Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

Chicago Title handled a Sub escrow on my Re-fi. They paid off the prior lender, then wired the remaining proceeds to an unlicensed escrow/mortgage broker. The Unlicensed agent promptly stole my proceeds. They forged the docs, never left a copy of the contract, no Disclosures, Right to cancel forms left blank, loan was usurious, excessive fees were charged by broker, payoff money stolen, the first payment due back to Fremont was stolen, Fremont Inv. ordered shut down by FDIC but failed to post payments. Fremont sold loans to GMAC, who demanded the money that was not posted. GMAC, seeing all the fraud involved, as every law listed was violated, later denied that they ever owned the loan, yet, signed the deed over to their friend. GMAC, in retaliation to my lawsuit, posted a $16 Million debt still owed on all my credit reports for the same loan they denied in court, then repo'ed my Denali.
The question is, what is Chicago's liability for wiring my proceeds to a party that legally was not allowed to receive it? I lost my house and business, totaling $15 Million in damages. The case is on it's 4th Amended, honing in on Chicago Title Co. and Chicago Title Insurance Co. for the loss of the Title that they guaranteed. Chicago REFUSES to produce ANY Documents required to be in their possession, by statute.

Asked on 10/09/14, 10:13 am

2 Answers from Attorneys

0 users found helpful

0 attorneys agreed

One of the better established rules in title and escrow law is that an escrow holder has no obligation to police the transaction. If the escrow holder fully and faithfully follows the instructions of the principals to the transaction, the escrow holder has no liability. Also, the title company does not guarantee title at all. They INSURE that title is as INSURED according to the policy, subject to the listed exclusions, and the exclusions include whatever debt is left on the property at the end of their transaction. So if you lost your house to foreclosure, it is 99.9999% sure it was on the lien of the new loan, which was listed in the exclusions. Therefore, no liability.

Answered on 10/09/14, 2:07 pm

Mark as helpful