Stewart Title Guar. Co. v. West, 1077

Citation110 Md.App. 114,676 A.2d 953
Decision Date01 September 1995
Docket NumberNo. 1077,1077
PartiesSTEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY v. Thomas W. WEST, et ux. ,
CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland
J. Mitchell Kearney (Miles & Stockbridge, on the brief), Baltimore, for appellant

James D. O'Connor, Towson, for appellees.

Argued before BLOOM, WENNER and HOLLANDER, JJ.

HOLLANDER, Judge.

This appeal arises out of a claim by Thomas W. West and his wife, Dawn K. West, appellees, against Stewart Title Guaranty Company ("Stewart Title"), appellant, for breach of a title insurance policy. When the Wests purchased real property in New Windsor, Maryland in 1987, they obtained a title insurance policy issued by Stewart Title. In 1990, they filed suit in the Circuit Court for Carroll County against several defendants, including appellant, alleging that the land that they received was not what they had been promised in their contract, that their property lacked access to any public rights of way, and that defects in the title rendered the property unmarketable.

The circuit court entered summary judgment against Stewart Title on the ground that the Wests' property was unmarketable. It awarded damages, prejudgment interest, and attorneys' fees in the total amount of $272,978.68. Aggrieved I. Did the lower court err in entering summary judgment against Stewart Title in the absence of an affidavit or any other competent evidence demonstrating that Stewart Title breached the policy?

by this decision, Stewart Title now appeals and presents multiple issues for our consideration:

II. Did the lower court err in entering summary judgment against Stewart Title in light of the provision which limits claims against the insurer in the event of litigation until there has been a final determination by a court of competent jurisdiction adverse to the title?

III. Did the lower court err in entering summary judgment against Stewart Title in the absence of certain necessary parties?

IV. Did the lower court err in awarding Appellees damages in excess of the face amount of the title policy?

V. Did the lower court err in awarding Appellees damages in excess of their actual loss?

VI. Did the lower court err in awarding Appellees attorney's fees and pre-judgment interest?

For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that summary judgment was improper. Therefore, we shall vacate summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This case involves a long and complex factual and procedural history. We have gleaned the following summary of facts from the record.

In 1986, the Wests searched for property on which to build a home; they were particularly interested in land that was suitable for raising horses. In December of 1986, a real estate agent, Joseph M. DeChiara, showed them an unimproved 3.3658 acre parcel in Carroll County ("the Property"), owned by Adele Building & Supply Company ("Adele"). According to a plat of the land that DeChiara showed them, the Property was to have separate means of access to two nearby public On June 6, 1987, the Wests signed a New Home Sales Agreement with Adele to purchase the Property, on which Adele was to construct a house. A plat of the Property, which was prepared by Sylvia Gorman, Adele's listing agent, was attached to the agreement. The plat, like the one that DeChiara previously had shown to the Wests, showed that a .4 acre triangular parcel of land in the northeast corner of the Property ("the triangular parcel") was included in the Property. In addition, the plat indicated that, although the Property would be almost completely surrounded by adjacent properties, the Wests would have access to Springdale Road by means of a "panhandle strip" that they would own in fee simple, and they would also have use of a right-of-way to Rowe Road ("the right-of-way"). Attached to the agreement was a "Right-of-Way Agreement and Declaration of Maintenance Obligations" for the common use of the right-of-way.

roads: Springdale Road to the west and Rowe Road to the south.

After the house was constructed, the Wests hired Land Title Research of Maryland, Inc. ("Land Title") as their settlement agent. At settlement on June 26, 1987 in Land Title's offices, the Wests purchased two title insurance policies issued by Stewart Title. The first policy was an "owner's policy" ("the Policy") insuring the Wests, with a coverage limit of $112,640.00. The second policy was a "lender's policy." 1 The owner's policy stated, in part, as follows:

SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE, THE EXCEPTIONS CONTAINED IN SCHEDULE B AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS HEREOF, STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, a corporation of Galveston, Texas, herein called the Company, insures, as of Date of Policy shown in Schedule A, against loss or damage, not exceeding the

amount of insurance stated in Schedule A, and costs, attorneys' fees and expenses which the Company may become obligated to pay hereunder, sustained or incurred by the insured by reason of:

1. Title to the estate or interest described in Schedule A being vested otherwise than as stated therein;

2. Any defect in or lien or encumbrance on such title;

3. Lack of a right of access to and from the land; or

4. Unmarketability of such title.

(Capitalization in original.)

At settlement, the Wests also obtained the deed to the Property, which contained a metes and bounds description of the Property. Unknown to them at the time, however, the deed did not convey either the triangular parcel or the panhandle strip. As the Policy contained the same erroneous Property description, it did not include the triangular parcel or the panhandle strip.

The Wests did not learn of any problems with the title to their Property until the spring of 1988, when Mr. West was clearing shrubs in the triangular parcel. Lawrence E. Peach, who, along with his wife, Deborah A. Peach, owned the immediately contiguous parcel of land, approached Mr. West and told him that he believed Adele had sold the triangular parcel to him, and that he would look into the matter. After the Wests heard nothing from Peach for several weeks, they decided to look into the matter themselves. Mr. West obtained a copy of his deed and "plat plan" 2 and took them to a surveyor, Daniel Staley, who earlier had prepared a survey of the Property that the Wests ordered for settlement but, apparently, never received.

After Staley compared the deed and his survey of the Property, he advised the Wests of several problems with their title. First, neither the triangular parcel nor the panhandle Thereafter, in the summer of 1988, the Wests contacted Joseph Goldberg, the president of Land Title. Goldberg examined the Wests' deed, their "plat plan," and Staley's survey and agreed that the Wests were landlocked. Goldberg told the Wests not to contact anyone about the problems, and that he would take care of everything. Apparently, Goldberg made several attempts to contact Adele about the Wests' difficulties, but he ultimately was unsuccessful in resolving the problems. In December 1988, Ms. West contacted Goldberg about his progress. Goldberg advised her that, although he could resolve the problems involving access to Rowe and Springdale roads, he could not resolve the problem involving the triangular parcel because that parcel was not covered by the Wests' Policy. He advised Ms. West that she and her husband should hire an attorney.

strip was conveyed to the Wests. Second, the Wests were "landlocked," because their Property had no access to any public roads. Moreover, in what both Stewart Title and the Wests agree was a mistake, the instrument by which Adele had previously created the right-of-way actually identified the Peaches' lot, and not the Wests' lot, as one of the properties benefited by the right-of-way. Accordingly, the Wests were not entitled to use the right-of-way. In fact, in 1990, Donald A. Dustin, the owner of the property that the right-of-way crossed, hired an attorney who sent the Wests a letter instructing them not to use the right-of-way across his property. Dustin also erected cattle fencing and a barricade that substantially narrowed the right-of-way and made it difficult for the Wests to drive their horse trailers on it, although the right-of-way was not completely blocked.

At some point during this time period, the Wests discovered an additional problem with their title; Adele had left two unreleased mortgages on their Property. The parties agree, however, that, shortly after the Wests filed suit, Land Title was able to procure the release of both liens.

The problems with their title caused the Wests to have difficulty obtaining a second mortgage and re-financing for On June 22, 1990, the Wests filed a multi-count complaint in the Circuit Court for Carroll County against Adele, Robert L. Thomas (Adele's president), Land Title, Goldberg, Gorman, Long and Foster Real Estate, Inc. (Gorman's employer and the listing broker for the Property), DiChiara (alleged to be the "selling agent" for the Property), Coldwell Banker Residential Real Estate, Inc. (DiChiara's employer), and Stewart Title. As to Stewart Title, appellees asserted a breach of contract and a negligence claim. They alleged, inter alia, that "the Plaintiffs purchased a policy of title insurance from Stewart Title ... whereby Stewart agreed to insure against defects or unmarketability of the title to the property and to insure a right of access to and from the land," that "there are defects in the title, the title is unmarketable and the Plantiffs' [sic] lack a right of access to and from the land," and that "Stewart has failed to provide good and marketable title and access to and from the land and [in] breach of its agreement to insure same...." In their negligence claim, appellees alleged that appellant breached its "duty of care to the Plaintiffs to adequately supervise Stewart's agents...."

                their Property.  In 1990, they obtained a
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Chambers v. Cardinal, 2519, September Term, 2006.
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • November 8, 2007
    ...... on "the four unities": unity of interest, unity of title, unity of time, and unity of possession. Id.; see also ... of the insured's title to real property." Stewart Title Guar. Co. v. West, 110 Md.App. 114, 128, 676 A.2d ......
  • Columbia Town Ctr. Title Co. v. 100 Inv. Ltd. P'ship, 0915
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • February 2, 2012
    ......[203 Md.App. 74] Stewart Title Guaranty Co. v. West, 110 Md.App. 114, 128, 676 A.2d 953 (1996) ... See Cameron County Savings Ass'n v. Stewart Title Guar. Co., 819 S.W.2d 600 (Tex.Ct.App.1991) (holding that the underwriter's ......
  • 100 Inv. Ltd. v. Columbia Town Ctr. Title Co., 19
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • January 29, 2013
    ...to indemnify the insured against loss or defects, and is not a contract of guaranty or warranty. See Stewart Title Guar. Co. v. West, 110 Md.App. 114, 128, 676 A.2d 953, 960 (1996) (citations omitted); see also Md.Code (1995, 2011 Repl.Vol.), § 1–101(qq) of the Insurance Article (defining t......
  • Hamilton v. Dackman, 2871
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • September 5, 2013
    ...... Id.; Stewart Title Guar. Co. v. West, 110 Md.App. 114, 133, 676 A.2d ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT