How many times recently have you left the closing table worrying about whether that Wire Transfer for your payoff will actually be received by the Bank before you get back to the office? As Wire Transfers become more and more prevalent in our real estate transactional world, the opportunity for fraud and misappropriation of funds increases exponentially.

The new Short Form Power of Attorney has been in affect since June 13, 2021 (just over a year), we figured we would send this out as a quick refresher.

Please also note, that all existing powers that were valid under the laws at the time they were executed are grandfathered and will remain valid subject to any further guidance.

Supplementing our 01/03/2023, 01/17/2023 and 3/14/2023 Title Tuesday updates regarding the legislation that is set to change the adjusted allowances and tax rates used to calculate the Peconic Bay Community Preservation Fund Tax (CPF) in certain towns effective as of April 1, 2023, you will recall that the increased tax rates will not apply to transactions where the Contract of Sale was executed prior to April 1, 2023.

This week we wanted to highlight a recent First Department decision that held, in part, that a Fee Owner’s Policy did not provide coverage for a claim related to an unrecorded Deed in favor of an occupant in possession where the Insured Owner had prior knowledge tenants were placed in the Premises and rents were being collected.

Supplementing our 01/03/2023 and 01/17/2023 Title Tuesday updates regarding the legislation that was set to change the adjusted allowances and tax rates used to calculate the Peconic Bay Community Preservation Fund Tax (CPF) in certain towns effective as of April 1, 2023, we have now been advised by the Suffolk County Clerk that the increased tax rates will not apply to transactions where the Contract of Sale was executed prior to April 1, 2023.

While there is much attention being paid to "RON" by the industry we want to make you aware of another way to close, via remotely using the application "Zoom".
The following is from First American regarding the use of "Zoom":

This week we wanted to bring your attention to a recent Supreme Court case out of New York County which highlights, in part, the importance of drafting Contract provisions that clearly define the Seller’s obligations with respect to crucial elements of the deal such as obtaining a Final Certificate of Occupancy or the existence of leaks into or emanating from the premises. Justice Ramseur’s decision awarded the Defendant (Seller) the retention of the disputed Contract Downpayment together with Legal Fees to be determined at a subsequent inquest hearing. The relevant facts of and a link to the case are set forth below.

This week we wanted to bring your attention to an Appellate Division decision out of the Third Department which held, in part, that mowing a lawn, together with constructing and maintaining a driveway, were sufficient evidence to support a claim for Adverse Possession of a disputed strip of land.
The relevant facts of, and a link to, the case are set forth below:

This week we wanted to bring your attention to a First Department case wherein the Appellate Division held that an Ex-Husband’s Judgment Creditor’s lien claim was subordinate to the Ex-Wife’s unrecorded equitable interest in a Condominium Unit that the couple had acquired during their marriage. The relevant facts of the case, as well as a link to the decision, are summarized below.

This week we wanted to bring your attention to an interesting decision out of the 1^st Department which focused on the elements required to establish a Prescriptive Easement.
The relevant facts of, and a link to, the case are set forth below.

This week we once again wish to highlight another recent decision where the Court was forced to sort through allegations of fraud, forgery and adverse possession to render its decision to Quiet Title to a Kings County property.

This week we wanted to direct your attention to an interesting case and decision out of the Second Department which reinforced the importance of properly documenting compliance with the notice requirements set forth under RPAPL Section 1304 when commencing a foreclosure action. In denying a Plaintiff’s/Mortgagee’s motion for Summary judgment, the Court identified specific failures in the Plaintiff’s evidentiary submissions which derailed its efforts to foreclose on the mortgage notwithstanding the fact that Plaintiff might actually have followed its standard office mailing procedures.

This week we wanted to bring your attention to an Appellate Division, 2^nd Department, case which ultimately rejected a petitioner’s claim for a variance to locate his inground swimming pool wholly on his property but in violation of the Town of Islip’s Zoning Code set back requirements. The lower Court had initially granted the Petitioner’s application for a variance, but the Appellate Court overturned the lower court decision based on its review of the Town’s Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA”) analysis of the facts included in the variance application. A summary of those relevant facts, along with a link to the case, are set forth below.

This week we wanted to bring your attention to a recent Appellate Court decision out of the 2^nd Department that analyzed whether a landowner/Plaintiff, whose land was taken by the State of New York by way of a condemnation proceeding, had an “absolute” right of access for the purposes of ingress and egress over and through the condemned parcel. Based the specific facts of the case and the Order on appeal, the Court reasoned that the while the landowner/Plaintiff was entitled to a right of access to a public roadway, such right was not “absolute” and could be restricted in accordance with all codified laws.

Can a Lis Pendens be used to secure repayment of a loan purportedly given to purchase real property?? That is one of the questions that was addressed in a very interesting Nassau County Supreme Court case and the answer, according to Justice Leonard D. Steinman, is - NO! Below is a summary of the relevant facts of the case and a link to the decision and order:

This week we wanted to direct your attention to a recent First Department decision which held that an unrecorded discharge of mortgage was insufficient to vacate an Order of Foreclosure.  The relevant facts of and a link to the case are set forth below.

This week we wanted to highlight an interesting decision out of the Second Department which held that that a judgment creditor could not benefit from the from the protection of N.Y. Prop. Law § 290 et. seq.(New York’s Recording Statute). A summary of the relevant facts as well as a link to the case are set forth below.

This week we wanted to bring your attention to a very interesting case decided by Justice Debra A. Martin in the Supreme Court, Monroe County. Justice Martin’s decision, in part, held that while an in-rem tax foreclosure sale failed to trigger a recorded Right of First Refusal (“ROFR”) to purchase the property in question, the Plaintiffs, as the acknowledged beneficiaries of the ROFR, were entitled to written notice of the foreclosure sale resulting in an Order setting aside the foreclosure deed and requiring that a new foreclosure sale be held in compliance with all notice requirements.

Below is a recent court case involving an unsuccessful title insurance claim arising out of litigation over use and ownership of a driveway; a situation your clients would certainly like to avoid if they are sharing a driveway with a neighbor here in New York. The team thought this would be a good case for you to have on hand as a quick reference guide in the event that you encounter a similar set of facts. This case highlights the importance of reviewing all Survey Exceptions raised in your Title Reports.

It has come to our attention that there have been several recent instances of vandalism to, and/or straight-out thefts from, overnight courier drop boxes throughout the metropolitan area. While thankfully this has not directly impacted any of Home Abstract Corp.’s payoff deliveries, these events have resulted in payoff checks being diverted so that the intended recipient does not receive the payoff funds.