From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chicago Title Insurance v. Eynard

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Nov 18, 1975
84 Misc. 2d 605 (N.Y. App. Term 1975)

Summary

noting that the grantee received only such title as the grantor had the in property

Summary of this case from Neshewat v. Salem

Opinion

November 18, 1975

Appeal from the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County, BENJAMIN E. LANDER, J.

Dreyer Traub (Samuel Kirschenbaum and Joel B. Diamond of counsel), for appellant.

Flower Plotka (Lark J. Shlimbaum of counsel), for respondent.


Defendant transferred title to a piece of property to a corporation by quitclaim deed. The corporation placed a mortgage on the property to secure a loan by plaintiff's insured. The title policy issued by plaintiff to the mortgagee did not except a Federal tax lien against defendant on the property of record prior to the transfer of the property by defendant to the corporation. As a consequence of this failure to except the lien from the title policy plaintiff was called upon by its insured to, and removed the tax lien, by paying the amount due the Federal Government. It now seeks reimbursement from defendant.

Since the transfer to the corporation was by quitclaim deed, the corporation received thereunder only such title as defendant then had in the property, which, as noted, was then subject to the tax lien (Bradt v Church, 110 N.Y. 537; Ebenstein v Pritch, 275 App. Div. 256; Brzozowski v Boutinger, 181 Misc. 379, 384; 4 Tiffany, Real Property, §§ 959, 1231). Absent a warranty of some kind in the deed, defendant was not indebted to the corporation, or to the subsequent lienor, the mortgagee, for the amount of the lien. Hence plaintiff, as the subrogee of the mortgagee, also has no claim against defendant.

Because the corporation had not assumed the tax debt and neither the corporation nor the mortgagee was obligated to pay the taxes to the Federal Government, as between plaintiff and the Federal Government plaintiff was a volunteer and is not a subrogee of the Federal Government on its underlying claim for taxes against defendant.

Thus, on either basis, defendant is not liable to plaintiff.

Judgment, entered May 5, 1975 and order entered April 11, 1975 (LANDER, J.), affirmed, with $10 costs.

Concur: FRANK, J.P., HUGHES and FINE, JJ.


Summaries of

Chicago Title Insurance v. Eynard

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Nov 18, 1975
84 Misc. 2d 605 (N.Y. App. Term 1975)

noting that the grantee received only such title as the grantor had the in property

Summary of this case from Neshewat v. Salem
Case details for

Chicago Title Insurance v. Eynard

Case Details

Full title:CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. MARGARET EYNARD, Respondent

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Nov 18, 1975

Citations

84 Misc. 2d 605 (N.Y. App. Term 1975)
377 N.Y.S.2d 895

Citing Cases

Commercial U. Ins. Co. v. Postin

"Title insurer could not recover from property owner amount of its payment satisfying tax lien on property,…

Travelers Casualty Surety Company v. Dasny

The cases Travelers relies on to support this proposition are inapposite. See Chi. Title Ins. Co. v. Eynard,…