Strass v. District-Realty Title Ins. Corp., DISTRICT-REALTY

Decision Date08 June 1976
Docket NumberNo. 740,DISTRICT-REALTY,740
Citation358 A.2d 251,31 Md.App. 690
Parties, 87 A.L.R.3d 752 Carl STRASS et al. v.TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION.
CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland

Morton Rosenberg, Columbia, for appellants.

Arthur C. Elgin, Jr., Washington, D.C., with whom were Thomas Penfield Jackson and Jackson, Parkinson & Jackson, Washington, D.C., on the brief, for appellee.

Argued before MOYLAN, POWERS and LOWE, JJ.

POWERS, Judge.

The controversy involved in this appeal is whether assessments levied by the City of Rockville against nine residential lots for benefits resulting from installation of water and sewer lines by the City, were liens or encumbrances insured against by policies of title insurance purchased at the time of settlement by the owners of each of the lots. The claims of the respective lot owners were asserted in their Third Amended Declaration filed in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County against District-Realty Title Insurance Corporation. The plaintiffs were nine 1 married couples. They were: Carl Strass and Elaine W. Strass, Morton Rosenberg and Aileen Rosenberg, Jon Ranhand and Barbara O. Ranhand, Richard J. Zack and Mary T. Zack, James K. Jackson and Carol Jackson, Robert R. Hench and Marilyn Hench, Carl D. Olson and Rena Olson, Gabor F. Dobay and Norma Lee G. Dobay, Robert E. Gant and Janet Gant.

The title insurance company was the only defendant proceeded against in the Third Amended Declaration. The plaintiffs alleged that each of the couples, between 4 September 1970 and 25 June 1971, had settled with the builder and seller on a contract for the purchase of a house and lot in the Rockshire Subdivision in the City of Rockville, Montgomery County Each of the couples obtained, at the time of settlement, a title insurance policy issued by District-Realty Title. The plaintiffs alleged that they thereafter learned that the City of Rockville made an assessment against each of the lots in the aggregate sum of $2,509.58, payable over a 20 year period, and that those assessments constituted liens or encumbrances against which they were protected by the title insurance policy.

The case was brought to issue by several pleas filed by District-Realty Title, including pleas of general issue and special pleas that the assessments did not constitute liens or encumbrances at the time its policies of title insurance were issued.

On 9 June 1975 a hearing was held in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County before Judge John J. Mitchell on a motion for summary judgment filed by the plaintiffs and a cross motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant. Each motion was accompanied by a supporting memorandum of points and authorities, including numerous attachments. In addition, each side filed a memorandum in opposition to the summary judgment motion against it.

Judge Mitchell took the motions under advisement. On 24 June 1975, he filed an order denying the motion of the plaintiffs and granting the motion of the defendant. On the same day, the docket shows the entry of judgment in favor of the defendant for costs.

Thereafter, Judge Mitchell filed a memorandum explaining the grounds for his decision. The plaintiffs, through their attorney 2, noted a timely appeal.

Each motion for summary judgment was, necessarily, premised upon the moving parties' contention that there was no genuine dispute of any material fact. From our examination of the motions, and the memoranda supporting and opposing them, we find nothing to indicate that any fact material to the decision of the case was disputed by either side.

Among the evidentiary material properly before the trial court, in conformity with Maryland Rule 610, the significant evidence, we believe, was the title insurance policies and the records of official actions taken by the City of Rockville. Matters of law were, of course, also before the court.

The earliest of the title policies here involved was issued on 10 September 1970, and the latest on 28 June 1971. Each policy insured against direct loss or damage by reason of

'1. Any defect or defects in the title of the Insured to the estate or interest covered hereby and identified under Schedule A hereof in the real estate described under said Schedule A; or 2. Liens or encumbrances charging the same, saving and excepting all loss or damage by reason of the defects, estates, interests, objections to title, liens or encumbrances mentioned in Schedule B hereof or excepted by the Conditions and Stipulations of this Policy * * *.'

None of the policies contains a relevant exception in Schedule B. In the Conditions and Stipulations of each it is provided:

'2. The Company shall be liable hereunder in damages only: * * * (2) Where there has been (a final determination in a court of competent jurisdiction) adverse to the title insured upon a lien or encumbrance not excepted in this Policy.'

'8. Nothing contained in this Policy shall be construed as insuring * * * (6) against defects and encumbrances arising after the effective date of this Policy, or created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the Insured.'

The critical action of the City of Rockville was taken in its Ordinance No. 33-71, adopted on 12 October 1971. It cited the completion of the construction of water and sewer lines in several subdivisions, theretofore authorized; it ordained the approval of the work and statements of costs of the several projects; and it ordained that:

'Pursuant to the provisions of Article X, Section 1, Paragraph d of the Charter of the City of Rockville, Maryland, the expense of the work described in Paragraph 1 above is hereby levied as special assessments against the abutting properties and respective record owners thereof as of July 1, 1971, in the amounts shown on the attached list. The work described above is hereby found and declared to be of special benefit to the properties shown on said list in the amounts assessed.'

The list of Special Assessments levied included, among other properties, 131 separate lots in the Rockshire Subdivision, each assessed for $2,509.58. Appellants were identified by name and address as owners of their respective lots.

The issue brought into sharp focus by what we have quoted is whether the assessments levied by the Ordinance of 12 October 1971 constituted liens or encumbrances on the lots of appellants on the effective dates of their title insurance policies. In addition to the Ordinance itself, other facts which it is contended bear on that issue are:

a. The minutes of a meeting of the Mayor and Council of Rockville held on 10 June 1968, containing this entry:

'Re-Approval-Water & Sewer Assessment Projects-Rockshire Subdivision

'The Mayor and Council received a memorandum from the City Manager, noting receipt of a request, together with the appropriate waiver of public hearing, for the installation of water and sewer, on a special assessment basis, in a large portion of the Rockshire Farms subdivision. It was recommended that the Mayor and Council approve this request.

'On motion of Councilman Hanna, duly seconded and unanimously passed, the Mayor and Council gave its approval to the water and sewer projects.'

b. Final passage on 3 November 1969 by the Mayor and Council of Rockville of Ordinance No 52-69. The Ordinance authorized the issuance of 'General Improvement Bonds of 1969' in three series, Series A, Series B, and Series C, in varying amounts, all to be disbursed for financing various municipal improvements, itemized in the Ordinance by project number. 3 The Ordinance prescribed the form of the bonds, the schedule of maturities, and the form of the advertisement of sale. It required the advertisement to contain the following statement:

'The bonds of each of the series described herein are general obligation bonds of The Mayor and Council of Rockville and will constitute an irrevocable pledge of the full faith and credit and unlimited taxing power of said City. In addition, special annual benefit assessments have been duly authorized with respect to the improvements to be financed by the proceeds of the Series A Bonds, which assessments are dedicated as the primary source of payment of such Series A Bonds. Also, water and sewer connection charges have been duly authorized with respect to the improvements to be financed by the proceeds of the Series C Bonds, which connection charges are dedicated as the primary source of payment of such Series C. Bonds.'

Ordinance 52-69 further provides, in Section 12:

'That, the proceeds of the special benefit assessments with respect to the improvements set forth above to be financed by the proceeds of the Series A Bonds, as and when collected, shall be credited to the appropriate accounts of Rockville for the purpose of providing, to the extent thereof, for the payment of the interest on and principal of the Series A Bonds.'

and in Section 14:

'That, for the purpose of paying the principal of and interest on the Bonds authorized to be issued by this Ordinance, Rockville shall levy or cause to be levied, and there is hereby levied, in each and every fiscal year in which any of the Bonds are outstanding ad valorem taxes upon all of the legally assessable property within the corporate limits of Rockville in rate and amount sufficient to provide for the payment, when due, of the principal of all of the Bonds maturing in each such fiscal year and of all the interest on the Bonds coming due in each such fiscal year, and, in the event the proceeds from the taxes so levied in each such fiscal year shall prove inadequate for the above purposes, additional taxes shall be levied in the subsequent fiscal year to make up any deficiency. It is the intent of this Ordinance that the rate of said ad valorem tax shall be so computed in each fiscal year that the proceeds of such ad valorem tax together with (i) in the case of the Series A Bonds, the proceeds of the special benefit assessments...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Magraw v. Dillow
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • September 1, 1995
    ...Id. at 130, 246 A.2d 240. The Court of Special Appeals correctly limited this holding in Strass v. District-Realty Title Ins. Corp., 31 Md.App. 690, 704, 358 A.2d 251, 258 (1976), to present and not future By contrast, we have found zoning not to constitute an encumbrance. Marathon Builders......
  • Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. v. Saddlebrook W. Util. Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • August 31, 2016
    ...to which an obligation to pay front-foot benefit charges is a lien or an encumbrance. See , e.g., Strass v. District – Realty Title Ins. Corp ., 31 Md.App. 690, 358 A.2d 251 (1976).The change in the law that concerns us is the statutory amendment that since 1999 has required owners or devel......
  • Choate v. Lawyers Title Ins. Corp.
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma
    • December 11, 2015
    ...which status clearly does not qualify for coverage under section (2) or (3) of the Title Policy. See Strass v. District–Realty Title Insurance Corp ., 31 Md.App. 690, 358 A.2d 251 (1976) (when title policies were issued, city had option to levy city assessments for improvements; such potent......
  • American Sav. and Loan Ass'n v. Lawyers Title Ins. Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • June 19, 1986
    ...N.E. 296 (1935); Trenton Potteries Co. v. Title Guarantee & Trust Co., 176 N.Y. 65, 68 N.E. 132 (1903); Strass v. District-Realty Title Insurance Corp., 31 Md.App. 690, 358 A.2d 251, cert. denied, 278 Md. 736 (1976); Butcher v. Burton Abstract Title Co., 52 Mich.App. 98, 216 N.W.2d 434, cer......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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