Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

damagesattorneywill
damagesattorneywill

Related Cases

The Florida Bar v. Neale, 384 So.2d 1264
View Case »
The Florida Bar v. Littman, 612 So.2d 582, 18 Fla. L. Weekly S107
View Case »
Diversified Industries, Inc. v. Meredith, 572 F.2d 596, 23 Fed.R.Serv.2d 1473, 24 Fed.R.Serv.2d 1201, 1977-2 Trade Cases P 61,591, 1978-1 Trade Cases P 61,879
View Case »
Dukes v. Warden, Conn. State Prison, 406 U.S. 250, 92 S.Ct. 1551, 32 L.Ed.2d 45
View Case »
United States v. Simels, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2023 WL 4599839
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Gleason v. Title Guarantee Co., 317 F.2d 56

Facts

The Title Guarantee Company relied on the certification of clear title provided by attorney William H. Gleason when it guaranteed various mortgages as first mortgages. However, these mortgages were later found to be subordinate to other mortgages, leading to financial losses for the title company. The title company incurred costs of $83,978.57 to remove the prior encumbrances, while the face value of the collateral acquired was only $63,562.78. The case arose from the title company's reliance on Gleason's certification, which was based on outdated information.

The Title Guarantee Company relied on the certification of clear title provided by attorney William H. Gleason when it guaranteed various mortgages as first mortgages. However, these mortgages were later found to be subordinate to other mortgages, leading to financial losses for the title company. The title company incurred costs of $83,978.57 to remove the prior encumbrances, while the face value of the collateral acquired was only $63,562.78.

Issue

Whether the title examining attorney, William H. Gleason, was liable to the Title Guarantee Company for damages resulting from his erroneous certification of clear title.

Whether the title examining attorney, William H. Gleason, was liable to the Title Guarantee Company for damages resulting from his erroneous certification of clear title.

Rule

An attorney may be held liable for damages if a title company relies on their certification of clear title, which is later proven to be erroneous, resulting in financial loss.

An attorney may be held liable for damages if a title company relies on their certification of clear title, which is later proven to be erroneous, resulting in financial loss.

Analysis

The court determined that Gleason's certification was based on outdated information, which he failed to verify adequately. The title company had a reasonable expectation that the attorney's certification was accurate, and the attorney's failure to conduct a proper examination of the title led to the title company's financial losses. The court found that the attorney's actions fell short of the standard of care expected in the profession, particularly given the reliance of the title company on his expertise.

The court determined that Gleason's certification was based on outdated information, which he failed to verify adequately. The title company had a reasonable expectation that the attorney's certification was accurate, and the attorney's failure to conduct a proper examination of the title led to the title company's financial losses.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the Title Guarantee Company, holding that Gleason was liable for the damages incurred due to his erroneous certification. The case was remanded for a determination of the exact amount of damages owed.

The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the Title Guarantee Company, holding that Gleason was liable for the damages incurred due to his erroneous certification.

Who won?

The Title Guarantee Company prevailed in the case because the court found that it had reasonably relied on the attorney's certification of clear title, which was proven to be erroneous.

The Title Guarantee Company prevailed in the case because the court found that it had reasonably relied on the attorney's certification of clear title, which was proven to be erroneous.

You must be