Here's an informative article about title insurance.
When my husband and I bought our house, on the advice of our real estate attorney we opted against title insurance. He told us that since the property is registered land, there could be no claim against the title. Not long thereafter I was involved in a case involving title to land and added our lack of title insurance to my list of things to wake up in the middle of the night worrying about. When we refinanced we purchased the insurance. I still don't know whether it's really necessary for registered land, but it sure makes me feel better.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
This is absurd. The entire purpose of the Torrens Title system is to eliminate the archaic recording system currently in use, to dispel clouds in title, and to prevent adverse claims against title. The SJC is partially responsible for undercutting the registered land system with a series of cases allowing the same rubbish claims against registered land that the common law allows against unregistered land, but title insurance salesmen are also responsible, by encouraging homeowners to buy their useless product. Iowa is right: title insurance is not a real product, it insures basically nothing, it consists mostly of kickbacks, and should be abolished.
Depending on the title company, consumers can choose among a variety of options, but the top three choices are Owners, Lender's and Extended Coverage.
Basic Owner's Title Policy Coverage:
Clear title to the property
Incorrect signatures on documents
Forgery, fraud
Defective recordation
Restrictive covenants
Encumbrances or judgments.
life insurance Massachusetts
Post a Comment