectively gets a title insurance company to do the same research using its own files (sometimes the state files rearranged, e.g., according to address or some such) which makes everyone feel a bit more confident.

Rank amateurs could do their own title research ... and they could make errors. If someone wants to complete a transfer or sale but wants to skip all the business about title insurance, this should raise big red flags and sound a loud alarm.

[notorial dissent]

Probably still trying to scrape up bus fare to get home from their court triumph.

[mufc1959]

We don't use title insurance in the UK. Because most land is registered, the Land Registry entries are meant to be the reassurance you need that the title is in order. At first registration, the Land Registry will enter onto the Property Register anything contained in the deeds that affects the property - restrictive covenants (where, by not doing something, you're abiding by them - for example, not keeping livestock in your back garden, or burning noxious substances), rights of way, easements, etc. The Land Registry will also hold the 'filed plan', which is an Ordnance Survey map of the registered land for that title. If there are rights of way or common parts (which you get with flats and apartments), they'll be referred to separately and shown in a different colour.

Here's a bit more information about it, with examples of the Property Register.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... pplement-5

Occasionally if there's an anomaly with a title, or if it's unregistered, a buyer might be advised (or his mortgagee might insist on it) that he should take out indemnity insurance to cover the cost of rectifying any issues over, e.g. a right of way or an easement. But we don't have title insurance in the way you do over the pond.

So in the Gardiner vs Husband case, the Land Registry title entries will show clearly who owns what, and of course, we already know that Mr and Mrs Husband own No. 17 from the information held on the Land Register.

[longdog]

Still no news from Expertinwastinghundredsofpoundsincourtfees on the precedent setting land-grab.

I'm left wondering how he's going to portray being laughed out of court as a victory. In view of the entertainment value of the case I think we really ought to pool our talents and come up with something to help him out...

"The judge ruled that the mortgage deed didn't prove legal ownership of No 17. If mortgage deeds don't prove ownership then the mortgage doesn't have to be paid because there's no property attached to it." Simple...

[Siegfried Shrink]

"The judge ruled that the mortgage deed didn't prove legal ownership of No 17. If mortgage deeds don't prove ownership then the mortgage doesn't have to be paid because there's no property attached to it." Simple...

More of an abstract principle rather than on topic, but I think the words 'prove' and 'proof' should never be used or even thought outside such constructs as geometrical and mathematical axioms and theories.
If you always think 'evidence' it helps to keep the mind open to the possibility that what appears proven merely has evidence for being so. Evidence can be strong, compelling, weak, or whatever relative term the evidence merits, and the evidence may lead to a conclusion that is 'beyond reasonable doubt' but because real affairs and indeed, the universe are so complicated, I don't think anything can ever be described as proven.

I am quite happy to accept the evidence for evolution of species or the Bethe carbon cycle for solar fusion processes, without demanding proof, but I think the only way to ever discover anything new is to think 'evidence' not 'proof'. Proof closes doors, considering things as evidential rather than definitive keeps the doors of perception open.

No disrespect to Longdog whose use of the words was presumably simply colloquial and convenient. Just a shout out for relativism.

[longdog]

Oh... I don't know... I don't think it's in any way unfair to refer to the endless stream of failures these cranks bring upon themselves as further proof their idiotic theories don't work.

[aesmith]

I wonder if this will have to go to Chancery Court. Rekha Patel's case did, even though her actions to muddy the title were laughably transparent.

Can't see why, there doesn't seem to be any evidence to put ownership in dispute. What would be interesting to know is which property that defective mortgage deed is actually registered against at the Land Registry. Her 2005 mortgage offer describes the property as "17" rather than "17a". The title number on the deed does not match that of No.17 as posted earlier on this thread.

[Hercule Parrot]

Can't see why, there doesn't seem to be any evidence to put ownership in dispute. What would be interesting to know is which property that defective mortgage deed is actually registered against at the Land Registry. Her 2005 mortgage offer describes the property as "17" rather than "17a". The title number on the deed does not match that of No.17 as posted earlier on this thread.

I agree - there's no basis for a prolonged dispute. The planning authority's gazette shows the properties very distinctly. No.17a is a small barn conversion in the corner of a larger plot of land. The boundary is clearly delineated. Records suggest the conversion was done around 1983, and that property was then sold as a separate dwelling.


http://planning.cornwall.gov.uk/online- ... Z16FGLI000

However it would be nice if the ExpertInFuckAll could find a way to rack up some more cost orders for potty-mouthed Helen. Her despicable, fraudulent application for possession of No.17 deserves nothing less.

[NYGman]

Any update? would expect a blow by blow victory update by now

[SteveUK]

I emailed Bodmin CC to ask the outcome......

[longdog]

I would imagine Mr Expert is busy conducting an Ebertian forensic analysis of the judgement before he updates his website. Obviously it will have been a victory given the water-tight nature of the case but the sheer magnitude of the victory might not be immediately apparent without his expert skills.

[King Lud]

I expect he is desperately trying to come up with an excuse to explain how it all went pear shaped.As he is a world renowned expert in all legal matters I am going to guess it's all down to the corrupt courts.

[notorial dissent]

I expect he is desperately trying to come up with an excuse to explain how it all went pear shaped.As he is a world renowned expert in all legal matters I am going to guess it's all down to the corrupt courts.

Isn't that ALWAYS the excuse when their brilliant devastating carefully and lovingly crafted fantasies implode in a real court setting?

[AndyPandy]

What a complete clown, he's removed ALL Court Documents and any reference to a Court Date...

http://www.expertinalllegalmatters.com/mortgage-fraud

went well then Steve

[Pottapaug1938]

I don't know how it works in teh UK, but here when we buy a property we have to get what is called title insurance to guarantee that the title is actually good, and if it turns out down the road it isn't then they are on the hook to either defend it or get your money back, and I suspect something like this would fall under that, since they are in essence saying your title is no good.

FWIW I'm hoping for a really nasty and extremely expensive outcome to her little attempt at fraud come the 'morrow.

Burnaby, I would be careful, some of the 84 year old widows I've known would eat you up and spit you out and not even work up a sweat doing it, they didn't get to that age by being soft or easy marks.

In the US, tltle insurance is often required by a lender. However, many buyers have a misconception about it. It protects the LENDER, not the BUYER. If I buy a house with a mortgage, and someone comes along and proves a superior title, he gets the house, the lender collects on the title insurance, and I'm left out in the cold, probably losing my down payment, closing costs, etc.

I can buy my own title insurance, with myself as the beneficiary, but very, very few buyers ever do that.

I once worked for a title insurer; and I heard more than a few sad stories about people who chose not to buy an owner's policy and then got left high and dry. Some of them were quite... irate to learn that their equity was essentially gone with the wind.

While I was with that company, I learned some good lessons about searching titles; and once, just for fun, I ran my own title back from the insurer's starting point. I got as far back as the 1680s, when the owner was a daughter of the original Puritan immigrant owner.

[rumpelstilzchen]

What a complete clown, he's removed ALL Court Documents and any reference to a Court Date...

http://www.expertinalllegalmatters.com/mortgage-fraud

went well then Steve

Oh ye of little faith.
It is obvious what happened.
Steve presented the case and the judge shrugged his shoulders and said "Yep, you've got me. You have discovered the secret. You are right but we cannot let the proles know. I will grant possession but I have no choice but to order that the court documents are to be sealed and all trace of this case must be removed from the internet. Your client gets the property but you must not tell anyone. And I mean anyone. If this gets out the entire system will be brought down. Well done, Mr Binch your knowledge of law is far greater than my own."

[Pottapaug1938]

"Since 2012, Helen has been fighting to get her original contract from the company she took out her mortgage with. Since then, another mortgage company has taken over her account i.e. brought the account from the previous company, so, she has been trying for the last four years to get her original agreement. This is a clear breach of contract law, as one contract cannot roll over when a new lender has taken over. A new contract must be issued by the new provider and must set out new terms and conditions under contract law, and most importantly, must be signed by the debtor and creditor and witnessed."

I don't know how things work in the UK; but every mortgage I've ever seen, in the past 30 years, on this side of the pond, contains a provision permitting the assignment of the mortgage elsewhere; and that is always done within a short time after the original documents are recorded (or, in some cases in Massachusetts, registered with the Land Court).

[SteveUK]

How odd - I still see all the original content on his site. Doesn't look like anything has been removed ?

[aesmith]

I don't know how things work in the UK; but every mortgage I've ever seen, in the past 30 years, on this side of the pond, contains a provision permitting the assignment of the mortgage elsewhere; and that is always done within a short time after the original documents are recorded (or, in some cases in Massachusetts, registered with the Land Court).

It's pretty much the same in terms of the ability to assign or sell on. The borrower needs to be notified, but their consent is not required. I don't think it's commonly done by the big mortgage lenders except where there are high level changes within the business. Securitisation is another matter.