Not COVERED - TITLE Insurance issue- THOUGHTS appreciated to remedy

Specialist · Napa, CA · Member since 2015 · 123 posts · 31 votes

A friend bought a land lot in an area where this is a HOA - Home Owners Association for $100K from a land Flipper and DID obtained an OWNERS TITLE insurance policy. The HOA Dues were in arrears for the lot as they were not being paid.
He then started construction on a new home on the lot and has invested about $200K+ into the lot in the way of improvements.

He received a call and correspondence from an individual who RIGHTFULLY claimed they had their title to the SAME land lot stolen from them by the land Flipper (who apparently fraudulently forged signatures transferring the land to them) and THEN SOLD it our friend.

Our friend file a claim with the TITLE Insurer who provided the OWNERS TITLE INSURANCE Policy to them for the $100K
purchase of the land lot. The Title Insurer has agreed to PAY HIM back the $100K that was for the purchase of the land lot BUT
they WILL NOT pay anything more (ignoring the improvements made to the lot). TAKE NOTE HERE !!! - ALL the Title Insurer will pay back to our friend is their purchase price for the Lot.

The RIGHTFUL owner (who will get back his lot- now IMPROVED and valued > $300K+) is also now unwilling to sell the lot to him.
Thus He will LOSE this land lot and also now the $200K of additional improvements made to the land lot.

Any suggestions or courses of action or recourse that our friend might or could take to somehow RE-Obtain the land lot (now improved) ???

Eg. Can he possibly pay some of the HOA Dues and then bring an action against the ACTUAL legal owner of the lot in an attempt to FORCE them to SELL the lot to them?

Other thoughts....

Michael Morrongiello - Sunvest

1 Reply

174 views

Most Popular Reply

Tom GimerBusiness Member

DMV · Member since 2017 · 3k+ posts · 3k+ votes

Quote from @Ken M.:

Quote from @Michael Morrongiello:

Ken
Few Attorneys will be willing to take on a Title Company and their army of litigators.

PLUS its clear that the owners Title Insurance policy purchased ONLY by our friend insured was was conveyed and purchased (albeit fraudulently); AND that was only the Land Lot.
The insurance willingly PAID on that claim.

Trying to think outside the box here

I dunno. I fought Fidelity Title (a multi billion dollar monstrosity) all the way to Federal District court. Only took 6 years. It may have changed the way they do business though.
Fidelity flew in people from all up and down the coast for trial.

I won.

There is no way to win this, unless there is a lawsuit.

Litigating with a title insurer that has disclaimed coverage? Sure...

But litigating with a title insurer that has already paid policy limits? What is the point, there is nothing to win.

Gimer Law516 Reviews

Website View Page

6 Reply

See this reply in the discussion

35 Replies

Jump to latestLatest

Sort by

Ken M.
Investor · Get yourself trained before doing something inadvisable. · Member since 2024 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes
1y
Quote from @Michael Morrongiello:

A friend bought a land lot in an area where this is a HOA - Home Owners Association for $100K from a land Flipper and DID obtained an OWNERS TITLE insurance policy. The HOA Dues were in arrears for the lot as they were not being paid.
He then started construction on a new home on the lot and has invested about $200K+ into the lot in the way of improvements.

He received a call and correspondence from an individual who RIGHTFULLY claimed they had their title to the SAME land lot stolen from them by the land Flipper (who apparently fraudulently forged signatures transferring the land to them) and THEN SOLD it our friend.

Our friend file a claim with the TITLE Insurer who provided the OWNERS TITLE INSURANCE Policy to them for the $100K
purchase of the land lot. The Title Insurer has agreed to PAY HIM back the $100K that was for the purchase of the land lot BUT
they WILL NOT pay anything more (ignoring the improvements made to the lot). TAKE NOTE HERE !!! - ALL the Title Insurer will pay back to our friend is their purchase price for the Lot.

The RIGHTFUL owner (who will get back his lot- now IMPROVED and valued > $300K+) is also now unwilling to sell the lot to him.
Thus He will LOSE this land lot and also now the $200K of additional improvements made to the land lot.

Any suggestions or courses of action or recourse that our friend might or could take to somehow RE-Obtain the land lot (now improved) ???

Eg. Can he possibly pay some of the HOA Dues and then bring an action against the ACTUAL legal owner of the lot in an attempt to FORCE them to SELL the lot to them?

Other thoughts....

Michael Morrongiello - Sunvest
Sorry to see that happen.
But I suspect you already know the answer.
This one requires a real estate attorney to sort out.
0 Reply
Michael MorrongielloPro Member
OP
Specialist · Napa, CA · Member since 2015 · 123 posts · 31 votes
1y
Ken
Few Attorneys will be willing to take on a Title Company and their army of litigators.
PLUS its clear that the owners Title Insurance policy purchased ONLY by our friend insured was was conveyed and purchased (albeit fraudulently); AND that was only the Land Lot.
The insurance willingly PAID on that claim.

Trying to think outside the box here
0 Reply
- Jay HinrichsBusiness Member
  Real Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
  1y
  Quote from @Michael Morrongiello:
  
  Ken
  Few Attorneys will be willing to take on a Title Company and their army of litigators.
  PLUS its clear that the owners Title Insurance policy purchased ONLY by our friend insured was was conveyed and purchased (albeit fraudulently); AND that was only the Land Lot.
  The insurance willingly PAID on that claim.
  
  Trying to think outside the box here
  
  Michael this is a gotcha in the title insurance bizz.. there is nothing your friend can do short of litigation that he will most likely lose..
  
  I had a similar instance in Oregon were I bought land for 130k and demo'd 3 crack houses to the tune of 120k plus I also did 50k in land use work. and when I was doing the land use work is when we found out the property was landlocked..title claim made and they only have to pay 130k so I am now out 170k plus the value had gone up to 600k for my land use ( made it into 3 legal lots).. Title company did defend my access it took 3 years as it was very complicated but 75k of legal fee's from them was cheaper than paying me 130k.. I then closed at 600k once it was squared away.
  
  the other major gothcas is with all these wholesalers tacking big fees on to cash buyers buyers have no clue that the wholesaler fee is not included in the title insurance unless you specifically ask and pay for extra title insurance which very few will do.. I demand it and will only work with the title and escrow that will accommodate us or we force the wholesaler to close on it and then sell to us. Now keep in mind all of us in the rehab business that are paying cash take this risk put improvements in and something buggers the title you dont get paid for the improvements.. So what one needs to do is put a loan on it and get a lenders policy for the full amount of purchase and construction..
  
  @Peter Walther is our BP title expert along with @Tom Gimer they might have some other thoughts or I might be off base but my experince tells me your guy is in trouble.
  Podcast Guest on Show #222
  JLH Capital Partners51 Review
  Website View Page
  3 Reply
- Ken M.
  Investor · Get yourself trained before doing something inadvisable. · Member since 2024 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes
  1y
  Quote from @Michael Morrongiello:
  
  Ken
  Few Attorneys will be willing to take on a Title Company and their army of litigators.
  PLUS its clear that the owners Title Insurance policy purchased ONLY by our friend insured was was conveyed and purchased (albeit fraudulently); AND that was only the Land Lot.
  The insurance willingly PAID on that claim.
  
  Trying to think outside the box here
  I dunno. I fought Fidelity Title (a multi billion dollar monstrosity) all the way to Federal District court. Only took 6 years. It may have changed the way they do business though.
  Fidelity flew in people from all up and down the coast for trial.
  
  I won.
  
  There is no way to win this, unless there is a lawsuit.
  2 Reply
- Tom GimerBusiness Member
  DMV · Member since 2017 · 3k+ posts · 3k+ votes
  1y
  Quote from @Ken M.:
  
  Quote from @Michael Morrongiello:
  
  Ken
  Few Attorneys will be willing to take on a Title Company and their army of litigators.
  PLUS its clear that the owners Title Insurance policy purchased ONLY by our friend insured was was conveyed and purchased (albeit fraudulently); AND that was only the Land Lot.
  The insurance willingly PAID on that claim.
  
  Trying to think outside the box here
  I dunno. I fought Fidelity Title (a multi billion dollar monstrosity) all the way to Federal District court. Only took 6 years. It may have changed the way they do business though.
  Fidelity flew in people from all up and down the coast for trial.
  
  I won.
  
  There is no way to win this, unless there is a lawsuit.
  
  Litigating with a title insurer that has disclaimed coverage? Sure...
  
  But litigating with a title insurer that has already paid policy limits? What is the point, there is nothing to win.
  Gimer Law516 Reviews
  Website View Page
  6 Reply
- Ken M.
  Investor · Get yourself trained before doing something inadvisable. · Member since 2024 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes
  1y
  Quote from @Tom Gimer:
  
  Quote from @Ken M.:
  
  Quote from @Michael Morrongiello:
  
  Ken
  Few Attorneys will be willing to take on a Title Company and their army of litigators.
  PLUS its clear that the owners Title Insurance policy purchased ONLY by our friend insured was was conveyed and purchased (albeit fraudulently); AND that was only the Land Lot.
  The insurance willingly PAID on that claim.
  
  Trying to think outside the box here
  I dunno. I fought Fidelity Title (a multi billion dollar monstrosity) all the way to Federal District court. Only took 6 years. It may have changed the way they do business though.
  Fidelity flew in people from all up and down the coast for trial.
  
  I won.
  
  There is no way to win this, unless there is a lawsuit.
  
  Litigating with a title insurer that has disclaimed coverage? Sure...
  
  But litigating with a title insurer that has already paid policy limits? What is the point, there is nothing to win.
  
  @Tom Gimer: I agree with you. A bit of sarcasm there. "There is no way to win this, unless there is a lawsuit."
  
  My case revolved around my using Subject To to buy a pre-foreclosure that was willingly sold, and years later a pro bono attempt on the other side to undo it and claim the unearned accumulated appreciation based on . . . ?????? . . . that the seller was stupid?. They claimed the deed was defective.
  
  Anyway, my point is that if you are crazy enough to sue a title company, or be sued by one, be prepared to pay big bucks and plan to spend the time. It had better be worth it. In my case they wanted $2,000,000 to settle. Settle, my foot! He willingly sold the property!!
  
  It was a "shake down". It got dismissed 3 times and appealed twice. Absurdity at it's best.
  
  My personal opinion is that theory of the legal process and the actual application of the process are two entirely different things. Been there, done that, I know the difference. Don't go out of your way to learn the difference. Be content to know how to avoid it and when to walk. ;-)
  I post this because, what I did that got the lawsuit started is exactly what is being taught by Pace Morby and the SubTo group, per his posted videos on Youtube. That's how I know to stay away for one thing and to not underestimate how susceptible to future lawsuits his teachings are.
  
  5 Reply
- Ken M.
  Investor · Get yourself trained before doing something inadvisable. · Member since 2024 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes
  1y
  Quote from @Tom Gimer:
  
  Quote from @Ken M.:
  
  Quote from @Michael Morrongiello:
  
  Ken
  Few Attorneys will be willing to take on a Title Company and their army of litigators.
  PLUS its clear that the owners Title Insurance policy purchased ONLY by our friend insured was was conveyed and purchased (albeit fraudulently); AND that was only the Land Lot.
  The insurance willingly PAID on that claim.
  
  Trying to think outside the box here
  I dunno. I fought Fidelity Title (a multi billion dollar monstrosity) all the way to Federal District court. Only took 6 years. It may have changed the way they do business though.
  Fidelity flew in people from all up and down the coast for trial.
  
  I won.
  
  There is no way to win this, unless there is a lawsuit.
  
  Litigating with a title insurer that has disclaimed coverage? Sure...
  
  But litigating with a title insurer that has already paid policy limits? What is the point, there is nothing to win.
  
  Ya'll need to get a life or at least litigate a case or two. Quite believing what you are told and talk to people that do this for a living. ;-)
  
  No case is cut and dry and "variations of the event and circumstances" are introduced for leverage and control and you don't know the full story until discovery. Even then, things aren't as they seem. This is a blood sport, not a wishful thinking exercise. But, that's enough. No need to whip a dead case. ;-)
  Sorry, forgot most people don't actually litigate, but have an opinion anyway. I'll just watch and chuckle on this one from here forward.
  
  0 Reply
- Tom GimerBusiness Member
  DMV · Member since 2017 · 3k+ posts · 3k+ votes
  1y
  Quote from @Ken M.:
  
  Quote from @Tom Gimer:
  
  Quote from @Ken M.:
  
  Quote from @Michael Morrongiello:
  
  Ken
  Few Attorneys will be willing to take on a Title Company and their army of litigators.
  PLUS its clear that the owners Title Insurance policy purchased ONLY by our friend insured was was conveyed and purchased (albeit fraudulently); AND that was only the Land Lot.
  The insurance willingly PAID on that claim.
  
  Trying to think outside the box here
  I dunno. I fought Fidelity Title (a multi billion dollar monstrosity) all the way to Federal District court. Only took 6 years. It may have changed the way they do business though.
  Fidelity flew in people from all up and down the coast for trial.
  
  I won.
  
  There is no way to win this, unless there is a lawsuit.
  
  Litigating with a title insurer that has disclaimed coverage? Sure...
  
  But litigating with a title insurer that has already paid policy limits? What is the point, there is nothing to win.
  
  Ya'll need to get a life or at least litigate a case or two. Quite believing what you are told and talk to people that do this for a living. ;-)
  
  No case is cut and dry and "variations of the event and circumstances" are introduced for leverage and control and you don't know the full story until discovery. Even then, things aren't as they seem. This is a blood sport, not a wishful thinking exercise. But, that's enough. No need to whip a dead case. ;-)
  Sorry, forgot most people don't actually litigate, but have an opinion anyway. I'll just watch and chuckle on this one from here forward.
  
  So your pro advice is sue the insurer who has already paid for a total loss of title under the policy... i.e., their maximum contractual exposure.
  Got it! Chuckle away.
  Gimer Law516 Reviews
  Website View Page
  1 Reply
- Ken M.
  Investor · Get yourself trained before doing something inadvisable. · Member since 2024 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes
  1y
  Quote from @Tom Gimer:
  
  Quote from @Ken M.:
  
  Quote from @Tom Gimer:
  
  Quote from @Ken M.:
  
  Quote from @Michael Morrongiello:
  
  Ken
  Few Attorneys will be willing to take on a Title Company and their army of litigators.
  PLUS its clear that the owners Title Insurance policy purchased ONLY by our friend insured was was conveyed and purchased (albeit fraudulently); AND that was only the Land Lot.
  The insurance willingly PAID on that claim.
  
  Trying to think outside the box here
  I dunno. I fought Fidelity Title (a multi billion dollar monstrosity) all the way to Federal District court. Only took 6 years. It may have changed the way they do business though.
  Fidelity flew in people from all up and down the coast for trial.
  
  I won.
  
  There is no way to win this, unless there is a lawsuit.
  
  Litigating with a title insurer that has disclaimed coverage? Sure...
  
  But litigating with a title insurer that has already paid policy limits? What is the point, there is nothing to win.
  
  Ya'll need to get a life or at least litigate a case or two. Quite believing what you are told and talk to people that do this for a living. ;-)
  
  No case is cut and dry and "variations of the event and circumstances" are introduced for leverage and control and you don't know the full story until discovery. Even then, things aren't as they seem. This is a blood sport, not a wishful thinking exercise. But, that's enough. No need to whip a dead case. ;-)
  Sorry, forgot most people don't actually litigate, but have an opinion anyway. I'll just watch and chuckle on this one from here forward.
  
  So your pro advice is sue the insurer who has already paid for a total loss of title under the policy... i.e., their maximum contractual exposure.
  Got it! Chuckle away.
  You make it sound so easy and so naive. Lol
  
  Do you know/admit to the fact that oftentimes insurers will pay a portion of liability to buy someone off when they realize they have far greater exposure?
  
  By the way, you are taking their word for it that they paid their maximum contractual exposure. What if in reality they owed nothing? None of the information given is enough to decide a course of action. Literally not enough. It is third party hearsay.
  (I'm Asking for a friend.) ;-)
  
  And Why would you trust an insurance company, anyway??
  Hmmm, do you provide title insurance by any chance?
  That's quite an assumption, there.
  
  I'm just saying that hearsay isn't admitted in court.
  
  By the way, I have it under good information that there is actual gold underneath the floor boards of your office at about 15 feet down. Is that enough information for you to run to the hardware store and buy a shovel? Or is your trust selective?
  0 Reply
Tom GimerBusiness Member
DMV · Member since 2017 · 3k+ posts · 3k+ votes
1y
The title insurer has honored its commitment in full. They're out.
Research unjust enrichment... a legal doctrine based in equity. The defendant would be the owner who has been unjustly enriched. You would find the defenses to such a claim developed through state caselaw.
Gimer Law516 Reviews
Website View Page
4 Reply
Chris SeveneyBusiness Member
Moderator
Investor · VA · Member since 2015 · 21k+ posts · 19k+ votes
1y
Agree With Tom, policy was only for $100k so that's what they insure.

we see it on loan side for construction loans where if you give borrower an extra $100k to finish and it's a title claim - you only get what was the policy amount
7e investments53 Reviews
Website View Page
1 Reply
Michael MorrongielloPro Member
OP
Specialist · Napa, CA · Member since 2015 · 123 posts · 31 votes
1y
All Good Points and well taken... Yes wholesale fees paid out or POC- paid outside closing
are typically NOT part of the property purchase price and Owners Title Insurance Policy being issued to the property buyer /insured. Not sure IF all title insurers will issue a policy in EXCESS of the purchase price to cover the extra padding (wholesale fee)

I was looking for a way (out of the box thoughts)
to possibly FORCE this original Lot owners hand to
SELL the lot back to our friend or thwart him from selling the lot to anyone else.

Some thoughts;
Acquiring any future past due HOA Dues from the HOA
(then bringing action to foreclose on them)?

Filing a Lis Pendens to cloud title (Lawyer Latin for "Suit pending") of the lot ?

OR could some other way a lien could be placed against the lot property
That could bring the now rightful owner (who took back title) back to the negotiating table ?

0 Reply
- Jay HinrichsBusiness Member
  Real Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
  1y
  Quote from @Michael Morrongiello:
  All Good Points and well taken... Yes wholesale fees paid out or POC- paid outside closing
  are typically NOT part of the property purchase price and Owners Title Insurance Policy being issued to the property buyer /insured. Not sure IF all title insurers will issue a policy in EXCESS of the purchase price to cover the extra padding (wholesale fee)
  
  I was looking for a way (out of the box thoughts)
  to possibly FORCE this original Lot owners hand to
  SELL the lot back to our friend or thwart him from selling the lot to anyone else.
  
  Some thoughts;
  Acquiring any future past due HOA Dues from the HOA
  (then bringing action to foreclose on them)?
  
  Filing a Lis Pendens to cloud title (Lawyer Latin for "Suit pending") of the lot ?
  
  OR could some other way a lien could be placed against the lot property
  That could bring the now rightful owner (who took back title) back to the negotiating table ?
  
  9 out of 10 title companies and for sure the smaller attorney owned closing shops out in the mid west and east will NOT insure the wholesaler fee you have to call around to find one and I get it done because we are in a market doing volume so they are willing to do this for us based on repeat bizz.. wholesalers are NOT going to give the money back that's a given.. I have a title claim going right now and the owner of the title company in MO is sending emials to the wholesalers demanding them to pay back the fee and of course the wholesalers are telling him to quit e mailing them they have nothing to do with it and are not going to send a dime back.
  On that particular deal I have a lenders policy so all is good for us on that claim.. but I did get burned for 20k a few years ago when this became a real issue to us.. And so thats who I work it going forward. If wholesale fee's is 5 or 10k I might be ok with no insurance on that amount but with some of these companies it can be a 20k purchase and 30k wholesale fee and my clients still want the deal.. so need insurance for the whole amount.
  Podcast Guest on Show #222
  JLH Capital Partners51 Review
  Website View Page
  2 Reply
- Jay HinrichsBusiness Member
  Real Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
  1y
  Quote from @Michael Morrongiello:
  All Good Points and well taken... Yes wholesale fees paid out or POC- paid outside closing
  are typically NOT part of the property purchase price and Owners Title Insurance Policy being issued to the property buyer /insured. Not sure IF all title insurers will issue a policy in EXCESS of the purchase price to cover the extra padding (wholesale fee)
  
  I was looking for a way (out of the box thoughts)
  to possibly FORCE this original Lot owners hand to
  SELL the lot back to our friend or thwart him from selling the lot to anyone else.
  
  Some thoughts;
  Acquiring any future past due HOA Dues from the HOA
  (then bringing action to foreclose on them)?
  
  Filing a Lis Pendens to cloud title (Lawyer Latin for "Suit pending") of the lot ?
  
  OR could some other way a lien could be placed against the lot property
  That could bring the now rightful owner (who took back title) back to the negotiating table ?
  
  some will I require it.. Many balk at it because they have never been asked.. but for us we are frequent flyers and I can buy insurance to cover wholesaler fees.. Or I dont close.
  Podcast Guest on Show #222
  JLH Capital Partners51 Review
  Website View Page
  0 Reply
Ned CareyPro Member
Moderator
Investor · Baltimore, MD · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 13k+ votes
1y
I will second @Tom Gimer post about the possibility of "Unjust enrichment". I don't know what qualifies and whether it is practical but it is worth looking intl. The other thing to do is go after the wholesaler but he probably has nothing to go after.
Your friend has absolutely no claim against the title company.
1 Reply
Bill B.
Investor · Las Vegas, NV · Member since 2013 · 8k+ posts · 10k+ votes
1y
It took a couple years but using the Hawaii case as an example. I guess the land owner could force your friend to tear it down at their expense. Plus pay any legal fees they incur forcing it.

A California woman named Anne Reynolds bought a vacant lot in Hawaii in 2018 and later discovered a $500,000 house had been built on it without her permission. The developer, Keaau Development Partnership, had mistakenly built on her land instead of the adjacent lot. After failed attempts to resolve the issue, the developer sued Reynolds, who then countersued. Ultimately, a judge ordered the house to be torn down, with the construction company responsible for the demolition costs. (Plus $35k in attorney fees for Anne Reynolds)
2 Reply
- Jay HinrichsBusiness Member
  Real Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
  1y
  Quote from @Bill B.:
  
  It took a couple years but using the Hawaii case as an example. I guess the land owner could force your friend to tear it down at their expense. Plus pay any legal fees they incur forcing it.
  
  A California woman named Anne Reynolds bought a vacant lot in Hawaii in 2018 and later discovered a $500,000 house had been built on it without her permission. The developer, Keaau Development Partnership, had mistakenly built on her land instead of the adjacent lot. After failed attempts to resolve the issue, the developer sued Reynolds, who then countersued. Ultimately, a judge ordered the house to be torn down, with the construction company responsible for the demolition costs. (Plus $35k in attorney fees for Anne Reynolds)
  Bill, I bought a lot in Lake Co CA. which is just north of napa county were the OP is from. I bought it at tax sale.. come to find out the neighbor built half his house on my lot.. so my lot was unbuidable.. we ended up in front of a judge and he ordered the home owner to pay me for the lot at fair market value.. so it kind of worked out for me.
  Podcast Guest on Show #222
  JLH Capital Partners51 Review
  Website View Page
  1 Reply
Peter Walther
Specialist · Winter Springs, FL · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 747 votes
1y
Your friend really needs to get some advice from a good real estate attorney who practices in the area where the property is.
That written, first, as has been pointed out several times, it sounds like your friend has received the benefit of his title policy, so I doubt there's any recourse there. For the next time, in my experience, a title policy can be issued for the expected value of the property after the improvements are completed. An Owner's Policy will probably have a clause that limits the amount of insurance to the value of the property as of the date the claim is made. In your friend's situation, the loss would not be the amount he has spent improving the property, but the value of the property as improved by the partial construction. For a lender's policy, it would be the amount of money disbursed under the mortgage/deed of trust. Now that's the amount of insurance and not necessarily the amount of the loss which could be a different calculation.
Second, if memory serves me, a claim for unjust enrichment requires the cause of action be based on a contract between the parties where the plaintiff (your friend) performed a service for the defendant (the property owner) for which the plaintiff had an expectation to be paid. In my opinion your friend might have a cause of action for equitable improvement, but the possibility for success depends entirely on the specific facts. Again, you friend needs to get to an attorney.
Lastly, your friend is not looking to have title restored to him as he never likely never had title since generally title cannot not pass under a forged deed unless the deed transfer has been recorded in a Torrens title state, he's going to ask to be paid back for the value of the improvement. For example, if the improvements don't meet code, he shouldn't expect to be repaid the $200k he paid to make the improvements. He should expect to be ordered to remove the improvements at his expense.
0 Reply
- Tom GimerBusiness Member
  DMV · Member since 2017 · 3k+ posts · 3k+ votes
  1y
  Quote from @Peter Walther:
  
  Your friend really needs to get some advice from a good real estate attorney who practices in the area where the property is.
  That written, first, as has been pointed out several times, it sounds like your friend has received the benefit of his title policy, so I doubt there's any recourse there. For the next time, in my experience, a title policy can be issued for the expected value of the property after the improvements are completed. An Owner's Policy will probably have a clause that limits the amount of insurance to the value of the property as of the date the claim is made. In your friend's situation, the loss would not be the amount he has spent improving the property, but the value of the property as improved by the partial construction. For a lender's policy, it would be the amount of money disbursed under the mortgage/deed of trust. Now that's the amount of insurance and not necessarily the amount of the loss which could be a different calculation.
  Second, if memory serves me, a claim for unjust enrichment requires the cause of action be based on a contract between the parties where the plaintiff (your friend) performed a service for the defendant (the property owner) for which the plaintiff had an expectation to be paid. In my opinion your friend might have a cause of action for equitable improvement, but the possibility for success depends entirely on the specific facts. Again, you friend needs to get to an attorney.
  Lastly, your friend is not looking to have title restored to him as he never likely never had title since generally title cannot not pass under a forged deed unless the deed transfer has been recorded in a Torrens title state, he's going to ask to be paid back for the value of the improvement. For example, if the improvements don't meet code, he shouldn't expect to be repaid the $200k he paid to make the improvements. He should expect to be ordered to remove the improvements at his expense.
  
  Unjust enrichment is used when there is NOT a contract... but under circumstances where it would be inequitable for the defendant to keep the benefits received from the plaintiff without compensation/restitution.
  
  If there WAS a contract the plaintiff would just sue for breach. The existence of a contract is actually a defense to an unjust enrichment claim.
  
  The plaintiff here was defrauded (albeit by a third party) into providing a large benefit to the property owner. Not as a gift and not voluntarily... so it's worth further research. And if it all fails, I love @Ed O. 's idea.
  
  Gimer Law516 Reviews
  Website View Page
  2 Reply
- Ken M.
  Investor · Get yourself trained before doing something inadvisable. · Member since 2024 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes
  1y
  Quote from @Tom Gimer:
  
  Quote from @Peter Walther:
  
  Your friend really needs to get some advice from a good real estate attorney who practices in the area where the property is.
  That written, first, as has been pointed out several times, it sounds like your friend has received the benefit of his title policy, so I doubt there's any recourse there. For the next time, in my experience, a title policy can be issued for the expected value of the property after the improvements are completed. An Owner's Policy will probably have a clause that limits the amount of insurance to the value of the property as of the date the claim is made. In your friend's situation, the loss would not be the amount he has spent improving the property, but the value of the property as improved by the partial construction. For a lender's policy, it would be the amount of money disbursed under the mortgage/deed of trust. Now that's the amount of insurance and not necessarily the amount of the loss which could be a different calculation.
  Second, if memory serves me, a claim for unjust enrichment requires the cause of action be based on a contract between the parties where the plaintiff (your friend) performed a service for the defendant (the property owner) for which the plaintiff had an expectation to be paid. In my opinion your friend might have a cause of action for equitable improvement, but the possibility for success depends entirely on the specific facts. Again, you friend needs to get to an attorney.
  Lastly, your friend is not looking to have title restored to him as he never likely never had title since generally title cannot not pass under a forged deed unless the deed transfer has been recorded in a Torrens title state, he's going to ask to be paid back for the value of the improvement. For example, if the improvements don't meet code, he shouldn't expect to be repaid the $200k he paid to make the improvements. He should expect to be ordered to remove the improvements at his expense.
  
  Unjust enrichment is used when there is NOT a contract... but under circumstances where it would be inequitable for the defendant to keep the benefits received from the plaintiff without compensation/restitution.
  
  If there WAS a contract the plaintiff would just sue for breach. The existence of a contract is actually a defense to an unjust enrichment claim.
  
  The plaintiff here was defrauded (albeit by a third party) into providing a large benefit to the property owner. Not as a gift and not voluntarily... so it's worth further research. And if it all fails, I love @Ed O. 's idea.
  
  Purposefully deleted comment.
  Sound like title theft.
  
  0 Reply
- Peter Walther
  Specialist · Winter Springs, FL · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 747 votes
  1y
  Quote from @Tom Gimer:
  
  Quote from @Peter Walther:
  
  Your friend really needs to get some advice from a good real estate attorney who practices in the area where the property is.
  That written, first, as has been pointed out several times, it sounds like your friend has received the benefit of his title policy, so I doubt there's any recourse there. For the next time, in my experience, a title policy can be issued for the expected value of the property after the improvements are completed. An Owner's Policy will probably have a clause that limits the amount of insurance to the value of the property as of the date the claim is made. In your friend's situation, the loss would not be the amount he has spent improving the property, but the value of the property as improved by the partial construction. For a lender's policy, it would be the amount of money disbursed under the mortgage/deed of trust. Now that's the amount of insurance and not necessarily the amount of the loss which could be a different calculation.
  Second, if memory serves me, a claim for unjust enrichment requires the cause of action be based on a contract between the parties where the plaintiff (your friend) performed a service for the defendant (the property owner) for which the plaintiff had an expectation to be paid. In my opinion your friend might have a cause of action for equitable improvement, but the possibility for success depends entirely on the specific facts. Again, you friend needs to get to an attorney.
  Lastly, your friend is not looking to have title restored to him as he never likely never had title since generally title cannot not pass under a forged deed unless the deed transfer has been recorded in a Torrens title state, he's going to ask to be paid back for the value of the improvement. For example, if the improvements don't meet code, he shouldn't expect to be repaid the $200k he paid to make the improvements. He should expect to be ordered to remove the improvements at his expense.
  
  Unjust enrichment is used when there is NOT a contract... but under circumstances where it would be inequitable for the defendant to keep the benefits received from the plaintiff without compensation/restitution.
  
  If there WAS a contract the plaintiff would just sue for breach. The existence of a contract is actually a defense to an unjust enrichment claim.
  
  The plaintiff here was defrauded (albeit by a third party) into providing a large benefit to the property owner. Not as a gift and not voluntarily... so it's worth further research. And if it all fails, I love @Ed O. 's idea.
  
  Not according to Cornell Law:
  
  Unjust enrichment occurs when Party A confers a benefit upon Party B without Party A receiving the proper restitution required by law. This typically occurs in a contractual agreement when Party A fulfills their part of the agreement and Party B does not fulfill their part of the agreement.
  
  unjust enrichment | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
  
  0 Reply
- Peter Walther
  Specialist · Winter Springs, FL · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 747 votes
  1y
  Quote from @Tom Gimer:
  
  Quote from @Peter Walther:
  
  Your friend really needs to get some advice from a good real estate attorney who practices in the area where the property is.
  That written, first, as has been pointed out several times, it sounds like your friend has received the benefit of his title policy, so I doubt there's any recourse there. For the next time, in my experience, a title policy can be issued for the expected value of the property after the improvements are completed. An Owner's Policy will probably have a clause that limits the amount of insurance to the value of the property as of the date the claim is made. In your friend's situation, the loss would not be the amount he has spent improving the property, but the value of the property as improved by the partial construction. For a lender's policy, it would be the amount of money disbursed under the mortgage/deed of trust. Now that's the amount of insurance and not necessarily the amount of the loss which could be a different calculation.
  Second, if memory serves me, a claim for unjust enrichment requires the cause of action be based on a contract between the parties where the plaintiff (your friend) performed a service for the defendant (the property owner) for which the plaintiff had an expectation to be paid. In my opinion your friend might have a cause of action for equitable improvement, but the possibility for success depends entirely on the specific facts. Again, you friend needs to get to an attorney.
  Lastly, your friend is not looking to have title restored to him as he never likely never had title since generally title cannot not pass under a forged deed unless the deed transfer has been recorded in a Torrens title state, he's going to ask to be paid back for the value of the improvement. For example, if the improvements don't meet code, he shouldn't expect to be repaid the $200k he paid to make the improvements. He should expect to be ordered to remove the improvements at his expense.
  
  Unjust enrichment is used when there is NOT a contract... but under circumstances where it would be inequitable for the defendant to keep the benefits received from the plaintiff without compensation/restitution.
  
  If there WAS a contract the plaintiff would just sue for breach. The existence of a contract is actually a defense to an unjust enrichment claim.
  
  The plaintiff here was defrauded (albeit by a third party) into providing a large benefit to the property owner. Not as a gift and not voluntarily... so it's worth further research. And if it all fails, I love @Ed O. 's idea.
  
  I'm not an attorney, but I think it's also known as a quasi-contract or an implied contract and requires both parties to be aware of the benefit being exchanged.
  0 Reply
- Peter Walther
  Specialist · Winter Springs, FL · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 747 votes
  1y
  Quote from @Ken M.:
  
  Quote from @Tom Gimer:
  
  Quote from @Peter Walther:
  
  Your friend really needs to get some advice from a good real estate attorney who practices in the area where the property is.
  That written, first, as has been pointed out several times, it sounds like your friend has received the benefit of his title policy, so I doubt there's any recourse there. For the next time, in my experience, a title policy can be issued for the expected value of the property after the improvements are completed. An Owner's Policy will probably have a clause that limits the amount of insurance to the value of the property as of the date the claim is made. In your friend's situation, the loss would not be the amount he has spent improving the property, but the value of the property as improved by the partial construction. For a lender's policy, it would be the amount of money disbursed under the mortgage/deed of trust. Now that's the amount of insurance and not necessarily the amount of the loss which could be a different calculation.
  Second, if memory serves me, a claim for unjust enrichment requires the cause of action be based on a contract between the parties where the plaintiff (your friend) performed a service for the defendant (the property owner) for which the plaintiff had an expectation to be paid. In my opinion your friend might have a cause of action for equitable improvement, but the possibility for success depends entirely on the specific facts. Again, you friend needs to get to an attorney.
  Lastly, your friend is not looking to have title restored to him as he never likely never had title since generally title cannot not pass under a forged deed unless the deed transfer has been recorded in a Torrens title state, he's going to ask to be paid back for the value of the improvement. For example, if the improvements don't meet code, he shouldn't expect to be repaid the $200k he paid to make the improvements. He should expect to be ordered to remove the improvements at his expense.
  
  Unjust enrichment is used when there is NOT a contract... but under circumstances where it would be inequitable for the defendant to keep the benefits received from the plaintiff without compensation/restitution.
  
  If there WAS a contract the plaintiff would just sue for breach. The existence of a contract is actually a defense to an unjust enrichment claim.
  
  The plaintiff here was defrauded (albeit by a third party) into providing a large benefit to the property owner. Not as a gift and not voluntarily... so it's worth further research. And if it all fails, I love @Ed O. 's idea.
  
  Purposefully deleted comment.
  Sound like title theft.
  
  No such thing, a forged deed passes no title.
  0 Reply
- Ken M.
  Investor · Get yourself trained before doing something inadvisable. · Member since 2024 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes
  1y
  Quote from @Peter Walther:
  
  Quote from @Ken M.:
  
  Quote from @Tom Gimer:
  
  Quote from @Peter Walther:
  
  Your friend really needs to get some advice from a good real estate attorney who practices in the area where the property is.
  That written, first, as has been pointed out several times, it sounds like your friend has received the benefit of his title policy, so I doubt there's any recourse there. For the next time, in my experience, a title policy can be issued for the expected value of the property after the improvements are completed. An Owner's Policy will probably have a clause that limits the amount of insurance to the value of the property as of the date the claim is made. In your friend's situation, the loss would not be the amount he has spent improving the property, but the value of the property as improved by the partial construction. For a lender's policy, it would be the amount of money disbursed under the mortgage/deed of trust. Now that's the amount of insurance and not necessarily the amount of the loss which could be a different calculation.
  Second, if memory serves me, a claim for unjust enrichment requires the cause of action be based on a contract between the parties where the plaintiff (your friend) performed a service for the defendant (the property owner) for which the plaintiff had an expectation to be paid. In my opinion your friend might have a cause of action for equitable improvement, but the possibility for success depends entirely on the specific facts. Again, you friend needs to get to an attorney.
  Lastly, your friend is not looking to have title restored to him as he never likely never had title since generally title cannot not pass under a forged deed unless the deed transfer has been recorded in a Torrens title state, he's going to ask to be paid back for the value of the improvement. For example, if the improvements don't meet code, he shouldn't expect to be repaid the $200k he paid to make the improvements. He should expect to be ordered to remove the improvements at his expense.
  
  Unjust enrichment is used when there is NOT a contract... but under circumstances where it would be inequitable for the defendant to keep the benefits received from the plaintiff without compensation/restitution.
  
  If there WAS a contract the plaintiff would just sue for breach. The existence of a contract is actually a defense to an unjust enrichment claim.
  
  The plaintiff here was defrauded (albeit by a third party) into providing a large benefit to the property owner. Not as a gift and not voluntarily... so it's worth further research. And if it all fails, I love @Ed O. 's idea.
  
  Purposefully deleted comment.
  Sound like title theft.
  
  No such thing, a forged deed passes no title.
  
  Your comment: "No such thing, a forged deed passes no title."
  
  Hahahhahahahahhahhah. I love your sense of humor.
  Where is THAT coming from?
  
  You may want to rewrite that in a way that makes sense.
  
  Now, if you said "A provably forged document doesn't pass title" I might agree. But, as you already know, it isn't proven until a trier of fact decides it was/wasn't forged after a long arduous lawsuit.
  
  The question is, "If a title company thinks it's legit, and offers title insurance on it, then it's legit until someone takes it to court and proves it isn't legit." The ability to detect accurately, forged signatures is miniscule.
  
  It is so difficult, it has to go to the Supreme Court
  Gilbert v. United States, 370 U.S. 650 (1962)
  and
  Forgery Cases Give Supreme Court Opportunity to Hold Unions Accountable for Shady Tactics
  https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/01/10/forgery-cases-give-su...
  
  But, I digress. Anytime ownership is questioned, an attorney and lots of money are required to settle things. That is why there is a difference between Quit Claim Deeds and Warranty Deeds and Special Warranty Deeds.
  0 Reply
- Ken M.
  Investor · Get yourself trained before doing something inadvisable. · Member since 2024 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes
  1y
  Quote from @Peter Walther:
  
  Quote from @Ken M.:
  
  Quote from @Tom Gimer:
  
  Quote from @Peter Walther:
  
  Your friend really needs to get some advice from a good real estate attorney who practices in the area where the property is.
  That written, first, as has been pointed out several times, it sounds like your friend has received the benefit of his title policy, so I doubt there's any recourse there. For the next time, in my experience, a title policy can be issued for the expected value of the property after the improvements are completed. An Owner's Policy will probably have a clause that limits the amount of insurance to the value of the property as of the date the claim is made. In your friend's situation, the loss would not be the amount he has spent improving the property, but the value of the property as improved by the partial construction. For a lender's policy, it would be the amount of money disbursed under the mortgage/deed of trust. Now that's the amount of insurance and not necessarily the amount of the loss which could be a different calculation.
  Second, if memory serves me, a claim for unjust enrichment requires the cause of action be based on a contract between the parties where the plaintiff (your friend) performed a service for the defendant (the property owner) for which the plaintiff had an expectation to be paid. In my opinion your friend might have a cause of action for equitable improvement, but the possibility for success depends entirely on the specific facts. Again, you friend needs to get to an attorney.
  Lastly, your friend is not looking to have title restored to him as he never likely never had title since generally title cannot not pass under a forged deed unless the deed transfer has been recorded in a Torrens title state, he's going to ask to be paid back for the value of the improvement. For example, if the improvements don't meet code, he shouldn't expect to be repaid the $200k he paid to make the improvements. He should expect to be ordered to remove the improvements at his expense.
  
  Unjust enrichment is used when there is NOT a contract... but under circumstances where it would be inequitable for the defendant to keep the benefits received from the plaintiff without compensation/restitution.
  
  If there WAS a contract the plaintiff would just sue for breach. The existence of a contract is actually a defense to an unjust enrichment claim.
  
  The plaintiff here was defrauded (albeit by a third party) into providing a large benefit to the property owner. Not as a gift and not voluntarily... so it's worth further research. And if it all fails, I love @Ed O. 's idea.
  
  Purposefully deleted comment.
  Sound like title theft.
  
  No such thing, a forged deed passes no title.
  @Peter Walther: Your comment "No such thing, a forged deed passes no title."
  
  I'll assume you misspoke and we'll call it good. Have a good weekend.
  1 Reply
- Peter Walther
  Specialist · Winter Springs, FL · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 747 votes
  1y
  Quote from @Ken M.:
  
  Quote from @Peter Walther:
  
  Quote from @Ken M.:
  
  Quote from @Tom Gimer:
  
  Quote from @Peter Walther:
  
  Your friend really needs to get some advice from a good real estate attorney who practices in the area where the property is.
  That written, first, as has been pointed out several times, it sounds like your friend has received the benefit of his title policy, so I doubt there's any recourse there. For the next time, in my experience, a title policy can be issued for the expected value of the property after the improvements are completed. An Owner's Policy will probably have a clause that limits the amount of insurance to the value of the property as of the date the claim is made. In your friend's situation, the loss would not be the amount he has spent improving the property, but the value of the property as improved by the partial construction. For a lender's policy, it would be the amount of money disbursed under the mortgage/deed of trust. Now that's the amount of insurance and not necessarily the amount of the loss which could be a different calculation.
  Second, if memory serves me, a claim for unjust enrichment requires the cause of action be based on a contract between the parties where the plaintiff (your friend) performed a service for the defendant (the property owner) for which the plaintiff had an expectation to be paid. In my opinion your friend might have a cause of action for equitable improvement, but the possibility for success depends entirely on the specific facts. Again, you friend needs to get to an attorney.
  Lastly, your friend is not looking to have title restored to him as he never likely never had title since generally title cannot not pass under a forged deed unless the deed transfer has been recorded in a Torrens title state, he's going to ask to be paid back for the value of the improvement. For example, if the improvements don't meet code, he shouldn't expect to be repaid the $200k he paid to make the improvements. He should expect to be ordered to remove the improvements at his expense.
  
  Unjust enrichment is used when there is NOT a contract... but under circumstances where it would be inequitable for the defendant to keep the benefits received from the plaintiff without compensation/restitution.
  
  If there WAS a contract the plaintiff would just sue for breach. The existence of a contract is actually a defense to an unjust enrichment claim.
  
  The plaintiff here was defrauded (albeit by a third party) into providing a large benefit to the property owner. Not as a gift and not voluntarily... so it's worth further research. And if it all fails, I love @Ed O. 's idea.
  
  Purposefully deleted comment.
  Sound like title theft.
  
  No such thing, a forged deed passes no title.
  @Peter Walther: Your comment "No such thing, a forged deed passes no title."
  
  I'll assume you misspoke and we'll call it good. Have a good weekend.
  
  No I didn't, a forged deed doesn't convey any title, except as I noted earlier, it does if the deed is registered in a Torrens land title recording system, and I believe there are 11 of them in the US. Torrens Certificate: Principles, Pros and Cons, Example
  
  0 Reply
- Peter Walther
  Specialist · Winter Springs, FL · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 747 votes
  1y
  Quote from @Ken M.:
  
  Quote from @Peter Walther:
  
  Quote from @Ken M.:
  
  Quote from @Tom Gimer:
  
  Quote from @Peter Walther:
  
  Your friend really needs to get some advice from a good real estate attorney who practices in the area where the property is.
  That written, first, as has been pointed out several times, it sounds like your friend has received the benefit of his title policy, so I doubt there's any recourse there. For the next time, in my experience, a title policy can be issued for the expected value of the property after the improvements are completed. An Owner's Policy will probably have a clause that limits the amount of insurance to the value of the property as of the date the claim is made. In your friend's situation, the loss would not be the amount he has spent improving the property, but the value of the property as improved by the partial construction. For a lender's policy, it would be the amount of money disbursed under the mortgage/deed of trust. Now that's the amount of insurance and not necessarily the amount of the loss which could be a different calculation.
  Second, if memory serves me, a claim for unjust enrichment requires the cause of action be based on a contract between the parties where the plaintiff (your friend) performed a service for the defendant (the property owner) for which the plaintiff had an expectation to be paid. In my opinion your friend might have a cause of action for equitable improvement, but the possibility for success depends entirely on the specific facts. Again, you friend needs to get to an attorney.
  Lastly, your friend is not looking to have title restored to him as he never likely never had title since generally title cannot not pass under a forged deed unless the deed transfer has been recorded in a Torrens title state, he's going to ask to be paid back for the value of the improvement. For example, if the improvements don't meet code, he shouldn't expect to be repaid the $200k he paid to make the improvements. He should expect to be ordered to remove the improvements at his expense.
  
  Unjust enrichment is used when there is NOT a contract... but under circumstances where it would be inequitable for the defendant to keep the benefits received from the plaintiff without compensation/restitution.
  
  If there WAS a contract the plaintiff would just sue for breach. The existence of a contract is actually a defense to an unjust enrichment claim.
  
  The plaintiff here was defrauded (albeit by a third party) into providing a large benefit to the property owner. Not as a gift and not voluntarily... so it's worth further research. And if it all fails, I love @Ed O. 's idea.
  
  Purposefully deleted comment.
  Sound like title theft.
  
  No such thing, a forged deed passes no title.
  
  Your comment: "No such thing, a forged deed passes no title."
  
  Hahahhahahahahhahhah. I love your sense of humor.
  Where is THAT coming from?
  
  You may want to rewrite that in a way that makes sense.
  
  Now, if you said "A provably forged document doesn't pass title" I might agree. But, as you already know, it isn't proven until a trier of fact decides it was/wasn't forged after a long arduous lawsuit.
  
  The question is, "If a title company thinks it's legit, and offers title insurance on it, then it's legit until someone takes it to court and proves it isn't legit." The ability to detect accurately, forged signatures is miniscule.
  
  It is so difficult, it has to go to the Supreme Court
  Gilbert v. United States, 370 U.S. 650 (1962)
  and
  Forgery Cases Give Supreme Court Opportunity to Hold Unions Accountable for Shady Tactics
  https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/01/10/forgery-cases-give-su...
  
  But, I digress. Anytime ownership is questioned, an attorney and lots of money are required to settle things. That is why there is a difference between Quit Claim Deeds and Warranty Deeds and Special Warranty Deeds.
  
  So I didn't rob the bank until I'm convicted?
  0 Reply
- Ken M.
  Investor · Get yourself trained before doing something inadvisable. · Member since 2024 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes
  1y
  Quote from @Peter Walther:
  
  Quote from @Ken M.:
  
  Quote from @Peter Walther:
  
  Quote from @Ken M.:
  
  Quote from @Tom Gimer:
  
  Quote from @Peter Walther:
  
  Your friend really needs to get some advice from a good real estate attorney who practices in the area where the property is.
  That written, first, as has been pointed out several times, it sounds like your friend has received the benefit of his title policy, so I doubt there's any recourse there. For the next time, in my experience, a title policy can be issued for the expected value of the property after the improvements are completed. An Owner's Policy will probably have a clause that limits the amount of insurance to the value of the property as of the date the claim is made. In your friend's situation, the loss would not be the amount he has spent improving the property, but the value of the property as improved by the partial construction. For a lender's policy, it would be the amount of money disbursed under the mortgage/deed of trust. Now that's the amount of insurance and not necessarily the amount of the loss which could be a different calculation.
  Second, if memory serves me, a claim for unjust enrichment requires the cause of action be based on a contract between the parties where the plaintiff (your friend) performed a service for the defendant (the property owner) for which the plaintiff had an expectation to be paid. In my opinion your friend might have a cause of action for equitable improvement, but the possibility for success depends entirely on the specific facts. Again, you friend needs to get to an attorney.
  Lastly, your friend is not looking to have title restored to him as he never likely never had title since generally title cannot not pass under a forged deed unless the deed transfer has been recorded in a Torrens title state, he's going to ask to be paid back for the value of the improvement. For example, if the improvements don't meet code, he shouldn't expect to be repaid the $200k he paid to make the improvements. He should expect to be ordered to remove the improvements at his expense.
  
  Unjust enrichment is used when there is NOT a contract... but under circumstances where it would be inequitable for the defendant to keep the benefits received from the plaintiff without compensation/restitution.
  
  If there WAS a contract the plaintiff would just sue for breach. The existence of a contract is actually a defense to an unjust enrichment claim.
  
  The plaintiff here was defrauded (albeit by a third party) into providing a large benefit to the property owner. Not as a gift and not voluntarily... so it's worth further research. And if it all fails, I love @Ed O. 's idea.
  
  Purposefully deleted comment.
  Sound like title theft.
  
  No such thing, a forged deed passes no title.
  @Peter Walther: Your comment "No such thing, a forged deed passes no title."
  
  I'll assume you misspoke and we'll call it good. Have a good weekend.
  
  No I didn't, a forged deed doesn't convey any title, except as I noted earlier, it does if the deed is registered in a Torrens land title recording system, and I believe there are 11 of them in the US. Torrens Certificate: Principles, Pros and Cons, Example
  
  You'd be fun to have in front of the Federal Judge arguing this. ;-)
  0 Reply
Ed O.
Investor · Statewide, MO · Member since 2011 · 814 posts · 425 votes
1y
If all else fails and your friend still has possession and control, I would strongly consider a plan to destroy the house and foundation and walk away from it.
1 Reply
Samuel CoronadoPro Member
Investor · Huntsville, AL · Member since 2016 · 334 posts · 181 votes
1y
I would be going directly for the wholesaler/land flipper directly. I would not be going after the rightful owner.
0 Reply
Chris SeveneyBusiness Member
Moderator
Investor · VA · Member since 2015 · 21k+ posts · 19k+ votes
1y
Quote from @Michael Morrongiello:

A friend bought a land lot in an area where this is a HOA - Home Owners Association for $100K from a land Flipper and DID obtained an OWNERS TITLE insurance policy. The HOA Dues were in arrears for the lot as they were not being paid.
He then started construction on a new home on the lot and has invested about $200K+ into the lot in the way of improvements.

He received a call and correspondence from an individual who RIGHTFULLY claimed they had their title to the SAME land lot stolen from them by the land Flipper (who apparently fraudulently forged signatures transferring the land to them) and THEN SOLD it our friend.

Our friend file a claim with the TITLE Insurer who provided the OWNERS TITLE INSURANCE Policy to them for the $100K
purchase of the land lot. The Title Insurer has agreed to PAY HIM back the $100K that was for the purchase of the land lot BUT
they WILL NOT pay anything more (ignoring the improvements made to the lot). TAKE NOTE HERE !!! - ALL the Title Insurer will pay back to our friend is their purchase price for the Lot.

The RIGHTFUL owner (who will get back his lot- now IMPROVED and valued > $300K+) is also now unwilling to sell the lot to him.
Thus He will LOSE this land lot and also now the $200K of additional improvements made to the land lot.

Any suggestions or courses of action or recourse that our friend might or could take to somehow RE-Obtain the land lot (now improved) ???

Eg. Can he possibly pay some of the HOA Dues and then bring an action against the ACTUAL legal owner of the lot in an attempt to FORCE them to SELL the lot to them?

Other thoughts....

Michael Morrongiello - Sunvest

Reality is your friend screwed up. They should have gotten an endorsement or policy modification to reflect the updated value of the property.
7e investments53 Reviews
Website View Page
0 Reply
John Clark
Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
1y
Sue the guy who forged the deeds and sold? Particularly if the buyer communicated his intentions to develop the land? Added to that would be any seller representation about buildability and such.
1 Reply
Dave Charron
Investor · Syracuse, NY · Member since 2010 · 165 posts · 75 votes
9mo
We have a reverse mortgage that came up 6 months after purchasing a flip we are doing. Apparently this mortgage got missed and now we have rehabbed and want to sell. Our title insurance is only for the purchase price of $50K. I think the mortgage is $117K. Assuming the title insurance company pays out the $50K, do I sue the abstract/title company for the balance of that? $67K. My attorney is aware of this, Im just seeing the logical course of action.
0 Reply
Michael Norris
Specialist · Strongsville, OH · Member since 2016 · 303 posts · 217 votes
9mo
I'd love to hear an update how this is getting worked out if at all?
Did you get law enforcement to go after the title thief?
As far as suing the title company I think your policy did what it's intended to do - making you whole on what you paid for the vacant lot. What you did with the lot after closing is not within the scope of a title policy in my (not a lawyer) opinion.
One other idea I didn't see mentioned as a possible last ditch effort (long shot I know) is suggest a partnership with the true property owner to complete the project and sell the finished home with whatever split of profit you can get them to agree to.
Instead of walking away with nothing or going all in on a big lawsuit that there is no guarantee to win you may at least get a chunk of your money back and maybe make a few bucks.
For the current owner to take over the project it would be a huge hassle and hopefully for your sake they are not even in the builder business. The true property owner would be facing hiring a new GC, all new permits, plans, drawings, etc for the half built structure which I think would be a very expensive to get an architect to sign off on a half built building.
Instead of taking on all those hassles the original owner could sit back and let you finish the project and get a little pay day out of it plus a cool story to tell.
0 Reply
John Clark
Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
9mo
1. File criminal charges against the fraudulent seller. As part of the criminal case, the prosecution should ask for restitution for all sums expended, given that the “seller” surely knew of your plans.
2. civil suit vs. fraudulent seller?

3. Doubt very much you have any recourse vs. rightful owner. He did nothing wrong, and you picked who you did business with. If you can I would be surprised.

0 Reply

Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.