Register your Case

Fidelity National Title Insurance is allegedly not honoring its policies.

Posted by
James A Strom
on February 16, 2018

I have a line dispute with the adjoining property, the builder built on the easement. I need some advice about this suit with Fidelity.

Posted by
John Hockenjos
on May 7, 2017

For my wife and I, Fidelity National Title Insurance (FN Title) has not honored its policy after an adjoining property owner made several direct attempts to claim our property against our will using city agencies and later demanding our property in legal papers in New York State.
Our initial inquiries seeking title insurance protection started on or about August 2009 after we were told by the adjoining owner stated he would take our property and evidence to that fact emerged.
We filed multiple formal complaints with city agencies and FN Title. By March 2011 (over a year later – an inexplicable delay in direct violation of the title policy), FN Title agreed to hire a third-party attorney “to defend our property.”
However, the whole thing was a well-calculated deception, intended to do irreparable harm to the policy owners and our deeded property, and our right under title “to use, enjoy and occupy” our property:
1. A 4-5 page stipulation (contract) was prepared by FN Title’s third party agent granting property rights to the adjoining owner in direct conflict with the controlling documents (our deed) annexed to the FN title policy. In exchange, the adjoining owner would drop its law suit attacking title.
2. FN Title then used this legally binding contract stipulation to pressure us into signing it and our property rights to our adversary that never existed in our property deed. FN Title pressured us under threat of having our title insurance policy cancelled “for non-cooperation.”
3. We insisted before signing that more time was needed to discuss this property altering contract with others and most importantly interested parties in our property like our mortgage and home equity bank(s) as lien holders. FN Title denied this request and immediately cancelled our title policy on the grounds of “non-cooperation.”
4. We now clearly understand FN Title had no intention to honor its title policy that obligated it to defend the controlling documents of our policy (our deed) against attack. In this case, an attack with no legal standing or any recognizable cause of action.
5. Rather FN Title calculated it would be much easier and less costly to not indemnify us, and deceive unwitting policy holders into signing a legally binding contract that would release FN Title of any further future title policy obligations.
6. There was never a cloud on our title. Both parties’ deeds and surveys agreed.
7. FN Title attempted to convert our deed that ran with the land (and was controlled by real estate law) into a legally binding contract between two parties (expressly controlled by contract law), for example, a breach of contract remedy that would never survive under real estate law would have significant implications and life under FN Title’s contract approach. Further, by materially changing the nature of controlling documents to our property, FN Title was releasing themselves of their obligation defend the policy owners under their title insurance policy.
These acts were intended to deceive the policy owners, override our deed and replace that with a legally binding contract between two parties, and release FN Title from any further obligation to indemnify the policy owner’s title.
FN Title never intended to indemnify us as expressly provided by the title insurance policy. Rather FN Title intended to use deceptive business practices with pressure to harm unwitting policy owners and assist our adversary to gain our property rights in direct violation of the controlling documents of our title policy.

Posted by
California
on June 15, 2007

two problems at least, one simple and OK, one very suspect.

1. error in paying off old loan, paying 2 instead of 1 month's interest. (amount will be refunded eventually, but we do not have it in hand and will be missing interest on it for the duraction. amount $1467.) Basic careless, human error that is evident when compared to the estimated closing statment - so not a big issue.

2. added 3 days to overlap in interest paid on 2 loans. estimated closiing statement had close 6/11 and interest on the old loan thru 6/13 (2 days, cushion they claim is standard even through it is wire transfer).

final closing statment: close day 6/14, new loan interest starts and funds received 6/11 as forecast, old loan payoff interst thru 6/16 (not 6/13). Thus we are paying interest for 5 days on TWO loans on the same property.

Fidelity blames SDO country recording for the delay - and said they know this is typical - but will not acknowledge