|
Industry News:
June 1st, 2009
EFFECTIVE JUNE 1, 2009, the filing fee for the RP-5217 (“Equalization Form”) has been increased. The RP-5217 filing fee will now be $125 for “qualifying residential or farm property” and $250.00 for all other property.
Qualifying residential or farm property, is defined as:
“Qualifying farm property” means property for which the property classification code on the latest final assessment roll, as reported on the transfer report form, (Equalization and Assessment form) is in the agricultural category.
“Qualifying residential property” means property which satisfies at least one of the following conditions:
(a) The property classification code assigned to the property on the latest final assessment roll, as reported on the transfer report form, (Equalization and Assessment form), indicates that the property is a one, two or three family home or a rural residence, or
(b) The transfer report form indicates that the property is one, two or three family residential property that has been newly constructed on vacant land, or
(c) The transfer report form indicates that the property is a residential condominium.
April 9th, 2009
RP-5217 Fee Increase
The 2009-2010 Enacted NYS Budget includes an increase in the filing fee for the RP-5217 Property Transfer Report. For “Residential” and “Farm” property, the fee is increasing from $75 to $125. The fee for all other property is increasing from $165 to $250. The new fees apply to deeds submitted for recording on or after June 1, 2009.
February 27th, 2009
BREAKING NEWS
We have been informed by reliable sources that Governor Paterson has signed the law that delays implementation of the new Power of Attorney forms until September 1, 2009. We urge all our customers to take advantage of this delay and familiarize themselves with the new forms and statutes to be used for attorneys-in-fact (or, as they are called under the new statute, “agents”).
February 24th, 2009
POWER OF ATTORNEY FORM TO BE CHANGED
The Legislature has passed, and Governor Paterson has signed, a MAJOR revision to the laws governing powers of attorney executed in New York. This change is effective MARCH 1, 2009 (though legislation pushing that date back is currently pending). We STRONGLY recommend to all our clients that they read Michael Berey’s excellent essay on the changes by clicking on this link.
December 18th, 2008
Some of our clients may be aware that two of Crossroads’ underwriters (Commonwealth Land Title and Lawyers Title) are owned by LandAmerica Financial, which has declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
At the time of writing this, it is likely that Commonwealth and Lawyers will be purchased by Fidelity National Title, though if anti-trust or other litigation blocks that sale, Stewart Title has also submitted a purchase bid. In the meantime, both Commonwealth and Lawyers have full claims reserves and are fully solvent (it was a failure of LandAm’s 1031 Exchange subsidiary that caused the bankruptcy), and Fidelity has also issued a “Reinsurance Treaty” that fully backs policies written by both Commonwealth and Lawyers Title. We can provide a copy of this treaty upon request.
If a lender still has reservations about a policy or report being written on Commonwealth or Lawyers, please let us know, and we can write that policy on Stewart or First American. Crossroads is an independent title agent that is authorized to write for many underwriters
September 19th, 2008
Recording fees in Orange County will be increased effective October 1, 2008
September 17th, 2008
The following county legislatures have recently voted to increase their recording fees: Wyoming (effective 11/1/2008); Livingston (effective 11/1/2008) and Clinton (effective 10/1/2008).
September 10th, 2008
We have been advised that the following counties’ legislatures have voted to adopt new recording fees of $20 per instrument and $5 per page (as allowed under the new Chapter 288 of the Laws of 2008):
Clinton (effective10/1/2008); Columbia (effective 9/15/2008); Essex (effective 9/18/2008); Franklin (effective 9/18/2008); Putnam (tentatively effective 10/6/2008); Rockland (effective 10/1/2008); Suffolk (effective 10/1/2008); Tompkins (tentatively effective 10/6/2008), and Warren (effective 9/18/2008).
We recommend that if you have a closing in one of these counties, you call ahead to the County Clerk’s Office to confirm the implementation of these rates. As other counties change their fees we will update this list.
August 29th, 2008
We have received notice of two new real estate tax laws. First, the mortgage tax in Warren County has been increased to $1.25 per $100 secured. This increase will be effective October 1, 2008.
Also, Governor Patterson has just signed into law Chapter 416/2008. This law extends the preferential treatment on NYS and NYC transfer taxes for property conveyed by certain REITS (Real Estates Investment Trusts) until September 1, 2011.
August 15th, 2008
The Monroe County Bar Association Real Estate Council recently met to review the new "adverse possession" language of the CPLR and determine the effects, if any, on the Bar Association's "Suggested Title Standards for Treating Discrepancies Revealed by Surveys". The Council determined that there is nothing in the new language that would merit the standards being changed at this time. The Council recommends that the legal community continue to use the existing survey guidelines. This decision conforms with Crossroads' understanding of the new statute as shown below.
July 24th, 2008
Governor Paterson has signed into Law Chapter 288, which amends Section 8021(a)4A of the CPLR to add the following language:
(2) Notwithstanding clause one of this subparagraph, any county may opt by county law to increase the fee for recording, entering, indexing and endorsing a certificate on any instrument from five dollars to twenty dollars and, in addition thereto, increase from three dollars to five dollars for each page or portion of a page. Such increase shall take effect thirty days after the county enacts such fees. For the purpose of determining the appropriate recording fee, the fee for any cover page shall be deemed an additional page of the instrument. A cover page shall not include any social security account number or date of birth. To the extent a county clerk has placed an image of such cover page online, such county clerk shall make a good faith effort to redact such information.
This will allow any county legislature to raise recording fees in that county to $20 per instrument and $5 per page. However, each county legislature must make its own decision to raise the fees- they are not standard for the state.
Crossroads will attempt to keep track of which counties in the Western New York area are raising their recording fees, and will post any news of increases in this section. Upon enactment in Monroe County we will amend our "Monroe County Clerk Recording Fees" section accordingly.
July 23rd, 2008
The New York Legislature passed, and Governor David Paterson recently signed, amendments to the "Adverse Possession" sections of the RPAPL. While the language that was changed in the statutes was extensive, the parts that affect our industry seem fairly limited.
First, the requirement that land occupied by an adverse possessor be "usually cultivated or improved" has been removed, and in its place is inserted "there has been acts sufficiently open to put a reasonably diligent owner on notice." At the same time, a section was added to recite:
".the acts of lawn mowing or similar maintenance across the boundary line of an adjoining landowner's property shall be deemed permissive and non-adverse."
These changes indicate that the legislative intent was to eliminate lawn mowing and other "maintenance" from acts that could trigger adverse possession. However, it replaced the existing language with other language that is extremely vague, and will require multiple court rulings to determine its meaning. Since "cultivated" was removed by the legislature, some may assume that mere plantings were not intended to be evidence of possession. However, I'm sure there will eventually be a court case to determine if the 15 year existence of prize rose bushes, along with daily maintenance of same, will be considered adverse possession. Note that eliminating the requirement for "improvement" could open the door to adverse possession by mere prominent "posting" of your claim.
Second, "Substantial enclosure" of property remains as a cause for finding adverse possession, however the legislature added a caveat that merits repeating in full. A new section 543 (1) of the RPAPL is added that recites:
"Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, the existence of de minimus non-structural encroachments including, but not limited to, fences, hedges, shrubbery, plantings, sheds and non-structural walls, shall be deemed to be permissive and non-adverse."
Some have read this section and believe that this means fence and driveway deviations should no longer be raised as title objections. I believe that they are mistaken about this (at least for the time being), for the following reasons:
- The words "de minimus" that qualify these encroachments are not defined by the statute. It will probably take some court decisions to determine this, but the most likely result will be that the "one foot" rule will remain, as under current bar standards. Such encroaching improvements that are NOT "de minimus" may qualify as "acts sufficiently open to put a reasonably diligent owner on notice".
- Driveways are not mentioned at all in the statute, though it is possible that a court case may someday decide that they qualify as an additional "non-structural improvement".
- The Monroe County Bar Standards have not been amended up to this point. Since we have to insure marketability for fee policies, and should usually indicate problems with marketability on mortgage reports, these bar standards MUST remain primary standards for marketability, unless they are directly contradicted by new statutes. After examining the updated standards, I can find nothing that would be contradicted by the new statute, unless "de minimus" is interpreted by courts to be more (or less) than one foot.
There is one circumstance in which the new law will make our lives easier, and that is sheds. Up to now agreements have been required for ANY shed encroachment, even those under a foot, since sheds were considered a structural improvement. The new statute states that sheds are NOT considered structural, and de minimus encroachment by them are not adverse. Crossroads will probably not be raising encroaching 1 foot or less as title problems.
Apr. 24th, 2008
A recent decision by the Appellate Division, Second Department, expands the scope of matters in which a lis pendens may be filed to include cases where it is alleged a judgment debtor is attempting to fraudulently convey property in anticipation of an imminent judgment . "The plaintiffs allege in their complaint, in relevant part, that defendants, in anticipation of an imminent judgment against them and with the intent to defraud their creditors, conveyed certain real property to related corporate entities, without adequate consideration, thereby rendering themselves insolvent ... Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court erred in determining that this action was not one in which a notice of pendency may be filed" (citations omitted).).
See Ford Motor Co. v. Shayovitz, 36 A.D.3d 754, 828 N.Y.S.2d 539 (2d Dep't 2007)
Feb. 7th, 2008
The New York State Department of Insurance has announced in its 2008 "Regulatory Agenda" that it intends to formulate regulations regarding ".certain business practices in the title industry." (click here to read in full - see #3 on list). The New York State Land Title Association has been asked to provide input into these regulations.
A federal lawsuit against the largest title insurance underwriter families, and the title insurance rate organization TIRSA, was recently filed in the Eastern District of New York. It alleges that said underwriters manipulated title insurance rates to fix them at "supracompetitive" levels. No comment has been issued by the defendants as of February 6, 2008. The action is "Brendan Dolan, et al. vs. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, et. al."
|
