• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

What are my options?

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

chrply

Junior Member
NEW YORK STATE:
This is a continuation of another post, A collection agency failed to renew a judgement (on my realestate) after 10 years. 5 months later I sold the property. They did renew the judgement/lien 10 months after it expired, got a judge to sign a seize and sell order via sheriff's dept. then the title insurance company paid the lien the day before the sale at the courthouse
Now it is my understanding according to case law study that the period of time between a lien expiring and when it is renewed and refiled is considered null & void and looses its pecking order to any other actions taken on the property during that time. Our lawyers (buyer & seller) and the title insurance company all looked at the lien and deemed it null & void and held the closing (via mail) with no monies held in escrow for 1 year for this judgement/lien.
Now 2 years later the title insurance company is threatening to sue me for the money they dished out for this judgement. I feel the collections agency acted inappropriate/illegal as did the judge that signed the order but the title insurance thinks its easier to come after me than subpoena everyone that was involved and spend time & money going after the collections agency. can anyone steer me in the right direction on what to do? FYI the original judgement was filed underhanded also, i never owed that company any money and had the receipts to prove it.What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
 


latigo

Senior Member
My first impression is that the doctrines of laches and equitable estoppel * prevents the company that insured marketable title from now seeking any legal relief. Two years?

It should have timely contested the judgment creditor’s petition for writ of scire facies and challenged the court’s order reinstating the judgment and granting foreclosure of the lien.

But I’m confused as to who was the insured under the title policy. In other words, for whose supposed benefit was the judgment satisfied? I don’t see how under the facts presented that you would have been a named insured. That is, unless you purchased the property, secured a buyer’s policy and the lien was already on the books.

And if you had sold the property and the buyer’s title became insured, you would not be privy to that contract.

Anyway I’m, sure your New York attorney will come up with a (costly) solution.

Lastly, I don’t see why the following paragraph from your post has any bearing.

Now it is my understanding according to case law study that the period of time between a lien expiring and when it is renewed and refiled is considered null & void and looses its pecking order to any other actions taken on the property during that time.
What intervening actions taken against the property? How would they be relevant to the title company’s claim?
______________________

But let me say this. My years of experience with title insurance people tells me that these folks are bluffing.


[*] Definitions:

Equitable estoppel: An estoppel that prevents a person from adopting a new position that contradicts a previous position maintained by words, silence, or actions when allowing the new position to be adopted would unfairly harm another person who has relied on the previous position to his or her loss

Laches: A doctrine based on the maxim that equity aids the vigilant and not those who procrastinate regarding their rights; Neglect to assert a right or claim that, together with lapse of time and other circumstances, prejudices an adverse party.
 

chrply

Junior Member
Thankyou Latigo for your response: the answer to your question is the buyer secured the title insurance thru a small, local abstract company, but now the mother company out of Chicago is threatening to sue me.
also the paragraph you thought had no bearing was my attempt to show what i looked up from N.Y. law that states a collector has 365 days prior to the lien expiring to renew, but if it runs past its 10 year statute it becomes a null & void lien against the property untill it is renewed and refiled. it was during that void time i went to contract and closed on the property. (if a mortage was taken out on the property instead of a sale it would take priority over the lien). I'am trying to find an attoney to spank everyone involved and keep anything they can get for themselves but nobody wants to touch it with a ten foot pole.
 

latigo

Senior Member
Latigo . . . the buyer secured the title insurance thru a small, local abstract company, but now the mother company out of Chicago is threatening to sue me.
From that I gather that the Title Company’s theory is that it has a right of subrogation through their insured/buyer to whom you as the seller warranted good title. (This assumes that you gave the buyer a general warranty deed.)

However, your commitment under such a warranty deed would be to protect the buyer by defending any claims against the property that show up after the sale is completed. And if those claims are found to be legitimate, to reimburse the buyer for any loss.

But here it doesn’t appear that you were given the opportunity to defend the title because the Title Company, without making any demands upon you (assumed) and without challenging the validity of the judgment lien, stepped in and satisfied it.

Thus EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL and two years having passed = LACHES! All in my opinion, of course.

Understand that I’m not saying that the Title Company has a recognized right of subrogation. I’ve never briefed the issue. Or even if so, whether or not it was waived when they issued the policy passing the lien upon their considered and independent resolution that the lien had lapsed by law and could not be reinstated.

And moreover failed to timely notify you that a claim against the property was being asserted.

But I am saying that the independent action of the Company and the two-year lapse resulted in undue prejudice to you bringing in the equitable doctrines of estoppel and laches.

Plus the applicability of those equitable principles seems so patent that it leads me to believe that the Company is bluffing with its threats.

And the reverse is often true with these title insurance folks. They will very frequently deny a claim knowing full well that it is legitimate.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top