"They are covered and do not really care about your coverage. That is why owners title insurance is always optional, while the lenders policy is required." - brickeyee Perhaps, but in this case the title company services only credit unions in the local area. In fact, they are a wholly owned subsidiary of our own credit union, which is handling the loan. Credit unions are supposed to exist for the benefit of their members. All the folks on the other side of the table at closing (CU loan officer, CU construction mortgage official, and title company official) seemed genuinely surprised when I questioned declining owners title insurance. They flat out stated that none of their construction loan customers ask for or get owner's title insurance, which is why I posted here. Bear in mind that this closing covered both loans. The construction loan automatically converts to a fixed rate conventional loan on completion of the house. There is no second closing where title insurance would come up in the future. The CU in question has a very active construction loan program with dedicated officials overseeing it. It isn't a small or part time operation. They run a full business credit/risk analysis on the contractor, and they send specialists out to inspect the build on a regular basis and prior to any payout. I'll be calling the title company next week for further discussions.

No one is "blaming" the victim here. There is, however, such a thing as due diligence. If you are buying property it is up to the purchaser to make sure that everything is legal and correct. That's where the problem began, and it has nothing to do with "Stokholm Syndrome". That is not to say that others haven't made mistakes as well in this scenario, but the problem started with the person buying the property. There is a trend in this country of people not taking responsibility for something that they were actually responsible for. There are also loads of crooks out there, I'm not disputing that. I also saw some statements made earlier that the land owner "only" bought their land for an investment and weren't going to build on it anyway. Sorry, but that does not matter. It is (was) still their land. There were also statements made that the owner lived fairly close and "must" have known. Well, probably not. I don't always check on other vacant land that I have. Sometimes a year can go by. It depends on what is going on in my life. Bottom line is it doesn't give anyone making the mistake any more right to it. When someone thinks and believes in that manner, it's wrong. I do not like "big brother" tactics, and I do not like banks. I also do not care for situations of people not accepting their role in whatever disaster has taken place. If Kindell had hired a real estate attorney, who would be accepting responsibility in making sure the transaction had been correct, or a fresh survey, and THEN this mistake had happened, it would not have been her fault in any way. Anyway, I'm done with this. I've got better things to do.

The answer to your question will involve a little research on your part. 1. What type of title insurance policy do you have? Is it an ALTA 92 or an ALTA 98 policy? If it's a 92, then the simple answer is no. ALTA 98 will cover "supplemental taxes for a period before policy date because of construction or change of ownership or use that occured before policy date." Directly from a title company booklet on different types of title insurance. 2. If it's an ALTA 98 policy, then the question becomes is this fee considered a tax? It doesn't really sound like it is, but it's definitely supplemental. In my part of the country fees such as this are not a tax and not recorded as such, and are not necessarily part of the public records a title company would search. 3. Finally--was this obligation recorded and what specifically does your policy say regarding unrecorded fees, liens, etc? 4. Did you receive a seller's disclosure from the builder? (Keep in mind these disclosure forms vary from state to state.) Here people are required to disclose any letters concerning the property from government or quasi-government agencies. A utility company would be considered a quasi-govt. agency. You need to carefully read your title policy. If you believe you have a claim, contact the company directly and ask how to file for a claim. Also read through your purchase agreement very carefully. Sometimes in the excitement of a home purchase people overlook the small details such as this. If this information was truly never disclosed to you, and your state requires it should have been then I would contact the builder about it.

NoTitle Insurance mentioned? Sorry I cannot be of any help but this is a good lesson for anyone considering a land/property purchase. Even after due diligence, don't agree to purchase property or land without adequate title insurance. One needs to cover one's investment; it's true title insurance costs money but money worth spent especially when spending a significant amount on the purchase. A copy of a title insurance is almost as important as the land deed. For my coast to coast land purchase last year, I paid a couple of thousand for title insurance; it ensured a risk free transaction and covers me for a host of other unforeseen issues way into the future till I own the land. Zero lawyers were involved in the deal though it is advisable to engage a land attorney if one is not confident about understanding the fine print of any document.