On or about October 9, 2015, Ms [redacted] bought the Property from [redacted] NATC handled that escrow transactionPrior to the close of escrow, NATC searched the record title, including the property taxes that needed to be paid prior to the close of escrowAccording to the Sacramento County Tax Assessor’s website, the full amount of the property taxes for the 2015-tax roll was $1,This amount was payable in two (2) installments, each amount of $A true and correct copy of the Property’s tax bill No [redacted] that was pulled from the Sacramento County Tax Assessor’s Office website on October 6, 2015, is attached hereto as Exhibit A and is incorporated hereinThe first installment of the tax bill was $and had to be paid prior to December 10, The preliminary report did not list any supplement taxes that were levied against the Property prior to the close of escrowThe parties executed several escrow instructions, which included instructions regarding Supplemental Taxes: "GENERAL PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTAL TAXES The parties acknowledge that the property may be reassessed as a result of a change in ownership or completion of constructionSuch reassessment may result in an increase or decrease in the amount of annual property taxes based on the new property value, and also may result in supplemental taxes being assessed for the current yearThe parties instruct NATC to: (1) prorate taxes between buyer and seller based on the latest available general tax bill, unless the parties provide a different basis for the proration in writing to NATC; (2) pay all outstanding taxes assessed for prior years, including supplemental taxes, from seller’s proceeds, unless instructed otherwise in writing; and (3) prorate supplemental taxes which affect the current year between buyer and sellerAdjustments due either party based on the actual new tax bill issued after close of escrow or a supplemental tax bill will be made by the parties outside of escrow and NATC is released of any liability in connection with such adjustmentsIn the event there is a “negative” supplemental tax bill that results in a decrease in the current taxes, the undersigned parties are aware that a refund in whole or in part may be issued by the county tax collector directly to the sellerAny dispute or claim between the parties as a result of such a refund shall be handled between buyer and seller directly, and without involvement of NATCIf the transaction involves a short sale, the parties instruct NATC to send any refund of the property taxes paid by the seller to the short sale lender/beneficiary of the first deed of trustThe parties agree that NATC is not responsible for determining the potential for any reassessment or supplemental taxes and understand that no funds will be held in escrow to address any potential increase or additional amounts owedThe undersigned release NATC from any claim or liability relating to taxes resulting from a reassessment, supplemental taxes, and any refund or credit of taxes by the County Assessor to one party or the other." Ms [redacted] further read and approved the preliminary report, in which the supplemental taxes she claims were not levied against the Property prior to the close of escrowThe escrow transaction closed on October 9, Further to the instructions of the parties, NATC sent the first installment payment to the Sacramento County Tax Assessor’s Office and payment was received by October 26, The thrust of Ms [redacted] ’s complaint is that she wants to be reimbursed for a tax lien that was not levied against the property at the time escrow closed in this transactionAlmost one year after escrow closed, NATC received an email from the real estate broker, Susan Webster, regarding a supplemental tax bill that was charged against the PropertyTina ***, escrow officer from NATC, researched this issue and learned that the supplemental tax bill was issued on April 20, 2016, which was months after the close of escrowMs [redacted] contacted Ms [redacted] and claimed that a title search was improperly doneMs [redacted] continued to research the issue and contacted the Sacramento County Tax Assessor’s OfficeOn August 16, Ms [redacted] informed Ms [redacted] that she spoke with Yvette from the Tax Assessor’s Office ( [redacted] ) and she verified that the sellers were sent an unsecured tax bill to cover their period of ownership and that the bill that was sent to Ms [redacted] covered her period of ownershipMs [redacted] encouraged Ms [redacted] to contact the Tax Assessor’s office to confirm her findingsMs [redacted] refused to do so, and instead she demanded that NATC reimburse her for her payment of the supplemental tax bill that was charged after the close of escrowNATC had no duty to investigate beyond the state of record title to determine future supplemental tax bills or to determine whether the Property was encumbered by a lien that was not of recordThe law requires only a reasonable inquiry, not an exhaustive one [redacted] v [redacted] ***, supra, (1998) Cal.App.4th 1433, 1444-Here, NATC took reasonable steps to determine the state of title and was not required to conduct an exhaustive search for a future supplemental tax assessments or lien that were not recorded prior to the close of escrowAn escrow agent owes a limited duty of care to the parties to the escrowAn escrow agent is not a fiduciary in a general sense and has no duty to act beyond the scope of the escrow instructions actually presented to it by the parties to the escrowLee vTitle Insurance and Trust Company (1968) Cal.App.2d It is well-settled law that the instructions of the parties to the escrow constitute the full measure of the obligations owed by the escrow agent to the partiesWoodworth vRedwood Empire Savings (1971) Cal.App.3d 347; Roberts vCarter and Potruch (1956) Cal.App.2d 370; Dawson vBank of America (1950) Cal.App.2d The escrow agent must comply strictly with the instructions of the principalsHannon vWestern Title InsCo., CalRptr(App1989)According to the escrow instructions, the Ms [redacted] expressly relieved NATC from any further liability regarding supplemental taxes that were not made available prior to the close of escrowAgain, NATC had no duty to conduct and exhaustive search of future assessment that may or may not affect the PropertyMs [redacted] demand for reimbursement is directed at the wrong partyMs [redacted] needs to pursue the seller the directly if she seeks reimbursementNATC submits that there is no basis for Ms [redacted] ’s complaint to the Revdex.com based on NATC’s escrow services and this inquiry should be closed
I am rejecting this response because: While North American Title Company claims that *** *** verified that an unsecured bill was sent to the seller in the amount of the tax debt, that is both irrelevant and a red herring in this matterI was sent a secured tax bill for tax debt incurred by the previous owner of the property at * *** *** *** by the Sacramento County Tax Assessor's Office prior to the claimed issuance of an unsecured tax bill and my complaint about my payment of that secured debt to North American Title CompanyAn unsecured bill being sent to the seller of the property in question is not the equivalent of a refund of the money I paid for tax debt that I did not owe, and would have been required of the seller to pay prior to the close of escrow or disclosed to be, and accepted by me had a proper title search been conducted by North American Title CompanyThe Better Business Butrau need go no further in research than the Sacramento County Assessor's Office to ascertain that I was sent a secured tax bill for tax debt prior to my purchase of the above referenced property in Herald, Ca., that I paid it, that it was not refunded to me, and is not eligible for a refund irrespective of an unsecured tax bill being sent to the previous sellerI asked for a refund from North American Title Company of the amount I paid for tax debt, which I did not in cur, and they did not disclose after claiming to have conducted a title searchMy complaint of unprofessional and/or predatory business practices stands against North American Title Company, and all of the facts support my complaint.*** ***
On or about October 9, 2015, Ms. [redacted] bought the Property from [redacted]. NATC handled that escrow transaction. Prior to the close of escrow, NATC searched the record title, including the property taxes that needed to be paid prior to the close of escrow. According to the Sacramento County...
Tax Assessor’s website, the full amount of the property taxes for the 2015-2016 tax roll was $1,347.22. This amount was payable in two (2) installments, each amount of $673.61. A true and correct copy of the Property’s tax bill No. [redacted] that was pulled from the Sacramento County Tax Assessor’s Office website on October 6, 2015, is attached hereto as Exhibit A and is incorporated herein. The first installment of the tax bill was $673.61 and had to be paid prior to December 10, 2015. The preliminary report did not list any supplement taxes that were levied against the Property prior to the close of escrow. The parties executed several escrow instructions, which included instructions regarding Supplemental Taxes: "GENERAL PROVISIONS … 6. SUPPLEMENTAL TAXES The parties acknowledge that the property may be reassessed as a result of a change in ownership or completion of construction. Such reassessment may result in an increase or decrease in the amount of annual property taxes based on the new property value, and also may result in supplemental taxes being assessed for the current year. The parties instruct NATC to: (1) prorate taxes between buyer and seller based on the latest available general tax bill, unless the parties provide a different basis for the proration in writing to NATC; (2) pay all outstanding taxes assessed for prior years, including supplemental taxes, from seller’s proceeds, unless instructed otherwise in writing; and (3) prorate supplemental taxes which affect the current year between buyer and seller. Adjustments due either party based on the actual new tax bill issued after close of escrow or a supplemental tax bill will be made by the parties outside of escrow and NATC is released of any liability in connection with such adjustments. In the event there is a “negative” supplemental tax bill that results in a decrease in the current taxes, the undersigned parties are aware that a refund in whole or in part may be issued by the county tax collector directly to the seller. Any dispute or claim between the parties as a result of such a refund shall be handled between buyer and seller directly, and without involvement of NATC. If the transaction involves a short sale, the parties instruct NATC to send any refund of the property taxes paid by the seller to the short sale lender/beneficiary of the first deed of trust. The parties agree that NATC is not responsible for determining the potential for any reassessment or supplemental taxes and understand that no funds will be held in escrow to address any potential increase or additional amounts owed. The undersigned release NATC from any claim or liability relating to taxes resulting from a reassessment, supplemental taxes, and any refund or credit of taxes by the County Assessor to one party or the other." Ms. [redacted] further read and approved the preliminary report, in which the supplemental taxes she claims were not levied against the Property prior to the close of escrow. The escrow transaction closed on October 9, 2015. Further to the instructions of the parties, NATC sent the first installment payment to the Sacramento County Tax Assessor’s Office and payment was received by October 26, 2015. The thrust of Ms. [redacted]’s complaint is that she wants to be reimbursed for a tax lien that was not levied against the property at the time escrow closed in this transaction. Almost one year after escrow closed, NATC received an email from the real estate broker, Susan Webster, regarding a supplemental tax bill that was charged against the Property. Tina [redacted], escrow officer from NATC, researched this issue and learned that the supplemental tax bill was issued on April 20, 2016, which was 5 months after the close of escrow. Ms. [redacted] contacted Ms. [redacted] and claimed that a title search was improperly done. Ms. [redacted] continued to research the issue and contacted the Sacramento County Tax Assessor’s Office. On August 16, Ms. [redacted] informed Ms. [redacted] that she spoke with Yvette from the Tax Assessor’s Office ([redacted]) and she verified that the sellers were sent an unsecured tax bill to cover their period of ownership and that the bill that was sent to Ms. [redacted] covered her period of ownership. Ms. [redacted] encouraged Ms. [redacted] to contact the Tax Assessor’s office to confirm her findings. Ms. [redacted] refused to do so, and instead she demanded that NATC reimburse her for her payment of the supplemental tax bill that was charged after the close of escrow. NATC had no duty to investigate beyond the state of record title to determine future supplemental tax bills or to determine whether the Property was encumbered by a lien that was not of record. The law requires only a reasonable inquiry, not an exhaustive one. [redacted] [redacted] v. [redacted], supra, (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1433, 1444-1445. Here, NATC took reasonable steps to determine the state of title and was not required to conduct an exhaustive search for a future supplemental tax assessments or lien that were not recorded prior to the close of escrow. An escrow agent owes a limited duty of care to the parties to the escrow. An escrow agent is not a fiduciary in a general sense and has no duty to act beyond the scope of the escrow instructions actually presented to it by the parties to the escrow. Lee v. Title Insurance and Trust Company (1968) 264 Cal.App.2d 160. It is well-settled law that the instructions of the parties to the escrow constitute the full measure of the obligations owed by the escrow agent to the parties. Woodworth v. Redwood Empire Savings (1971) 22 Cal.App.3d 347; Roberts v. Carter and Potruch (1956) 140 Cal.App.2d 370; Dawson v. Bank of America (1950) 100 Cal.App.2d 305. The escrow agent must comply strictly with the instructions of the principals. Hannon v. Western Title Ins. Co., 260 Cal. Rptr. 21 (App. 1989). According to the escrow instructions, the Ms. [redacted] expressly relieved NATC from any further liability regarding supplemental taxes that were not made available prior to the close of escrow. Again, NATC had no duty to conduct and exhaustive search of future assessment that may or may not affect the Property. Ms. [redacted] demand for reimbursement is directed at the wrong party. Ms. [redacted] needs to pursue the seller the directly if she seeks reimbursement. NATC submits that there is no basis for Ms. [redacted]’s complaint to the Revdex.com based on NATC’s escrow services and this inquiry should be closed.
On or about October 9, 2015, Ms [redacted] bought the Property from [redacted] NATC handled that escrow transactionPrior to the close of escrow, NATC searched the record title, including the property taxes that needed to be paid prior to the close of escrowAccording to the Sacramento County Tax Assessor’s website, the full amount of the property taxes for the 2015-tax roll was $1,This amount was payable in two (2) installments, each amount of $A true and correct copy of the Property’s tax bill No [redacted] that was pulled from the Sacramento County Tax Assessor’s Office website on October 6, 2015, is attached hereto as Exhibit A and is incorporated hereinThe first installment of the tax bill was $and had to be paid prior to December 10, The preliminary report did not list any supplement taxes that were levied against the Property prior to the close of escrowThe parties executed several escrow instructions, which included instructions regarding Supplemental Taxes: "GENERAL PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTAL TAXES The parties acknowledge that the property may be reassessed as a result of a change in ownership or completion of constructionSuch reassessment may result in an increase or decrease in the amount of annual property taxes based on the new property value, and also may result in supplemental taxes being assessed for the current yearThe parties instruct NATC to: (1) prorate taxes between buyer and seller based on the latest available general tax bill, unless the parties provide a different basis for the proration in writing to NATC; (2) pay all outstanding taxes assessed for prior years, including supplemental taxes, from seller’s proceeds, unless instructed otherwise in writing; and (3) prorate supplemental taxes which affect the current year between buyer and sellerAdjustments due either party based on the actual new tax bill issued after close of escrow or a supplemental tax bill will be made by the parties outside of escrow and NATC is released of any liability in connection with such adjustmentsIn the event there is a “negative” supplemental tax bill that results in a decrease in the current taxes, the undersigned parties are aware that a refund in whole or in part may be issued by the county tax collector directly to the sellerAny dispute or claim between the parties as a result of such a refund shall be handled between buyer and seller directly, and without involvement of NATCIf the transaction involves a short sale, the parties instruct NATC to send any refund of the property taxes paid by the seller to the short sale lender/beneficiary of the first deed of trustThe parties agree that NATC is not responsible for determining the potential for any reassessment or supplemental taxes and understand that no funds will be held in escrow to address any potential increase or additional amounts owedThe undersigned release NATC from any claim or liability relating to taxes resulting from a reassessment, supplemental taxes, and any refund or credit of taxes by the County Assessor to one party or the other." Ms [redacted] further read and approved the preliminary report, in which the supplemental taxes she claims were not levied against the Property prior to the close of escrowThe escrow transaction closed on October 9, Further to the instructions of the parties, NATC sent the first installment payment to the Sacramento County Tax Assessor’s Office and payment was received by October 26, The thrust of Ms [redacted] ’s complaint is that she wants to be reimbursed for a tax lien that was not levied against the property at the time escrow closed in this transactionAlmost one year after escrow closed, NATC received an email from the real estate broker, Susan Webster, regarding a supplemental tax bill that was charged against the PropertyTina ***, escrow officer from NATC, researched this issue and learned that the supplemental tax bill was issued on April 20, 2016, which was months after the close of escrowMs [redacted] contacted Ms [redacted] and claimed that a title search was improperly doneMs [redacted] continued to research the issue and contacted the Sacramento County Tax Assessor’s OfficeOn August 16, Ms [redacted] informed Ms [redacted] that she spoke with Yvette from the Tax Assessor’s Office ( [redacted] ) and she verified that the sellers were sent an unsecured tax bill to cover their period of ownership and that the bill that was sent to Ms [redacted] covered her period of ownershipMs [redacted] encouraged Ms [redacted] to contact the Tax Assessor’s office to confirm her findingsMs [redacted] refused to do so, and instead she demanded that NATC reimburse her for her payment of the supplemental tax bill that was charged after the close of escrowNATC had no duty to investigate beyond the state of record title to determine future supplemental tax bills or to determine whether the Property was encumbered by a lien that was not of recordThe law requires only a reasonable inquiry, not an exhaustive one [redacted] v [redacted] ***, supra, (1998) Cal.App.4th 1433, 1444-Here, NATC took reasonable steps to determine the state of title and was not required to conduct an exhaustive search for a future supplemental tax assessments or lien that were not recorded prior to the close of escrowAn escrow agent owes a limited duty of care to the parties to the escrowAn escrow agent is not a fiduciary in a general sense and has no duty to act beyond the scope of the escrow instructions actually presented to it by the parties to the escrowLee vTitle Insurance and Trust Company (1968) Cal.App.2d It is well-settled law that the instructions of the parties to the escrow constitute the full measure of the obligations owed by the escrow agent to the partiesWoodworth vRedwood Empire Savings (1971) Cal.App.3d 347; Roberts vCarter and Potruch (1956) Cal.App.2d 370; Dawson vBank of America (1950) Cal.App.2d The escrow agent must comply strictly with the instructions of the principalsHannon vWestern Title InsCo., CalRptr(App1989)According to the escrow instructions, the Ms [redacted] expressly relieved NATC from any further liability regarding supplemental taxes that were not made available prior to the close of escrowAgain, NATC had no duty to conduct and exhaustive search of future assessment that may or may not affect the PropertyMs [redacted] demand for reimbursement is directed at the wrong partyMs [redacted] needs to pursue the seller the directly if she seeks reimbursementNATC submits that there is no basis for Ms [redacted] ’s complaint to the Revdex.com based on NATC’s escrow services and this inquiry should be closed
I am rejecting this response because: While North American Title Company claims that *** *** verified that an unsecured bill was sent to the seller in the amount of the tax debt, that is both irrelevant and a red herring in this matterI was sent a secured tax bill for tax debt incurred by the previous owner of the property at * *** *** *** by the Sacramento County Tax Assessor's Office prior to the claimed issuance of an unsecured tax bill and my complaint about my payment of that secured debt to North American Title CompanyAn unsecured bill being sent to the seller of the property in question is not the equivalent of a refund of the money I paid for tax debt that I did not owe, and would have been required of the seller to pay prior to the close of escrow or disclosed to be, and accepted by me had a proper title search been conducted by North American Title CompanyThe Better Business Butrau need go no further in research than the Sacramento County Assessor's Office to ascertain that I was sent a secured tax bill for tax debt prior to my purchase of the above referenced property in Herald, Ca., that I paid it, that it was not refunded to me, and is not eligible for a refund irrespective of an unsecured tax bill being sent to the previous sellerI asked for a refund from North American Title Company of the amount I paid for tax debt, which I did not in cur, and they did not disclose after claiming to have conducted a title searchMy complaint of unprofessional and/or predatory business practices stands against North American Title Company, and all of the facts support my complaint.*** ***
On or about October 9, 2015, Ms. [redacted] bought the Property from [redacted]. NATC handled that escrow transaction. Prior to the close of escrow, NATC searched the record title, including the property taxes that needed to be paid prior to the close of escrow. According to the Sacramento County...
Tax Assessor’s website, the full amount of the property taxes for the 2015-2016 tax roll was $1,347.22. This amount was payable in two (2) installments, each amount of $673.61. A true and correct copy of the Property’s tax bill No. [redacted] that was pulled from the Sacramento County Tax Assessor’s Office website on October 6, 2015, is attached hereto as Exhibit A and is incorporated herein. The first installment of the tax bill was $673.61 and had to be paid prior to December 10, 2015. The preliminary report did not list any supplement taxes that were levied against the Property prior to the close of escrow. The parties executed several escrow instructions, which included instructions regarding Supplemental Taxes: "GENERAL PROVISIONS … 6. SUPPLEMENTAL TAXES The parties acknowledge that the property may be reassessed as a result of a change in ownership or completion of construction. Such reassessment may result in an increase or decrease in the amount of annual property taxes based on the new property value, and also may result in supplemental taxes being assessed for the current year. The parties instruct NATC to: (1) prorate taxes between buyer and seller based on the latest available general tax bill, unless the parties provide a different basis for the proration in writing to NATC; (2) pay all outstanding taxes assessed for prior years, including supplemental taxes, from seller’s proceeds, unless instructed otherwise in writing; and (3) prorate supplemental taxes which affect the current year between buyer and seller. Adjustments due either party based on the actual new tax bill issued after close of escrow or a supplemental tax bill will be made by the parties outside of escrow and NATC is released of any liability in connection with such adjustments. In the event there is a “negative” supplemental tax bill that results in a decrease in the current taxes, the undersigned parties are aware that a refund in whole or in part may be issued by the county tax collector directly to the seller. Any dispute or claim between the parties as a result of such a refund shall be handled between buyer and seller directly, and without involvement of NATC. If the transaction involves a short sale, the parties instruct NATC to send any refund of the property taxes paid by the seller to the short sale lender/beneficiary of the first deed of trust. The parties agree that NATC is not responsible for determining the potential for any reassessment or supplemental taxes and understand that no funds will be held in escrow to address any potential increase or additional amounts owed. The undersigned release NATC from any claim or liability relating to taxes resulting from a reassessment, supplemental taxes, and any refund or credit of taxes by the County Assessor to one party or the other." Ms. [redacted] further read and approved the preliminary report, in which the supplemental taxes she claims were not levied against the Property prior to the close of escrow. The escrow transaction closed on October 9, 2015. Further to the instructions of the parties, NATC sent the first installment payment to the Sacramento County Tax Assessor’s Office and payment was received by October 26, 2015. The thrust of Ms. [redacted]’s complaint is that she wants to be reimbursed for a tax lien that was not levied against the property at the time escrow closed in this transaction. Almost one year after escrow closed, NATC received an email from the real estate broker, Susan Webster, regarding a supplemental tax bill that was charged against the Property. Tina [redacted], escrow officer from NATC, researched this issue and learned that the supplemental tax bill was issued on April 20, 2016, which was 5 months after the close of escrow. Ms. [redacted] contacted Ms. [redacted] and claimed that a title search was improperly done. Ms. [redacted] continued to research the issue and contacted the Sacramento County Tax Assessor’s Office. On August 16, Ms. [redacted] informed Ms. [redacted] that she spoke with Yvette from the Tax Assessor’s Office ([redacted]) and she verified that the sellers were sent an unsecured tax bill to cover their period of ownership and that the bill that was sent to Ms. [redacted] covered her period of ownership. Ms. [redacted] encouraged Ms. [redacted] to contact the Tax Assessor’s office to confirm her findings. Ms. [redacted] refused to do so, and instead she demanded that NATC reimburse her for her payment of the supplemental tax bill that was charged after the close of escrow. NATC had no duty to investigate beyond the state of record title to determine future supplemental tax bills or to determine whether the Property was encumbered by a lien that was not of record. The law requires only a reasonable inquiry, not an exhaustive one. [redacted] [redacted] v. [redacted], supra, (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1433, 1444-1445. Here, NATC took reasonable steps to determine the state of title and was not required to conduct an exhaustive search for a future supplemental tax assessments or lien that were not recorded prior to the close of escrow. An escrow agent owes a limited duty of care to the parties to the escrow. An escrow agent is not a fiduciary in a general sense and has no duty to act beyond the scope of the escrow instructions actually presented to it by the parties to the escrow. Lee v. Title Insurance and Trust Company (1968) 264 Cal.App.2d 160. It is well-settled law that the instructions of the parties to the escrow constitute the full measure of the obligations owed by the escrow agent to the parties. Woodworth v. Redwood Empire Savings (1971) 22 Cal.App.3d 347; Roberts v. Carter and Potruch (1956) 140 Cal.App.2d 370; Dawson v. Bank of America (1950) 100 Cal.App.2d 305. The escrow agent must comply strictly with the instructions of the principals. Hannon v. Western Title Ins. Co., 260 Cal. Rptr. 21 (App. 1989). According to the escrow instructions, the Ms. [redacted] expressly relieved NATC from any further liability regarding supplemental taxes that were not made available prior to the close of escrow. Again, NATC had no duty to conduct and exhaustive search of future assessment that may or may not affect the Property. Ms. [redacted] demand for reimbursement is directed at the wrong party. Ms. [redacted] needs to pursue the seller the directly if she seeks reimbursement. NATC submits that there is no basis for Ms. [redacted]’s complaint to the Revdex.com based on NATC’s escrow services and this inquiry should be closed.