Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

The buyer should have put the title company they wanted to use in the offer, but the seller is free to counter with a condition that their choice of title company be used or include it in a counter if the buyer didn't specify one. In either case the buyer can accept or refuse and if it's a deal breaker for both of them they can walk away from the sale. With that said, I can't think of why the seller would care, since the buyer pays the lions share of the title company costs when they buy title insurance for themselves and any lender(s). When I worked for FNF I always insisted on using Fidelity National Title or Chicago Title when I was the buyer, because I got a discount on the insurance. But as a seller I didn't care whether they used the subsidiaries I was affiliated with or not.

Well, yes; the purchase agreement between buyer and seller can contain any type or number of unorthodox provisions, and they will generally be enforceable. For example, the seller can require that the purchase price be paid in Euros at the exchange rate prevailing on the date of closing, or the buyer can require that the seller throw in certain personal propertylike the 1936 BMW motorcycle he saw in the garage. Insisting on such bizarre conditions may be a deal-killer, or maybe the other party will shrug and accept. If you are talking strictly about who will provide the title insurance, the buyer can always purchase a second policy from the insurer of their choice (which would seem like a waste of money, by the way). If, however, you are asking about who will handle escrow, obviously there can be but one, and ordinarily that will be the firm named in the contract, which in turn will usually be the choice of the broker, agent or party that wrote up the offer.