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.

This week we wanted to remind you that Local Law 97 (LL 97-2019) establishing Carbon emission limits for certain properties went into effect on January 1, 2024. The following types of properties are deemed “Covered Buildings”, and will be regulated by LL 97-2019:

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 remind you about current legislation that will affect how the Peconic Bay Community Preservation Fund Tax (CPF) is calculated in several Peconic Bay towns in Eastern Long Island. Effective January 1, 2023, pursuant to revisions to New York Tax Law 1449-BB and the local town codes in East Hampton, Shelter Island, South Hampton and Southold (NOTE – The town of Riverhead did not change its CPF allowances), all conveyances made in those towns will be subject to the following adjusted allowances when calculating the CPF:

We wanted to take this opportunity to remind you to remain vigilant and continue to be on guard against the ever-increasing attempts of unscrupulous individuals to commit fraudulent land sales. These scams can involve the sale of a house or other types of real property, but often focus on the sale of a vacant lot that is owned free of encumbrances and liens. The “scammer” typically has done online research and is familiar not only with the property itself but with real estate transactions in general. The “Seller” therefore is usually able to discuss the proposed transaction with a high degree of accuracy.

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.

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:

As we are fast approaching the end of 2022, we wanted to remind you of a significant piece of legislation that became effective earlier this year and amended how judgment interest is calculated on Money Judgments in certain circumstances. Back on December 31, 2021, Governor Hochul signed into law Chapter 831 of the Laws of 2021 amending Sections of the CPLR to reduce the interest rate on money judgments against natural persons involving “consumer debt” (as defined in CPLR Section 5004(b)) from 9% to 2% per annum.