@Alexander Babenchuk Thank you for the Contract! I did want to make sure that in the process of getting deals, I don't break any law. I was looking up if cold calling and text blasting is legal in Florida, and it says it's illegal unless there is consent before, which would basically outlaw cold calling and text blasting.
I don't know a lot of other wholesalers in the area, so I was wondering if anyone else knew if this was legal or not.
Thanks again for the contract! I appreciate it.
The law says "A person may not make or knowingly allow a telephonic sales call to be made if such call involves an automated system for the selection or dialing of telephone numbers or the playing of a recorded message when a connection is completed to a number called without the prior express written consent of the called party." (Fla. Stat. Ann. § 501.059).
Itâs not illegal to cold call or text without express written consent. Itâs illegal to use a dialer without express consent.
I use my iPhone.
I'm having the hardest time finding insurance for my STR in Orlando.... Does anyone have any good insurance options for that area? With the recent hurricanes, seems that insurance companies are just not doing it right now.
Call Colleen Pacheco at Secured insurance group. She takes care of most of my insurance needs.
https://securedinsurancegrp.com/
Tell her Dave Dey sent you.
What is the best place to open a new PM Company in Florida?
@David Dey @Peter Walther is referring to the Mutual Indemnity Agreements entered into by most of the major title insurers which eliminate the need to obtain an LOI between participating insurers when the title defect meets certain criteria.
And I disagree about whether there is discretion to disclose to the insured. It must be done according to insurer guidelines (at least around here) including the following:
-Disclose the title defect to all parties involved in the transaction and state that you are not excepting the matter from coverage because of the existence of an indemnity or prior [insurer] policy.
-Obtain a signed acknowledgment and acceptance of the disclosure from all notified parties.
-Obtain the full prior OTP (or LTP if foreclosure or DIL), complete the required checklist, save to file and send to insurer.
Tom, to me, disclosure to the insured is taking exception in the policy and providing affirmation coverage. I believe the policy states that is a contract containing all the terms and conditions. Outside agreements do not apply.
In addition, in my opinion, if you are in fact getting a separate disclosure signed, you're in a minority. Also, I suspect you're not getting such a disclosure from a lender providing funds for closing. Every set of closing instructions I can recall, contained a prohibition against disbursing funds if the lender will not be in a first lien position. If an LOI is being issued or an MIA is being relied on, the lender is not in a first lien position. I've been told by management, well we have the prior insurers indem, and we (the current insurer) have policy liability, and were not even sure the defect is valid, so therefore we don't have to disclose. I never bought the argument.
When the industry started using LOIs in the 1990s I started requiring an exception and affirmative coverage. Lenders refused to accept the policy because they couldn't resell the loan with a defect. I was informed my procedure was not the company's or the industry's underwriting policy and to stop.
I had a claim in NY where an older couple had purchased a property for their retirement home. Several months later they were served with a foreclosure complaint for a mortgage made by an owner two deed back. Their policy did not have a reference to the mortgage and in my conversation with them they advised they knew nothing about it. I contacted the policy issuing agent who advised they found the mortgage in the search but disregarded it based on a policy issued by national title insurer 1 (NTI1) and the NY MIA. I tendered the claim under the MIA to them and they retained counsel for MY insured. Several weeks later the claims person for NTI1 advised she had found their agent had found the mortgage but relied on a policy issued by NTI2 and the MIA and had tendered the claim to them. NTI2 retained counsel for MY insured and began defending. Several months later when it became clear the mortgage was valid and enforceable NTI2 began negotiating with the lender's counsel to pay off the mortgage. About two years later, the matter was finally settled. During the years it took to resolve the matter, the older couple insureds, had to live with the threat of foreclosure hanging over their heads. Do you really believe they would have closed on the purchase had they known there was the remotest possibility of this happening?
Our Publishing team is getting very excited for a new book release soon, and we are looking for feedback from the bookworms in our Community!đđȘ±
Which of the following book titles do you find most compelling for a book about building wealth that you can pass on to the next generation?
As for myself, I think title insurance is both a self serving institution and a necessary evil.
99 times out of 100 it never amounts to anything, and the 1 time out of 100 that a transaction finds an issue, they use tools they have created with other underwriters, like indemnification letters or quit claim deeds to nullify the policy, to kick the can down the road or remove their liability all together.
However, the one time you need it, you sure are glad you got it.
My favorite saying about title insurance is, âit doesnât matter if itâs right or wrong, itâs what theyâll underwrite.â
I know how to read chain of titles and find and fix most title issues, so in some of my investing strategies I will take the properties âsubject to all liens and encumbrances,â without title insurance.
However, there still is a limit. I use a risk and reward methodology to determine when i consider my risk too high to go without a policy.
Voxturâs statement regarding a fully compliant alternative kind of sounds like a red herring.
In the end, the purpose of title insurance is to mitigate the risk to the seller and also mitigate the risk to the lender.
The attorney is taking the risk based on an attorney opinion letter that takes the risk against their practice. This requires insurance for themselves.
Bottom line it still goes back to insurance.
Itâs just another name but itâs still title insurance.
The way of the capitalist is to make as much money as possible and insurance companies are capitalist in nature.
I'm not sure if you're referring to the search and examination of title, but if you are, I don't know where you're getting your stats. Based on my actual experience searching and examining title, underwriting transactions and investigation and resolving title claims for a living, I can tell you I can probably find a defect somewhere in just about every chain of title.
A letter of indemnification (LOI) is used between underwriters when a subsequent search and exam finds a defect that went undetected by the prior search and exam. When they first came into fashion in the 1990s (during the time of the RTC and the great Savings and Loan collapse), so many were being issued that some underwriters had whole departments dedicated to doing nothing but issuing them. Issuing them was so time consuming, underwriters came up with the Mutual Indemnification Agreement, which set out the criteria under which indemnification is automatic and no LOI is needed. Reliance on MIAs is a daily occurrence, which I think belies your argument that identifying defects is rare.
I would appreciate it if you can tell me how you can tell by reading a deed if it's a forgery or if the grantor was incompetent at the time of signing?
Lastly, since it appears you do business in Florida, you might find the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Mayfield v. First City, which explains there can be documents that effect property that are not indexed in the public records, interesting.
Mayfield v. First City Bank of Fla., 95 So. 3d 398 | Casetext Search + Citator
I understand the desire to save time and money, but title insurance protects the insured against a covered loss caused by things that just can't be found. You can also be self-insured for the loss of the improvements by forgoing homeowners' insurance. Due to the rising cost, many Floridians are doing that also.
I don't know if that's an accurate claim or not since you failed to mention your source.
I believe I understood your statement, I just disagree with it based on my experience, subject to change pending identification of your source. I also disagree the seller's unsatisfied mortgage is a defect in title. Conveying title to the buyer without satisfying the mortgage might create a defect in title.
An LOI is not mutually protective, the MIA is. I do agree both are kicking a can down the road. I also believe relying on either, without disclosing the matter to the insured, could be seen as a fraud on the insured, though most others in the industry disagree.
In truth I have relied on some of the same methods to try identifying forged instruments, though I wouldn't bet much money on getting it right. Additionally, if you're checking all the prisons and jailhouse records in the country for indicia of fraud, I can't imagine how long your search takes.
My crystal ball is cloudy.
The point of the decision is that the prior mortgage was in fact recorded and therefore constructive notice, even though it was not indexed. Generally, an unrecorded document does not burden property acquired by a BFP.
I think the term you're looking for is Florida is a notice state, as opposed to a race state or a hybrid race/notice state.
An AOL is not title insurance since to write insurance you need to meet a states very restrictive requirements to do so and be issued a license.
It clarifies your post, yet does not make it correct.
Regarding LOIs, I appreciate your thoughts on this. However you being an idealist doesn't make me wrong. LOI as a systematic tool is most definitely mutually protective tool as are tools like it. Today First American gave you the LOI tomorrow they get one right back from Old Republic on a different file. And as you said, most of the industry disagrees with you about notifying the potential claimants, which makes my point all the more. (MIA I'm not familiar with, May be a brainfart but I don't know what this one stands for, so I may know it by another name)
Yes regarding deeds and such, I have a clearer crystal ball than most but having done this for over 25 years and being a part of over 2000 individual transaction (yes I am aware you've been doing it longer and have probably done more as a title abstractor so I'm not saying the numbers for competition just to point out my track record with my strategy is working out pretty well so far) I have come to the realization that usually if one thing ends up stinking, one should have probably noticed other issues as well that would have set off your BS meter.
And yes, thank you for clearing up my mistaken word. This of course didn't nullify my point.
Finally, you are correct. AOL is not title insurance as defined by an insurance policy covered by an underwriter and bound by an attorney or title insurance broker. (yes that's what they are)
AOL is title insurance as an attorney is placing his name, license, and assets behind his review of the title to INSURE the lender that they are protected.
This in itself will not end up being sufficient if they are wrong even 1 out of 100 times. Therefore they also have E&O insurance to also cover their claim.
If this type of coverage becomes more mainstream, the e&o will not be enough to cover and they will have to up their coverage, which will most likely end up being sold and covered by new products for attorneys, underwritten by names such as First American, Old Republic and WFG.
"New product," same old programs.
I stand by my statements.
As for myself, I think title insurance is both a self serving institution and a necessary evil.
99 times out of 100 it never amounts to anything, and the 1 time out of 100 that a transaction finds an issue, they use tools they have created with other underwriters, like indemnification letters or quit claim deeds to nullify the policy, to kick the can down the road or remove their liability all together.
However, the one time you need it, you sure are glad you got it.
My favorite saying about title insurance is, âit doesnât matter if itâs right or wrong, itâs what theyâll underwrite.â
I know how to read chain of titles and find and fix most title issues, so in some of my investing strategies I will take the properties âsubject to all liens and encumbrances,â without title insurance.
However, there still is a limit. I use a risk and reward methodology to determine when i consider my risk too high to go without a policy.
Voxturâs statement regarding a fully compliant alternative kind of sounds like a red herring.
In the end, the purpose of title insurance is to mitigate the risk to the seller and also mitigate the risk to the lender.
The attorney is taking the risk based on an attorney opinion letter that takes the risk against their practice. This requires insurance for themselves.
Bottom line it still goes back to insurance.
Itâs just another name but itâs still title insurance.
The way of the capitalist is to make as much money as possible and insurance companies are capitalist in nature.
I'm not sure if you're referring to the search and examination of title, but if you are, I don't know where you're getting your stats. Based on my actual experience searching and examining title, underwriting transactions and investigation and resolving title claims for a living, I can tell you I can probably find a defect somewhere in just about every chain of title.
A letter of indemnification (LOI) is used between underwriters when a subsequent search and exam finds a defect that went undetected by the prior search and exam. When they first came into fashion in the 1990s (during the time of the RTC and the great Savings and Loan collapse), so many were being issued that some underwriters had whole departments dedicated to doing nothing but issuing them. Issuing them was so time consuming, underwriters came up with the Mutual Indemnification Agreement, which set out the criteria under which indemnification is automatic and no LOI is needed. Reliance on MIAs is a daily occurrence, which I think belies your argument that identifying defects is rare.
I would appreciate it if you can tell me how you can tell by reading a deed if it's a forgery or if the grantor was incompetent at the time of signing?
Lastly, since it appears you do business in Florida, you might find the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Mayfield v. First City, which explains there can be documents that effect property that are not indexed in the public records, interesting.
Mayfield v. First City Bank of Fla., 95 So. 3d 398 | Casetext Search + Citator
I understand the desire to save time and money, but title insurance protects the insured against a covered loss caused by things that just can't be found. You can also be self-insured for the loss of the improvements by forgoing homeowners' insurance. Due to the rising cost, many Floridians are doing that also.
As for myself, I think title insurance is both a self serving institution and a necessary evil.
99 times out of 100 it never amounts to anything, and the 1 time out of 100 that a transaction finds an issue, they use tools they have created with other underwriters, like indemnification letters or quit claim deeds to nullify the policy, to kick the can down the road or remove their liability all together.
However, the one time you need it, you sure are glad you got it.
My favorite saying about title insurance is, âit doesnât matter if itâs right or wrong, itâs what theyâll underwrite.â
I know how to read chain of titles and find and fix most title issues, so in some of my investing strategies I will take the properties âsubject to all liens and encumbrances,â without title insurance.
However, there still is a limit. I use a risk and reward methodology to determine when i consider my risk too high to go without a policy.
Voxturâs statement regarding a fully compliant alternative kind of sounds like a red herring.
In the end, the purpose of title insurance is to mitigate the risk to the seller and also mitigate the risk to the lender.
The attorney is taking the risk based on an attorney opinion letter that takes the risk against their practice. This requires insurance for themselves.
Bottom line it still goes back to insurance.
Itâs just another name but itâs still title insurance.
Taking AOL's instead of title insurance is an interesting move from Fannie and Freddie. I wonder if they're hoping to reduce closings costs and allow more buyers into the market? There must be some underlying cause. I've always wondered why it's become customary for the borrower to pay the cost of a lender's policy anyway. Couldn't the policies be combined, to protect the interest of all entitled parties to defects? The double dipping seems like bloat to me, with consumer's shouldering the cost.
AOL's offering's I've seen all have some type of liability policy in place from the provider. I don't see it as an issue on certain deals, especially in the case of new or newer properties. I'll still be taking owners policies on whatever I buy for now
closing costs are negotiable between the parties.. just look at wholesalers they make the buyer pay ALL closing costs etc.. you have what is customary in a certain market and it varies across the country. Customary as in who pays what.
I was referring to customary per the lender. Every mortgage I've seen the borrower has to pay the lender's policy. I'm sure there's some out there that differ.
I'm wondering when and why it became commonplace for lenders to require their own policy, and coincidentally how that become the borrowers problem.
When you get a car loan, you don't have to pay a second insurance bill to cover that lender