BROADCASTS.com

b'

Title Policy Terminated Regardless of Counsel\'s Misconduct Making  Personal Attacks on the Court and Counsel  

Jay Shah appealed from a judgment entered in favor of Fidelity National  Title Insurance Company after the trial court granted summary judgment.  After two trials and a second appeal the Court of Appeals dealt with  improper and contumacious conduct by plaintiff\'s counsel. In Jay C. Shah  v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, A165816, California Court  of Appeals, First District, First Division (November 30, 2022) resolved  the title insurance issue based on the evidence and California Codes  and precedent. 

BACKGROUND 

In 1959, non-party Mary Silva acquired a life estate in the property  that is the subject of this action near Quimby Road in San Jose,  California (the property). In December 1995, Shah entered a contract to  purchase the property from Silva for $350,000. Silva transferred her  interest in the property via a grant deed to "Jay C. Shah, Living Trust  Dated June 8, 1993," (the Trust) as grantee. When he purchased the  property, Shah did not know that Silva held only a life estate.  Fidelity issued the title insurance policy in connection with Shah\'s  1995 purchase. The title policy was effective December 29, 1995.  Schedule A of the title policy listed the named insured as the Trust.  The title policy stated that the "estate or interest in the land  described herein and which is covered by this policy is: A Fee."  

Suit Against Fidelity  

The trial court granted Fidelity\'s motion for summary judgment and  determined Shah\'s motion for summary adjudication was moot. The court  concluded that Fidelity met its burden to show coverage terminated under  section 2(b) of the title policy before Shah\'s 2009 tender because Shah  had voluntarily transferred the property to his parents in 2002, and  the transfer became effective by operation of law in May 2007 when Shah  obtained fee title through adverse possession, under the after acquired  title doctrine (Civ. Code, \\xa7 1106).  The Court of Appeal, concluding that it was not at liberty to rewrite  the policy to achieve the result Shah sought & Fidelity met its  initial burden to demonstrate coverage under the title insurance policy  terminated under section 2(b) when Shah voluntarily transferred the  property to his parents in the 2002 grant deed and subsequently acquired  fee title by adverse possession in May 2007. Because Shah failed to  present evidence raising a triable issue of material fact, Fidelity was  entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  CIVILITY  In addition to deciding the insurance issue the California Court of  Appeal concluded that they were obligated to admonish Shah\'s counsel,  Craig J. Bassett, for making repeated, unfounded personal attacks on the  trial court and opposing counsel in his appellate papers, apparently  because he disagreed with the trial court\'s decision.