Levin & Associates,LLC

Dear [redacted] This office is legal counsel to [redacted] I am writing with respect to the complaint tiled by [redacted] ***.First and very very important [redacted] IS NOT OUR CLIENT and NEVER has been our clientWe are a title insurance company and our obligation is exclusively to our insured, the buyer, [redacted] ***, not [redacted] ***, the seller.The seller, in the agreement of sale, agreed to sell the property "free and clear of all liens." See paragraph J7, lines 509-of the attachedAs you can see by the attached commitment, Section B1, paragraphs 12-15, there were numerous liens against the properlyAccording to public records, the seller took no documented steps to remove these liensDespite ample notice to the seller, we paid these liens in accordance with the terms of the contractIn reality, the tune to appeal had long passed and we were obligated to pay them in order to protect OUR CLIENTI cannot emphasize enough that the complainant is not our clientI encouraged Par Passu to seek resolution from the courts, but there is absolutely no proof that they have done soThese were valid judgments that we were required to payThe ONLY authorization that we needed was the agreement of sale itself.This complaint is completely disingenuous and if the seller thought the judgments were without merit, they still can seek relief from the courtsThe seller agreed that they would not hold us liable for any act taken in good faithSee attached Escrow agreement, paragraph We acted in good faith and we did what we were required to do in order to protect our insured.We have fulfilled our obligation to our client and our client has no issue with the services we provided on their behalfMad we not done so, OUR CLIENT would have a legitimate complaint against us.Sincerely,Murray L Esq

March 8, 2016Dear *** ***This office remains legal counsel to *** ***I am writing again with regard to ***.To be clear, *** *** *** is not a title company or title insurerThe title company and insurer is First American Title insurance CompanyWe are an independent agentsaid as much in my prior letter of February when I wrote to clarify, we are neither a title "insurer” or a title “company.” We are an agent for our underwriter, *** *** *** *** ***"Also, as explained in that letter, *** has no conflict in being a title agent and escrow agent, repeat what I previously wrote: The complainant takes exception that we identify ourselves as a title insurance agentThis is exactly what we areAs a title agent, we are REQUIRED to have an escrow account and serve as an escrow agentTitle agents are often referred to as escrow agentsWere we not an escrow agent, we would be in violation of Pennsylvania title regulationsTo state that we cannot be a title agent and an escrow agent is a conflict in patently wrongEvery title agency in the United States operates in both capacities and MUST act as an escrow agent to perform its day to day functions"We have no conflict of interestThis allegation is a total fabricationOur only obligation is to clear the liens against the property in an expeditious manner to protect the insuredDespite the fact that this property was sold in July of 2015, to date the complainant has provided no written documentation that it has challenged these liens in court.As to the five questions raisedThe SEA was executed to give the complainant some time to resolve the liensAs stated above, it became evident that no documented attempt to resolve was ever initiatedWe can only surmise by the lack of any documentation in this regard that they have not done soThe SEA specifically allows *** us to use its independent judgmentTHE SEA states that The Company (*** ***) acting as escrow agent shall not be liable for any error of judgment or any act taken or omitted to be taken in good faith..." *** clearly acted in good faith in order to protect the insured’s purchase of the complainants real estate*** had no obligation to wait for a specific date for the complainants liens to be removedIn fact, the complainant should have initiated legal action the day of or immediately after the settlement Having confirmed by checking the docket entries online, it became evident that the complainant was taking no actionThese liens and judgments ranged from to years oldTo say that *** acted prematurely is completely disingenuousAlso, interest continued to accrue on these liens and had they not been paid, the amount due would have continued to rise causing the real possibility that the amount being held would be insufficientThe SEA form that was used is similar to the one that is used by all title agentsThere is no need for additional disclosuresThe form clearly states that the funds “shall be released to the complainant upon satisfaction of the above terms and conditions and after receipt by the Company and upon written confirmation from ail parties heretoNow more than eight months have passed and there has still been no written confirmation of the resolution or challenge of these liensHad the complainant bought title insurance when it bought the property, all of these issues would have been mootThe complainant has not and cannot challenge their failure to do soThe email from *** *** triggered a review of the file and it was determined that the complainant hadn't taken any legal action to remove these liensUpon direction from counsel, the liens were paid off as was within the complaint discretion and judgment of *** no longer has these fundsThey have been paid to the CourtIf the complainant is of the opinion that the court should not have these funds, it should petition the Court for the return of the fundsIt has not done so because it knows that there are no legal grounds to challenge these liens or their payment*** did the right thing by paying these in order to give the insured clear title to the propertyHaving paid these funds to the proper authorities*** has no reason to request the return of these fundsThe money is not owed to the complainantIt is and was the obligation of *** to pay the funds due.*** gave the complainant more than ample notice that *** was going to release the fundsThese dealt with liens against the property that they were selling and the complainant was obligated to pay these as documented in the agreement of sale and as I documented in my first response*** tried to accommodate the complainant by giving them an opportunity to resolve the liens, but complainant has failed to do soTo this date, *** has received no documentation that they have done soThe complainant has had and may still have the opportunity to challenge these liens to the court and request the return of funds*** can only surmise by the lack of any documentation in this regard that the complainant has not done soAs was stated in the prior letter, you will note that the complainant states that he has made verbal and in person attempts to resolve the issuesThe proper way to resolve a complaint with the lien holders is by written appeal or complaintThe statute of frauds requires written documentation on any matter involving real estateAgain, as counsel, I have seen no documentation that this was done and a verbal complaint is not admissible in a court of law or even at arbitration.Please note that the complainant does not challenge ***s prior response concerning complainant’s failure to procure title insurance for their ownership of the propertySpecifically, it was stated that complainant has made numerous attempts to get indemnified by the previous title insurer is blatant nonsense because they had NO INSURANCEOnce a property is transferred, the old title insurance is automatically terminatedHad they bought title insurance when the individuals owners transferred the property to their wholly owned LLC, this Revdex.com complaint would not exist because the liens would have been resolved at that timeThey took a chance by transferring a property without insurance, and they are trying to shift their negligence to *** is not responsible for the risk the complainant took by buying a property without obtaining title insurance.Sincerely,Murray L., Esq

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the responseIf no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:Firstly, we certainly have standing to file this complaint
with the Revdex.com. That is a matter for the
Revdex.com to decide, not the respondent. Had
it not been for the unauthorized actions of *** *** (**), this
complaint would not have been filed and ACCEPTED by the Revdex.com.
The latest response from ** dated February 10, is
simply more of its specious arguments to defend the indefensible. ** can’t seem to get its facts straight. First, it is a “title insurance company”, then
it’s not one. First, the time to appeal
our liens “had long passed”, then we “may still have the opportunity to
challenge these liens.”
** states “We gave complainant more than ample notice that
we were going to release the funds.”
THIS IS PATENTLY UNTRUE. As
stated in our previous response, the only “notice” we received from ** was an
email dated October 6, in which we were given a deadline of October 9,
to respond. Even if we had
responded on the latter date, it would have been too late because the funds had
already been released by ** on October 7, 2015.
** states “we are neither a title “insurer” or a title
“company.”” It further states that it
is now an “escrow agent” and a “title
agent” for *** *** *** *** *** (***). Whatever ** may be or may not be, the fact is
that it had/has a conflict of interest as between the buyer and the seller when
it signed off on the Settlement Escrow Agreement (SEA) on July 24, as an “escrow
agent”; this is further evidenced by its actions after the fact.
The SEA is the centerpiece of our complaint. The SEA is silent about the buyer being **’s
client. The SEA is also silent as to ** being
a “title agent’ for ***. It refers to
** as an “escrow agent”. We signed the
SEA in good faith and with the understanding and belief that ** was obli**ted
to be an impartial stakeholderWe would
have never signed the SEA if we had been aware of **’s actual conflict of
interest as between the buyer and seller.
There are more questions than answers with respect to **’s
actions. To date, ** has not directly
answered the following questions to which we demand a response:
1. If we had not done
our “due diligence prior to settlement” in resolving the liens and “the ONLY
authorization” needed to pay same liens was the agreement of sale, than why did
** have the buyer and seller execute a SEA?
2. Why, on **’s email
to us dated October 6, 2015, did it give us an email lien payment deadline of October
9, to respond yet, without ANY further notice to us, ** actually paid same
liens on October 7, 2015? Why did ** not
honor the deadline it established?
3. If ** is a “title
insurance agent” for *** and its client is the buyer only and its obligation
is to protect only the buyer, than why does the SEA not state same? Why does the SEA not have full
disclosure?
4. Why did ** pay the
liens as a direct result of receiving an erroneously email dated October 6,
from realtor *** *** (who was not a party to the SEA) instructing ** to
do so?
Why has ** refused to release to us the
balance of our funds (it still holds in escrow) pursuant our written request for
same dated December 29, 2015?
Again, we insist that ** RECOVER THE MUNICIPAL LIEN AMOUNTS
THAT IT PREMATURELY AND UNILATERALLY PAID (WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION) @
$3,ON October 7, AND RESTORE IT BACK TO OUR ESCROW ACCOUNT.
Regards,
*** *** *
Regards,
*** *** ***

Dear [redacted]This office is legal counsel to [redacted]. I am writing with respect to the complaint tiled by [redacted].First and very very important. [redacted] IS NOT OUR CLIENT and NEVER has been our client. We are a title insurance company and our obligation is exclusively to...

our insured, the buyer, [redacted], not [redacted], the seller.The seller, in the agreement of sale, agreed to sell the property "free and clear of all liens." See paragraph J7, lines 509-511 of the attached. As you can see by the attached commitment, Section B1, paragraphs 12-15, there were numerous liens against the properly. According to public records, the seller took no documented steps to remove these liens. Despite ample notice to the seller, we paid these liens in accordance with the terms of the contract. In reality, the tune to appeal had long passed and we were obligated to pay them in order to protect OUR CLIENT. I cannot emphasize enough that the complainant is not our client. I encouraged Par Passu to seek resolution from the courts, but there is absolutely no proof that they have done so. These were valid judgments that we were required to pay. The ONLY authorization that we needed was the agreement of sale itself.This complaint is completely disingenuous and if the seller thought the judgments were without merit, they still can seek relief from the courts. The seller agreed that they would not hold us liable for any act taken in good faith. See attached Escrow agreement, paragraph 6. We acted in good faith and we did what we were required to do in order to protect our insured.We have fulfilled our obligation to our client and our client has no issue with the services we provided on their behalf. Mad we not done so, OUR CLIENT would have a legitimate complaint against us.Sincerely,Murray L.  Esq.