SOIFER v. CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> <html ><br /> <head><br /> <title>SOIFER v</title><br /> </head><br /> <body><br /> <div><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b >SOIFER</b><b > v.</b><b > CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY</b><b ></b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>Filed 8/10/10<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b ><i >CERTIFIED FOR<br /> PUBLICATION</i></b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>DIVISION THREE<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=1 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0<br /> ><br /> <tr ><br /> <td width=319 valign=top ><br /> <br/>BEN SOIFER,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Plaintiff<br /> and Appellant,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> v.<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY et al.,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Defendants<br /> and Respondents.<br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> <td width=319 valign=top ><br /> <br/> B217956<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> (Los Angeles County<br /> <br/> Super.<br /> Ct. No. BC405970)<br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> </table><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles<br /> County, Ann I. Jones, Judge. Affirmed.<br /> <br/> Kneafsey, Tostado &<br /> Associates, Sean M. Kneafsey and Shaun Swiger for Plaintiff and Appellant.<br /> <br/> Glaser, Weil, Fink,<br /> Jacobs, Howard & Shapiro, Joel N. Klevens and Diane K. Myint for<br /> Defendants and Respondents.<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b ><u>_______________________________________</u></b><br /> <br/> In<br /> this case, the plaintff and appellant, Ben Soifer, appeals a judgment entered<br /> after the trial court sustained a demurrer to his first amended complaint without leave to<br /> amend. In <i >Southland Title Corp. v. Superior Court</i> (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 530 (<i<br /> >Southland</i>), we held that a title company<br /> could not be held liable for the negligent preparation of a preliminary report<br /> of title. Rather, if a representation<br /> was sought from the title company as to the condition of the title to a<br /> particular property, an abstract of title should have been obtained. Here, plaintiff neither sought, obtained nor<br /> desired a policy of title insurance or an abstract of title, but<br /> nonetheless seeks to hold the respondent, Chicago Title Company (Chicago),<br /> liable in both tort and contract for alleged negligence and misrepresentations<br /> with respect to the seniority status of encumbrances on certain properties that<br /> were in the process of trust deed foreclosure.<br /> <br/> We<br /> adhere to our analysis in <i >Southland</i><br /> and extend and apply it here to the several claims asserted by plaintiff. We hold that a plaintiff cannot recover for<br /> errors in a title company's statements regarding the condition of title to a<br /> property in the absence of a policy of title insurance or the purchase of an<br /> abstract of title. We therefore will<br /> affirm the judgment.<br /> <br/><b<br /> ><i >FACTUAL<br /> AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND</i></b><br /> <br/> As<br /> this case comes to us on demurrer, we accept as true the facts alleged by<br /> plaintiff in his complaint. (<i<br /> >Blank v. Kirwan</i> (1985) 39 Cal.3d<br /> 311, 318.)<br /> <br/> Essentially,<br /> plaintiff alleges that in late 2007, he was an investor in distressed real<br /> estate. His business plan involved the<br /> purchase of real properties that were being foreclosed upon by mortgage<br /> holders. In order to decide whether to<br /> bid on a particular property, he needed to know if the foreclosing lender was<br /> in fact the senior lender on that property. <br /> Put another way, if he made a successful bid at a foreclosure sale and<br /> the foreclosing lender held a secured position junior to other more senior<br /> liens, then plaintiff's title would be subject to such liens.<br /> <br/> In<br /> order to avoid such a result, plaintiff alleges that he entered into an oral<br /> agreement with Chicago's agent, Miguel Escutia, in which it was agreed that<br /> Escutia, on behalf of Chicago, would provide title information upon which<br /> plaintiff would rely in deciding whether to make a bid at a particular<br /> foreclosure sale. In exchange, plaintiff<br /> alleges that he agreed that he would place business with Chicago<br /> upon the subsequent resale of the foreclosed properties. The information that plaintiff wanted from Chicago<br /> was limited, specific and time sensitive. <br /> He needed, usually within twenty-four hours before a particular<br /> foreclosure sale, a â€