ILNews

Title company didn't have authority to close real estate deal

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

For the first time, the Indiana Court of Appeals has decided that a title insurance agent is not also an agent of the title insurance company with respect to escrow and closing services.

The issue arose in Fidelity National Title Insurance Company v. Rhys Mussman and Sally Mussman, No. 64A03-0905-CV-204, in which the Mussmans were awarded $1.6 million on summary judgment on their complaint alleging conversion of funds held in an escrow account by Intercounty Title Company. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company hired ITC as its title insurance agent based on an issuing agency agreement.

The Mussmans contracted to sell real estate for $1.6 million, in which the purchase agreement provided that ITC would issue owner’s and mortgagee’s title insurance policies. ITC also acted as closing agent and escrow agent for the parties. Fidelity didn’t have any contact with the parties during the transaction.

The Mussmans later discovered insufficient funds in ITC’s escrow account when they tried to collect their money. The escrow account funds had been stolen by ITC’s owner and others as part of a Ponzi-like scheme.

The Mussmans sued for conversion and theft against ITC and its owner and filed an amended complaint alleging negligence by Fidelity.

The Mussmans argued on appeal that ITC had implicit actual authority as Fidelity’s agent to close the action based on the agreement and conduct of the companies. They emphasized the fact that Fidelity had and exercised the right to audit ITC’s closing records and escrow accounts.

The appellate court used Southwest Title Insurance Co. v. Northland Building Co., 552 S.W.2d 425 (Tex. 1977), and Proctor v. Metropolitan Money Store Corp., 579 F.Supp.2d 724 (D. Md. 2008), to conclude that Fidelity’s authority to audit ITC’s escrow accounts doesn’t convert ITC’s limited agency to issue title insurance commitments and polices into a broader general agency in which Fidelity has vicarious liability as the principal.

“We conclude that neither the indemnification provisions in the Agreement, nor ITC’s issuance of policies and collection and remittance of premiums confers a sufficient benefit upon Fidelity to establish a general agency relationship that does not otherwise exist,” wrote Judge Edward Najam. “Thus, we agree with the court in Proctor that the primary purpose for general escrow account requirements, including reconciliation, access for audits, and indemnification, is to minimize the risk of loss under the title insurance policies, and even allegations of vicarious liability like the ones raised in this case.”

There’s no evidence Fidelity conducted any business other than the issuance of title insurance or that ITC had any more authority from Fidelity than to issue its polices, he continued.

Even if the agreement and conduct of the companies implied actual authority, it’s well settled that a determination of actual authority focuses on the belief of the agent and there’s no designated evidence showing whether ITC believed it had authority to conduct escrow or closing services on Fidelity’s behalf.

Fidelity is entitled to summary judgment on the Mussmans’ complaint.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I enrolled America's 1st tax-free Health Savings Account (HSA) so you can trust me. I bet 1/3 of my clients were lawyers because they love tax-free deposits, growth and withdrawals or total tax freedom. Most of the time (always) these clients are uninformed about insurance law. Employer-based health insurance is simple if you read the policy. It says, Employers (lawyers) and employees who are working 30-hours-per-week are ELIGIBLE for insurance. Then I show the lawyer the TERMINATION clause which states: When you are no longer ELIGIBLE! Then I ask a closing question (sales term) to the lawyer which is, "If you have a stroke or cancer and become too sick to work can you keep your health insurance?" If the lawyer had dependent children they needed a "Dependent Conversion Privilege" in case their child got sick or hurt which the lawyers never had. Lawyers are pretty easy sales. Save premium, eliminate taxes and build wealth!

  2. Ok, so cheap laughs made about the Christian Right. hardiharhar ... All kidding aside, it is Mohammad's followers who you should be seeking divine protection from. Allahu Akbar But progressives are in denial about that, even as Europe crumbles.

  3. Father's rights? What about a mothers rights? A child's rights? Taking a child from the custody of the mother for political reasons! A miscarriage of justice! What about the welfare of the child? Has anyone considered parent alienation, the father can't erase the mother from the child's life. This child loves the mother and the home in Wisconsin, friends, school and family. It is apparent the father hates his ex-wife more than he loves his child! I hope there will be a Guardian Ad Litem, who will spend time with and get to know the child, BEFORE being brainwashed by the father. This is not just a child! A little person with rights and real needs, a stable home and a parent that cares enough to let this child at least finish the school year, where she is happy and comfortable! Where is the justice?

  4. "The commission will review applications and interview qualified candidates in March and April." Riiiiiight. Would that be the same vaulted process that brought us this result done by "qualified candidates"? http://www.theindianalawyer.com/justices-deny-transfer-to-child-custody-case/PARAMS/article/42774 Perhaps a lottery system more like the draft would be better? And let us not limit it to Indiana attorneys so as to give the untainted a fighting chance?

  5. Steal a little, and they put you in jail. Steal a lot, and they make you king. Bob Dylan ala Samuel Johnson. I had a very similar experience trying to hold due process trampling bureaucrats responsible under the law. Consider this quote and commentary:"'When the president does it, that means it is not illegal,' [Richard] Nixon told his interviewer. Those words were largely seen by the American public -- which continued to hold the ex-president in low esteem -- as a symbol of his unbowed arrogance. Most citizens still wanted to believe that no American citizen, not even the president, is above the law." BWHaahaaahaaa!!!! http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/When-the-president-does-it-that-means-it-is-not-illegal.html

ADVERTISEMENT