Comment on/discuss another student's post regarding the case that he/she found in his/her second post.  You can compare their case to your case or you can find another case to discuss in response to their case.  Include the proper Bluebook citation to any cases referenced. post to respond to below.

 

While researching defects, liens, or encumbrances of title cases in Florida, I came across the case Endruschat v. American Tilte Ins. Co. 377 So.2d 738 (Fla. 1979) The insureds in Endruschat bought a home in Florida and bought owner's title insurance from American Title Insurance Company. The insurance covered title encumbrances, flaws, and liens. After making the acquisition, the insureds learned that the property was subject to a residential restriction that forbade them from operating a dental practice there. The insureds reported the residence restriction as a title defect that was not protected by the insurance when they submitted a claim with American. American rejected the claim, claiming that because the residence restriction was not documented in the public records, it was not a title defect. The insured filed an appeal with the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Florida. The residence restriction was deemed to be a title defect that was covered by the policy, leading the Fourth District Court of Appeal to overturn the trial court's ruling. The residence limitation was a lien on the land, and the court reasoned that the policy protected against "defects, liens, or encumbrances of title." The court also ruled that just because a residence restriction was not listed in the public registers wasn't enough to render it any less of a title defect. The court stated that title problems that were not reported in the public records were not excluded from coverage by the policy.

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Your analysis of the case Endruschat v American Title Ins Co 377 So2d 738 Fla 1979 is accurate and h... View the full answer