Carteret Title
DRN Title Search
Log In
Forget your Password?

About Us
Contact Us
Privacy Policy

Source of Title Blog

As I Predicted - The New Jersey Supreme Court Overruled a Bad Appellate Decision
by Robert Franco | 2010/08/03 |

Last year, I wrote a blog about The North Jersey Practice.  It was about an appellate case that held that an underwriter was responsible for an attorney's theft of funds - even though the attorney sole his client's money before the title company got involved. I wrote at the time, "I would expect a reversal on appeal."  And I was right...

Source of Title Blog ::

You may want to re-read the previous blog, but here are the basic facts of the case:

After the closing, the checks issued by Pizzi from this trust account bounced and it was determined that he had stolen at least $277,717.00 of the Goodmans' funds. He was later disbarred.

The Goodmans were purchasing a home in Somerset.  They hired their neighbor, attorney Richard Pizzi, to represent them in the sale of their old home and the purchase of the new one.  When the old home sold, the Goodmans instructed Pizzi to deposit part of the proceeds, $293,308.47, into his attorney trust account for the purpose of closing on the purchase.  Pizzi later told them that they needed to deposit an additional $20,000, which was not the case. 

Pizzi then requested Atlantic Title, an agent of Stewart Title, to issue title insurance. The request stated "This is a cash deal... this is a super rush!" Atlantic provided a title commitment showing Pizzi as the applicant and the Goodmans as the purchasers.  

The trial court held for Stewart Title finding that Pizzi had misappropriated the funds before he had any contract with Atlantic Title.  Thus, at the time of the theft, there could not have been any agency relationship between Stewart and Pizzi and they could not be held liable for his actions. The trial court said that to impose liability under these circumstances was "inequitable and unfair and inappropriate in law."

But the appellate court reversed, finding that defalcation committed by the buyer's attorney remains a risk covered under the title insurance policy, unless the title insurer notifies its insured directly that the policy does not cover such risk. It found that Atlantic Title failed to take the steps necessary to inform the Goodmans directly that the title policy they were buying did not cover the risk of Pizzi's defalcation. Atlantic Title's practice to include the disclaimer statement in an insurance commitment binder that is sent only to the buyer's attorney, does not sever, as a matter of law, the agency relationship between the carrier and the attorney.

As I said last year, the issue here is one of timing.  The New Jersey Supreme Court correctly reversed the court of appeals:

Here, the Goodmans gave their money to Pizzi in January 2004, and Pizzi misappropriated those funds prior to the time he sought title insurance for the Goodmans. It is not disputed that just prior to the time Pizzi contacted the Title Company no agency relationship existed between Pizzi and the Title Company, nor was there evidence that Pizzi had previously interacted with the Title Company. Thus, it cannot be argued that the Goodmans relied on Pizzi as a representative of the Title Company.


When Pizzi applied for title insurance and the Title Company mailed its standard notice and disclaimer to Pizzi, the Title Company was not in a position to prevent the theft because the theft had already occurred. Further, the Title Company never represented to the Goodmans that Pizzi had actual or apparent authority to act on its behalf. Plainly stated, no agency relationship existed between Pizzi and the Title Company at the time the funds were misappropriated. Consequently, the Title Company is not liable for the misappropriation by Pizzi.

This case may be unique to North Jersey, where title companies rely on buyers' attorneys to handle the closing.  While it does seem like a good idea to involve the attorneys, it does present risks for the title company if they can be held liable for this sort of theft.  I think the result here may have been different if Pizzi had waited until he brought the title company in to steal the Goodmans' money.  It seems in such cases, the title company may be liable if it does not notify the client directly that it is not liable for their attorney's theft.  Thus, it would seem that title companies ought to send a notice directly to the client and not rely on notices sent only to the attorneys. 

In the end, the Goodmans were reimbursed for their loss by the New Jersey Lawyers Fund for Client Protection.  And, that is what they are there for.  This was a case of a rotten attorney - not a crooked title company.  Pizzi was disbarred... and hopefully he will pay restitution to the Fund.

Robert A. Franco


Categories: Attorneys, Defalcations, Title Industry

1112 words | 5303 views | 1 comments | log in or register to post a comment

Who's dog?

Just curious, who are the real parties behind the litigation.  If the buyers were already made whole by the State Fund, is their cliam subrogated to the fund... or did Mr. Pizzi have malpractice insurance which repaid the fund, and it's the one driving the ligigation?

For the buyers, if it's purely economic loss it looks like they are whole already.  Maybe there were emotional damages from being robbed by their neighbor and attorney.

by Aaron Hill | 2010/08/24 | log in or register to post a reply
Source of Title Blog

Robert A. FrancoThe focus of this blog will be on sharing my thoughts and concerns related to the small title agents and abstractors. The industry has changed dramatically over the past ten years and I believe that we are just seeing the beginning. As the evolution continues, what will become of the many small independent title professionals who have long been the cornerstone of the industry?

Robert A. Franco



Recommended Blogs Recommended Posts Source of Title Services
Recent Comments

This is really a relatively typical issue. In residential circumstances the court will usually forb...
by johneybrooks Fox
I've thought further of who will be affected by block chain and it won't just be lawyers, title sear...
by Carol Clark
I recently attempted to have a title company examiner sign and notarize (acknowledgement of her sign...
 Thank you for the reminder to check for that notation about homestead exemption ending on the ...
by stephen willard
Pat was one of the sweetest men I've ever had the pleasure of knowing.  At every conference he ...
by Douglas Gallant
Pat was a good friend and a critical part of NALTEA.  So many memories from the NALTEA conferen...
by Jay Duncan
Pat was a good friend.  I have many wonderful memories, having known him. for 13 years,  ...
by Wanda Steudel
I have done Richland and Lexington Counties many times and I agree.  My gripe is I have seen ou...
by Naomi Backes

© 2007, Source of Title.