Also known as: title searches · title examination
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
An examination of the public records to determine whether any defects or encumbrances exist in a given property's chain of title. The search traces the sequence of recorded instruments through which ownership is claimed and reveals matters that would be discovered by a reasonably diligent review of the grantor-grantee indexes.
Tristan Thompson contracts to purchase a warehouse from a developer. Before closing, the title company performs a title search of the developer's chain and finds no unexcepted liens or defects. The insurer issues a commitment and later a policy at closing that indemnifies Thompson against any later-discovered title problems not listed in the policy.
Talia Torres agrees to buy a lakeside cabin from one joint tenant. Her attorney conducts a title search that discloses the joint tenancy deed. The search shows the seller cannot convey full title without the other joint tenant's signature, so Torres conditions closing on obtaining that signature or a release.
Raymond Johnson and plaintiff Hazel Tenhet owned a parcel of property as joint tenants. The deed was executed by Jettie N. Johnson to them as joint tenants. The property consisted of a dwelling house and lot. Its value did not exceed three thousand five hundred dollars at the time of Johnson's death in 1971. Assertedly without plaintiff's knowledge or consent, Johnson leased the property to defendant Boswell. The lease was for a period of ten years at a rental of one hundred fifty dollars per year. It included a provision granting the lessee an option to purchase. Johnson died some three months after execution of the lease. Plaintiff sought to establish her sole right to possession of the property as the surviving joint tenant. After an unsuccessful demand upon defendant to vacate the premises, plaintiff brought this action to have the lease declared invalid. The third amended complaint contained five causes of action. The trial court granted a motion to strike the fourth and fifth causes of action. It sustained demurrers to the second and third causes without leave to amend. But the court made no express ruling on the first cause of action seeking declaratory relief and damages. The trial court sustained demurrers to the complaint and entered a judgment of dismissal. Plaintiff appealed from the ensuing judgment of dismissal to the Supreme Court of California.
View caseTyrone Tran purchases a residence from a married couple. The title search reveals a federal tax lien that attached to the husband's interest in the tenancy by the entirety before the sale. Tran refuses to close until the lien is satisfied or the government releases its claim on the proceeds.
In 1988, the Internal Revenue Service assessed $482,446 in unpaid income tax liabilities against Don Craft for his failure to file federal income tax returns for the years 1979 through 1986. At that time, Don Craft and his wife, respondent Sandra L. Craft, owned a piece of real property in Grand Rapids, Michigan, as tenants by the entirety. After notice of the federal tax lien was filed, the Crafts jointly executed a quitclaim deed purporting to transfer Don Craft's interest in the property to Sandra Craft for one dollar. When Sandra Craft later attempted to sell the property, a title search revealed the lien. The IRS agreed to release the lien to allow the sale on the condition that half of the net proceeds be held in escrow pending determination of the Government's interest. Sandra Craft then brought an action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan to quiet title to the escrowed proceeds. The District Court granted summary judgment to the Government. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the tax lien did not attach to the property under Michigan law and remanded for consideration of the Government's fraudulent conveyance claim. On remand, the District Court found that the conveyance itself was not fraudulent but that the use of nonexempt funds to pay the mortgage constituted a fraudulent act, and it awarded the IRS a share of the proceeds. The Sixth Circuit affirmed that determination on the lien issue as law of the case. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider whether Don Craft had a separate interest in the entireties property to which the federal tax lien attached.
View caseTanner Thompson contracts to buy a commercial lot for a pharmacy. His title search discloses a recorded restriction limiting the parcel to nonprofit medical uses. Thompson negotiates a release from the benefited hospital or reduces the purchase price to reflect the limitation on for-profit development.
Virginia law made it unprofessional conduct for a licensed pharmacist to publish, advertise, or promote any price for prescription drugs under Va. Code Ann. § 54-524.35(3). The Virginia State Board of Pharmacy regulated the profession to protect public health, safety, and welfare. It licensed pharmacists only after they showed good moral character, graduated from an approved school, completed up to twelve months of experience, and passed a Board examination. Licensed pharmacists remained subject to penalties or license revocation for negligence, fraud, or unprofessional conduct. Prescription drug prices varied sharply even within the same locality. In Richmond the cost of forty Achromycin tablets ranged from $2.59 to $6.00. In the Newport News-Hampton area the price of tetracycline ranged from $1.20 to $9.00. About ninety-five percent of prescriptions were filled with dosage forms prepared by manufacturers. Some pharmacies refused to quote prices over the telephone. An individual Virginia resident who suffered from diseases requiring daily prescription drugs, together with two nonprofit organizations whose members included many users of such drugs, brought suit against the Board and its members. The plaintiffs claimed the ban prevented them from learning where their limited resources could be spent most effectively. A prior challenge to the same statute brought by a drug retailer and one of its pharmacists had been rejected on due-process and equal-protection grounds. The three-judge District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia declared the quoted portion of the statute void and enjoined its enforcement. The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction of the Board's appeal.
View caseTheresa Tucker buys an office building and orders a title search. The search uncovers a recorded minimum-fee schedule enforced by the local bar that affects the cost of future legal services tied to the property. Tucker requires the seller to obtain a release or indemnity before closing.
In 1971 petitioners, husband and wife, contracted to buy a home in Fairfax County, Virginia. The financing agency required them to secure title insurance, which in turn required a title examination that only a member of the Virginia State Bar could legally perform. Petitioners contacted a lawyer who quoted them the precise fee suggested in a minimum-fee schedule published by respondent Fairfax County Bar Association, amounting to one percent of the value of the property. They then sent letters to thirty-six other Fairfax County lawyers requesting their fees for the title examination. Nineteen replied, and none indicated that he would charge less than the rate fixed by the schedule. The fee schedule is a list of recommended minimum prices for common legal services. The County Bar is a purely voluntary association of attorneys with no formal power to enforce the schedule. Respondent Virginia State Bar is the administrative agency through which the Virginia Supreme Court regulates the practice of law, and membership is required to practice in the state. The State Bar published reports condoning fee schedules. It issued ethical opinions indicating that evidence an attorney habitually charges less than the suggested minimum fee schedule adopted by his local bar association raises a presumption that such lawyer is guilty of misconduct. Because petitioners could not find a lawyer willing to charge a fee lower than the schedule dictated, they had their title examined by the lawyer they had first contacted. They then brought this class action against the State Bar and the County Bar alleging that the operation of the minimum-fee schedule as applied to fees for legal services relating to residential real estate transactions constitutes price fixing in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act. After a trial solely on the issue of liability the district court held that the minimum-fee schedule violated the Sherman Act as to the County Bar but exempted the State Bar. The court of appeals reversed as to liability. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseA title search reviews the grantor-grantee indexes and tract references for instruments in the chain of title through which the purchaser claims. Instruments recorded outside that chain, such as deeds indexed only under a stranger's name, are treated as unrecorded as to the purchaser.
No. Constructive notice extends only to instruments that a reasonable search of the purchaser's chain of title would uncover. A deed recorded solely under a prior owner's name and relating to a different parcel does not charge a later buyer with notice.
The buyer's lawyer and the title agent review the search results and negotiate revisions to the deed, title commitment, or curative instruments. They ensure the closing documents reflect the agreed allocation of title risk.
The insurer typically conducts the title search, issues a commitment listing exceptions, and then delivers a policy at closing. The policy indemnifies the insured against loss from defects not excepted in the policy or excluded by state law.
…be “a conscientious effort to show lawyers in their true perspective of dignity, training and integrity.” The suggested fees for title examination were virtually identical to those in the State Bar report. In accord with Opinion 98 of the State Bar Committee on Legal Ethics the schedule stated that, although there is an ethical duty…