Title company closes down.
"It does however appear to be a warning that real estate is not as strong as it was several years ago."
Look at the comments at the bottom of the article.
Never heard of them but i'm a west coaster. Titleserv?
Banks shut down LI title insurance giant
[Print] [Email] [Facebook] [Twitter]
by David Winzelberg
Published: April 14, 2011
Tags: Chase, Citibank, Long Island, Ronkonkoma, The Title Report, Titleserv
Two of the country’s largest banks helped topple Woodbury-based Titleserv, sources say.
The banks, Chase and Citibank, instructed its mortgage managers last week not to put any further title business through Titleserv, according to the Title Report, an industry publication.
Since Chase and Citibank account for a good chunk of the company’s business, sources said the action was crippling to Titleserv, which advertised itself as a one stop shop for title insurance and legal assistance in closing home sales.
Because Titleserv also acted as a bank attorney, the company was responsible for collecting and disbursing millions in proceeds from mortgage refinances, with little scrutiny from lenders. Sources within the Long Island abstract industry have speculated that those proceeds may have been mishandled, prompting the banks to stop giving Titleserv any more business.
The banks refused comment as to why they suddenly stopped using Titleserv.
Calls to TitleServ chief James Conway requesting comment weren’t returned, but in a published statement he said the company was working with Titleserv’s lenders, underwriters and creditors “to provide for the flow of information” that auditors are seeking.
In 2002, agents with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development raided Titleserv’s 65,000-square-foot offices on Froelich Farm Boulevard surrounding an alleged kickback scheme with attorneys. The company was never charged.
At last count, Titleserv had 176 employees.
Anytime a parasite dies the host should be better off. The fact that our land ownership and records keeping system even needs a such thing as title insurance is a grand defect in our system. Hopefully as we reinvent our country we will come up with something much better than having to buy insurance to guarantee land ownership.
RFB,
I don't recall seeing them in our area, but then again I won't provide surveying services for title companies anyway.
Have a great weekend!
With decent indexing and computers it should be fairly simple to do title abstracting. The trouble is name-based grantor-grantee indexes we have don't tell you anything about where in the County the property was based.
Supposedly the Title Plant has better indexes but I have never seen them and now they all are probably gone overseas 🙁
>Sheree R. Curry, who has owned three homes and once used Chicago Title....
Article doesn't mention Chicago Title but the author's bio does. What does that mean? Is Titleserv doing business as Chicago Title? I don't know.
176 employees isn't many to have behind doors in 47 states. First Am has more than that in Portland alone. They may have been serving 47 states, but I doubt they have a brick and mortar presence in many of them.
I wonder how much this has to do with a shortage of new business, and how much it has to do with claims paid out.
Title registration that begun with a proper survey and boundary and title adjudication would eliminate the need for abstracting, title insurance, and further surveys except for maintenance of destroyed corners. The reduction in parasitic paperwork and overhead would save billions to the economy. We'll get there but not until the parasites have killed themselves by about killing the host.
I have worked with many title companies in several states and I have never even heard of this one until today.
Probably not a big loss, except to those who have dealt with them. Of course there is always the underwriter.
I have a client that has been ordering less surveys these days. He has a good background in searching land records.
After being ignored by Title Underwriters on a few claims, he doesn't acquire title insurance unless a bank requires it. He if fortunate enough to make trades that allow him to be able to reinvest capital, so he does little business with the banks.
Anyway, he does his own research and decides to bypass the title insurance.
His explanation is "Why buy something that is not going to cover me when I need their help and they refuse to defend their work when there is a claim against my ownership of the property they have insured".
I won't waste money on title insurance unless some other party to the deal requires it like a lender.
Last time I got hooked was selling a lot for cash. Buyer didn't care for title insurance and there was no lender. I though it best to have a title company handle the closing and was willing to pay for that service. Got to the closing and they had title insurance included in the closing costs. I said we don't want title insurance. Turns out a couple of years before the law had been changed in Utah to require title insurance if a title company closed a sale. I just kissed a couple thousand goodbye. Live and learn, next time a buyer offers cash and doesn't want title insurance, I'll meet him at the bank with the deed.
Any property I buy, I'll do my own research, ain't like I don't know how to do it!
In defense of title insurance
I have no brief to carry for title companies, but there are things that can't be discovered by research. And title insurance will (or is supposed to) cover them. The most meticulous research is unlikely to tell you whether the signature on the deed is fraudulent, the signer is underage, mentally incompetent, etc.
In defense of title insurance
Pretty sad that in what is supposed to be a modern country you can't depend on the title to land. Instead we need (or think we do) a parasite like title insurance to do that. Yeah they pay out less than 2% in claims of the premiums they collect. No wonder they all have big glass buildings and drive fancy big cars. Oh yeah, and if there is a boundary problem that isn't insured, but they might if they can get some lowly surveyor to sign for it. They might pay then and then turn around and sue the surveyor.
So who are the only idiots willing to take on the risk for a small fee? Thing about it is there is really no need to take the risk, just need to adjust the business model, stop issuing boundary opinions and provide a service to help landowners establish their boundaries. From my viewpoint boundary opinions are just another parasite on US landowners but with the US half baked title system it just fits in there along with title insurance.
Title industry wants it all, they can issue insurance with out much research any more just from the records in their title plants. With only a 2% claims payout, just take a few hits and save the research effort. Why get a survey, many times it's a deal breaker if the opinion doesn't align with a quick deal (and fees and premium collection)?
Nope, no love lost for the title industry here. In Utah the title industry is even changing the law on boundary agreements to improve their profits. I suppose losing that 2% of claims is just too hard to take. Seems greed has no limits!
