|
blarzgh posted:
Okay that makes sense and is basically what I was thinking. Thanks!
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 02:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 18:41 |
|
|
blarzgh posted:[sidebar: its odd, because this is usually a condition of sale - I've never heard of an escrow agency that would sign off on the funds without a good title policy; its generally a condition to closing.] This along with "who the gently caress would underwrite that mortgage" if everything isn't in order (at least these days I hope). But maybe OP paid cash.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 02:57
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Its a catch 22. If there is a problem with his title right now, he's hosed, and they won't issue the policy. If there's nothing wrong with his title, there's no reason for him to pay for the policy that they'd be happy to issue. But in the hypothetical situation where a lawyer was supposed to get insurance to protect his client and didn't, wouldn't it be up to the lawyer to make the client whole? Do lawyers generally carry errors & omissions coverage?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 03:25
|
|
|
fordan posted:Do lawyers generally carry errors & omissions coverage? Lawyers generally call it malpractice insurance, and in some states you have to disclose the absence to a client. It's generally carried; the largest US firms go through ALAS - http://www.alas.com/public/about.aspx
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
I guess the follow up question is what even is the value of title insurance? It sounds like defects in title are either discovered before a policy is issued and must be fixed before closing, or discovered after closing in which case they are probably an exception to the title insurance policy. It seems like the value is actually in the title opinion, which looks more like a pre-requisite to a mortgage than to a traditional insurance policy. What circumstances would actually lead to collecting on a title insurance claim?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
fordan posted:But in the hypothetical situation where a lawyer was supposed to get insurance to protect his client and didn't, wouldn't it be up to the lawyer to make the client whole? Do lawyers generally carry errors & omissions coverage? Man, I don't even know. I don't understand the lawyer's role in this guy's real estate transaction. In my state, lawyers can act as real estate agents and take a commission, but the practice is almost non-existent. Outside of that situation, I'm not sure why the lawyer would be doing that for them. Thats generally the responsibility of the title company to secure the policy, and the escrow agent to withold the transaction until the policy is secured. The attorney for the title company is generally the guy who writes the title opinion - thats it. They usually have no other involvement. Plus, to ping their malpractice coverage, they'd have to show a duty on behalf of the lawyer that was owed to Mr. Buyer, and thats not likely if he was just the underwriter. Of course, the title company will have plenty of insurance to go around, if they're the ones who hosed up. This dude's situation is weird as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 07:42
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:What circumstances would actually lead to collecting on a title insurance claim? Bob sells Blackacre Manor to Bill for $100,000.00. Sagoon Title Co. guarantees title and issues the title policy. <5 years later, Bob's nephew shows up with a prior-recorded deed he got from Bob for Blackacre that Sagoon Title missed in its opinion; Bob's nephew sues to get Blackacre. 2 things happen. The title co. would first have a "duty to defend", just like when your car insurance has to give you counsel. Sagoon has to get Bill an attorney and pay for his defense. Second, the title co. has to pay out any losses Bill suffers because of the missed deed. If Bill loses the house, title co. pays $100,000.00 to Bill.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 07:48
|
|
|
$100,000, out present value?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 13:36
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:$100,000, out present value? Probably depends on the state jurisprudence when injury accrues as a matter of law.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
Most (all?) policies come with a policy limit, and I think as a practical matter they would just pay out the policy limit and be done with it. It being a contractual relationship between you and the insurance, I think you'd hit your four corners at the policy limit, anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 15:11
|
|
|
the milk machine posted:keep going, i'm writing this down Make sure not to use the same bank twice!
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Man, I don't even know. I don't understand the lawyer's role in this guy's real estate transaction. In my state, lawyers can act as real estate agents and take a commission, but the practice is almost non-existent. Outside of that situation, I'm not sure why the lawyer would be doing that for them. Thats generally the responsibility of the title company to secure the policy, and the escrow agent to withold the transaction until the policy is secured. The attorney for the title company is generally the guy who writes the title opinion - thats it. They usually have no other involvement. Plus, to ping their malpractice coverage, they'd have to show a duty on behalf of the lawyer that was owed to Mr. Buyer, and thats not likely if he was just the underwriter. NJ is a weird state. In North Jersey, real estate agents do their own closings. In South Jersey (like around Camden) they're done at the bank, as is the practice in Philadelphia. In Central Jersey (where I am), sometimes you do them at the lawyer's office. Also, in NJ you can just have your real estate lawyer handle all aspects of a transaction (working with a real estate agent, I think). House closings and the like are sort of bread-and-butter, flat-fee work for lawyers around here. Seemingly every law firm does some real estate work, even (perhaps especially) the solo practitioners. It's been a while since that course when I was in school to be a paralegal, but that's what I remember. In this case, it sounds like the lawyer hosed up hugely and should probably have his malpractice insurance dinged.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Uk/Scotland car question. My Partner was flashed running a red light in her brothers car, which she did not have insurance to drive. She offered to pay the fine if he takes the points. Which he has refused, which he is entitled to do as driving is a big part of his job. My partner thinks she'll lose her license. Her brother thinks the fine and points will be transferred to her if he tells them it was her. I don't have a clue about road law because I don't drive but googling it hasn't really helped. For back story, her brother and his partner were at ours and we decided to order a Chinese. His car was parked behind hers in the drive and for quickness she took his to go and collect the food. This was agreed btw, she didn't just steal his car. gently caress knows why she ran the light, she is an amber gambler at the best of times though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
reformed bad troll posted:Uk/Scotland car question. Your partner will get the points and the fine. Her brother needs to disclose to the insurance company that he let someone use the car uninsured and this happened. Your partner also has an incoming 'driving without insurance' charge Alchenar fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Jul 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Your partner also has an incoming 'driving without insurance' charge This is not true in most US jurisdictions. The car was insured, the driver does not need to be. Is it different in the UK? Here's a standard breakdown: https://www.esurance.com/info/car/myth-car-insurance-follows-the-driver
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Texas question: I've seen signs on the highway that say "never leave a child alone in car. If child alone in car call police." If I see that (a child alone in the car) and call the police, am I a agent of the state for fourth amendment purposes? Also can I leave my baby alone in the car to run in for a pack of smokes? Hot Dog Day #91 fucked around with this message at 22:51 on Jul 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
baquerd posted:This is not true in most US jurisdictions. The car was insured, the driver does not need to be. Is it different in the UK? Uk has stupid insurance where the insurance is tied to the driver.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
baquerd posted:This is not true in most US jurisdictions. The car was insured, the driver does not need to be. Is it different in the UK? Different in the UK. Virtually all policies these days require you to declare other drivers in advance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Different in the UK. Virtually all policies these days require you to declare other drivers in advance. This is an extremely asinine policy. If my buddy gets drunk at the bar, and I drive him home in his car, his car has no insurance. It is just the dumbest thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Texas question: I've seen signs on the highway that say "never leave a child alone in car. If child alone in car call police." Look at this guy who thinks the 4th applies to cars. Plain view and public safety exceptions would apply, and the invitation to agency probably has to be personally and specifically invited. You can leave your baby anywhere you want, but you could end up with child neglect to murder charges, depending on the brand of smokes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
nm posted:This is an extremely asinine policy. If my buddy gets drunk at the bar, and I drive him home in his car, his car has no insurance. It is just the dumbest thing. Thank god for pubs within walking distance and a well developed public transport system. It's fine and it's sensible - the risk is attached to the quality of the driver not the quality of the car, it makes perfect sense that insurance companies want to tailor their policies that way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 09:56
|
|
|
nm posted:This is an extremely asinine policy. If my buddy gets drunk at the bar, and I drive him home in his car, his car has no insurance. It is just the dumbest thing. I would question why you are going to a bar with a buddy and being the only one not drinking. That's the dumbest thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 10:48
|
|
|
reformed bad troll posted:I would question why you are going to a bar with a buddy and being the only one not drinking. That's the dumbest thing. Yeah everyone knows if you go to a bar you should get poo poo faced wasted or else there's no reason to be there
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 13:26
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Texas question: I've seen signs on the highway that say "never leave a child alone in car. If child alone in car call police." I keep a tarp in the car that I can put over babies while I go in the store so no one will see the babies and steal them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 14:11
|
|
|
That's about the only advantage of using the trunk; you don't need a tarp. But the bed of a pickup is the superior choice. You can "put the kids to bed" and it's easy to hose out; those are some dirty mess making little beasties.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 14:20
|
|
|
My golf clubs are in the trunk, the babies don't fit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 14:22
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:My golf clubs are in the trunk, the babies don't fit. Be more forceful.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 14:39
|
|
|
And get poop and stuff on my sticks? No thank you!
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:My golf clubs are in the trunk, the babies don't fit.  It is a BMW joke.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Thank god for pubs within walking distance and a well developed public transport system. Yes, London has a fine public transit system. The rest, less so. In the US occasional drivers are covered, but not regular drivers (outside of persons in the same household who are factored in unless excluded) are not, so there is little additional risk.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:My golf clubs are in the trunk, the babies don't fit. Try putting them under the clubs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 01:31
|
|
|
nm posted:Yes, London has a fine public transit system. The rest, less so. There is another factor here to consider, which is that in the UK it can be quite common for a policy to also include 3rd party cover for any vehicle you drive. I've hedged my bets slightly because I've not tried to look for stats, but so far as it goes for me, I can't recall ever having a policy that didn't also include 'any vehicle' 3rd party cover. Edit: 3rd party being the mininum legal requirement. For my owned vehicle of course, in addition to 3rd party cover, I've fire, theft, accidental damage, etc., under the aegis of a 'fully comprehensive' policy. magimix fucked around with this message at 13:19 on Jul 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 13:16
|
|
|
Will/ Estate question. My Grandmother passed away and left me as 1/8 heir along with 7 other relatives. Part of her will states "If I own real estate with an address of 999 Whatever st, Nameless town, Pennsylvania at the time of my death, I wish and direct, if practicable, and if so desired by WS6 97, that he receive this parcel as satisfaction, in whole or in part, as the case may be, of his portion of my estate as set forth above. This shall not be construed to increase or decrease his share of this estate as already set forth above." Can someone explain this to me? It doesn't give a price for the property or ask for an appraisal. How is the price/value determined?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
Grand ma wants you to have that property listed. Did she still own it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
You can call the estates lawyer and ask. The executor and the estates lawyer will do most if not all of the heavy lifting .
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
Dumb hypothetical: What are the potential consequences for a juror falling asleep? I'm sure this varies greatly county to county (and judge to judge). I work night shifts and stay nocturnal even on my days off, so when I was sitting in the jury selection room earlier today, I was chugging 5 hour energy drinks to stay awake and still felt like I was on the verge of nodding off a few times. I imagine if you're actually selected as a juror and fall asleep, this could result in a mistrial and would be a pretty big deal, but what if you just nodded off during the selection process? There was a story in the local paper recently where a juror who (knowingly) caused a mistrial had to pay the court costs and serve a jail sentence, and I had that thought running through my head every time I nodded. Follow up question: In your professional opinion, is it better to a.) risk falling asleep, b.) sneak amphetamines into the court, or c.) just not show up and claim your summons must have gotten lost in the mail when the bench warrant is flagged next time I'm pulled over for speeding?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 04:03
|
|
|
Epic Doctor Fetus posted:Dumb hypothetical: What are the potential consequences for a juror falling asleep? I'm sure this varies greatly county to county (and judge to judge). I work night shifts and stay nocturnal even on my days off, so when I was sitting in the jury selection room earlier today, I was chugging 5 hour energy drinks to stay awake and still felt like I was on the verge of nodding off a few times. I imagine if you're actually selected as a juror and fall asleep, this could result in a mistrial and would be a pretty big deal, but what if you just nodded off during the selection process? There was a story in the local paper recently where a juror who (knowingly) caused a mistrial had to pay the court costs and serve a jail sentence, and I had that thought running through my head every time I nodded. Show up to jury duty. Alert the court to the fact you are a shift worker and have concerns about your ability to stay awake/focus during your normal sleeping hours. You will probably be dismissed for cause.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 14:15
|
|
|
Epic Doctor Fetus posted:In your professional opinion, is it better to sneak amphetamines into the court?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 14:25
|
|
|
Just tell them you're holding amphetamines. You'll get dismissed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 15:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 18:41 |
|
|
It's probably ok to bring amphetamines into court as long as you offer some to the research clerks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 15:07
|
|