Title dispute leads to appellate reversal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has reversed a decision in favor of a title company, finding that the trial court must re-examine the case to decide if the two property owners have an action for negligent contract misrepresentation relating to a land easement dispute.

In Ronald E. Izynski and Linda Izynski v. Chicago Title Insurance Co., No. 45A04-1006-PL-277, the appellate court analyzed a contract dispute arising from a land ownership deal in 2003.
Ronald and Linda Izynski bought real estate in Porter County from Charles Ashton, and that property had a 50-foot easement that was publicly recorded but wasn’t reflected in multiple versions of a title commitment issued by Chicago Title Insurance Co. After the Izynskis learned about the easement and bought the property at a reduced price, they sued Chicago Title for breach of contract and negligence. But after a bench trial, the judge found in the title company’s favor.

The appellate panel found the trial court erred by finding the Izynskis were in contractual privity with Chicago Title because of the preliminary title and final policy issued. The trial court found that because Chicago Title and the Izynskis had a contract, no tort claim of negligent misrepresentation was available and they’re left with only contractual remedies. That was an error, the appellate panel determined, because Chicago Title had issued the title documentation to the owner the Izynskis bought the property from and the company didn’t actually have a contract with the Izynskis.

Chicago Title aruged the Izynskis had no breach of contract action because when they agreed to purchase the property, all versions of the title commitment had been issued to prospective buyer McLane and not to the Izynskis. It also argued the Izynskis have no tort remedy because they were in contractual privity with Chicago Title.

“Chicago Title cannot have it both ways,” wrote Judge Melissa May. “As we find there was no privity when the Izynskis agreed to buy the property, we remand for a determination whether the Izynskis have an action for negligent misrepresentation.”

The appellate panel also found the trial court erred in finding that mention of a previous easement from 1972 serves as notice for the 1979 easement at issue.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?