Savage even required the sellers to arrange for an archaeological survey. He noted that the Pinckney family previously sold the 4.3 acre tract to another set of buyers in 1966, and no one said anything at that time.

Still, when the lawsuit arose, Savage put his title insurance company and others on notice. “I didn’t have a sense of peace,” he said. “Worry doesn’t get you anywhere … (but) the fear was, ‘Hey, I might lose my household.’ “

“I knew somebody was going to be sadly disappointed, but there was nothing else I could have done,” he said.

Read entire article in the Post & Courier

Joseph Lipari and Debra Silverman Herman
New York Law Journal September 17, 2010

The TSBM explains that to better reflect controlling judicial case law, the tax department is reversing its prior correspondence that indicated that sales of abstracts of title (condensed history of title to a particular piece of real estate) were not subject to sales tax. Therefore, on or after Sept. 1, 2010, sales of an abstract of title to either a prospective purchaser of real property or to an attorney who uses the abstract in connection with an opinion of title are taxable information services.

Notably, the TSBM concluded that a title search conducted by an attorney is exempt as the provision of legal services. While abstracts of title do reflect raw data, and therefore represent the type of information the sales tax law intended to be taxed as an information service, they are often used to prepare policies of title insurance. Difficult issues arise when the sale of the abstract is in connection with the sale of title insurance, since insurance is not subject to sales tax.

Read entire article (free registration required)

Download pdf of TSB-M-10(7)S

U.S. Court Of Appeals, Second Circuit

Panel Rejects Oneida Bid for Compensation For Upstate Land

Oneida Indian Nation of New York, Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin, Oneida of The Thames—Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants, United States of America —Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, v. County of Oneida, County of Madison—Defendants-Cross-Appellees, State of New York—Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, 07-2430-cv(L), 07-2548-cv(XAP), 07-2550-cv(XAP) (full text of Decision)

The Oneida Indian Nation lost a major court decision Monday that could doom its 40-year-old land claim case. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan ruled that the nation can’t reclaim its ancient lands and the state doesn’t have to pay any money for the 250,000 acres the Oneidas say was illegally taken from them centuries ago. The Oneidas had said they were owed at least $500 million. If the ruling stands, it sweeps away decades of uncertainty for thousands of landowners in Oneida and Madison counties, who at one point faced eviction under the lawsuit.

(See full article- The Post- Standard [Syracuse])

Adam Leitman Bailey, founding partner of Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., and Dov Treiman, a partner at the firm, write:

Currently before the State Legislature are two bills that would inject the state in the business of title insurance, damaging New York’s standing as the capital of real estate transactions. One would broaden the power of the State Insurance Fund to provide a State alternative to the current private system of title insurance. The other would create a new state title authority for the same purpose. Many real estate attorneys see these bills as a threat, both to the heart of the safe transfer of real estate and to the capitalist system itself.

Read the full text of this article here.

For those who may have difficulty in accessing or using the Scribd form below:

HUD has moved its new official fill-in form from a separate page to its complete list of forms. It can be downloaded by clicking here.