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.

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.

This week we wanted to draw your attention to an interesting New York County Supreme Court decision issued by Justice Verna L. Saunders, which, in part, granted a Defendant’s motion to vacate and cancel a Mechanic’s Lien pursuant to Lien Law § 19(3) and discharged its posted Bond based on the fact that the Plaintiff failed to timely commence an action to foreclose on the Lien within one year of the lien filing date.
The relevant facts of, and a link to, the case are set forth below.

This week we wanted to highlight an interesting New York County Supreme Court decision issued by Justice Alexander M. Tisch, which analyzed, and ultimately dismissed, a Plaintiff’s claim against a Condo Board of Managers alleging that the Board exceeded its authority when it sold, by way of an easement, certain roof rights to the building.

Today's email is to tell you more about the "Market Value Rider" to the Owner's Policy. This rider increases the coverage for your client up to the fair market value at the time of loss. As an example, if you paid $750,000.00 for a property 5 years ago and the fair market value is now $1,000,000.00 you would only be allowed to file a claim for a maximum amount of $750,000.00 , unless you purchased this rider (then you can file the claim for $1,000,000.00). With real estate prices continuing to increase, this rider provides a high amount of coverage to your client at a low cost.

Today we wanted to highlight an interesting New York County Supreme Court decision issued by Justice Paul A. Goetz, which interpreted certain provisions of a separation settlement agreement permitting defendant (Wife) to buy out decedent's share of the marital residence. The dispute in question arose when the Plaintiff (the Executor of the deceased husband’s Estate) brought an action for breach of contract to recover fifty (50%) of the net sale proceeds after the Defendant subsequently sold the marital residence which home had been awarded to her in the divorce action subject to certain conditions. The Court found in favor of the Plaintiff and the relevant facts of, as well as a link to, the case are set forth below.

Starting today, we will be sending out a weekly email entitled “Title Tuesday” designed to keep you informed on developing title issues, court cases, industry tips or updates on available policy products.

Here is the First one of this series (let us know what you think; your feedback matters!):

This week we wanted to draw your attention to a very interesting Warren County Supreme Court decision issued by Justice Martin D. Auffredou which, in part, held that a party’s apparent use of a single-family dwelling for short-term rentals violated a Restrictive Covenant in the Deed that limited use only for “single family residential purposes.”.
The relevant facts of, and a link to, the case are set forth below.

We wanted to take this opportunity to remind you of the importance of properly ordering a Title Read Letter from the NYC Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to ascertain the status of the Seller’s Water/Sewer account prior to Closing title on your transaction. As you likely know, DEP has restricted 3^rd party, non-owners’ access to on-line Water/Sewer account information. Title companies can no longer obtain copies of prior DEP invoices or billing period information to assist you with your adjustments or account status inquiries.

This week we wanted to direct your attention to and interesting decision out of the First Department which reversed a lower Court ruling and directed summary judgment in favor of a Developer-Plaintiff who sued for Specific Performance, Injunctive Relief and Attorneys fees to enforce contract terms requiring a Seller to deliver certain Air Rights as part of its contractual obligations.
The relevant facts of, as well as a link to, the case are set forth below.

Today we wanted to draw your attention to a recent case which highlights the importance of the specific language you use in your contracts to define the Purchaser’s and Seller’s respective obligations regarding post-closing adjustments for real estate tax refunds. The relevant facts of 69 Pinehurst LLC v. Sixty Nine Pinehurst Avenue Associates LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 30681, decided March 1, 2022 are described below.

This week we wanted to bring your attention to an informative case out of the Second Department that addressed Plaintiffs’ claims for Adverse Possession, Easement by Necessity and/or Easement by Prescription related to use of a shared driveway. In denying all of the Plaintiffs’ claims, the Court held that the Plaintiffs simply failed to meet the threshold requirements necessary to support any of their proposed causes of action.
The relevant facts of, and a link to, the case is 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.

This week we wanted to take the opportunity to revisit the effect of former Governor Cuomo’s Executive Orders which were issued in response to the Covid-19 outbreak, as they relate to the extension of deadlines and tolling periods of certain types of Liens.

This week we wanted to draw your attention to a case decided in Albany County that, in reversing a lower court’s decision, rejected a Plaintiff/Purchaser’s claims for relief based on theories of breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, unjust enrichment and quantum meruit which included an analysis of the Property Condition Disclosure Statement delivered by Seller in accordance with the Real Property Condition Disclosure Act (“RPDA” Article 14 – RPP 462). The relevant facts, as well as a link to the case, are set forth below.