Von Hagen v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company et al
Filing
18
ORDER granting 15 Motion for Summary Judgment, it is ORDERED, that judgment shall enter for the defendant, dismissing this civil action and awarding costs, by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 8/14/2014.(evana, ) (Main Document 18 replaced on 8/14/2014 with Order) (evana, ). (Modified on 8/14/2014 attached Order)(evana, ).
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch
Civil Action No. 14-cv-00758-RPM
RONOLD L. VON HAGEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT
_____________________________________________________________________
Invoking jurisdiction provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1332, Ronold L. Van Hagen seeks
damages from Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, successor to Lawyers Title
Insurance Corporation, for an alleged breach of a title insurance policy issued to him
when he purchased land in San Miguel County, Colorado, in 1986. The defendant
moved for summary judgment of dismissal based on the following undisputed facts.
1. Plaintiff took title to the subject real property located in San Miguel County,
Colorado, (the “Property) by warranty deed recorded in the public records of San Miguel
County, Colorado, on June 4, 1986, Reception No. 243650.
2. A quit claim deed from the Alpine Land Company to Plaintiff, recorded in the
public records of San Miguel County, Colorado, on June 9, 1986, in Book 427 at Page
736.
3. The San Miguel Title Co. Issued Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation Owner’s
Policy number 85-00-477973, in the amount of $586,000.00, with a date of June 5,
1986, with Plaintiff as the named insured (the “Policy”).
4. By bargain and sale deed recorded in San Miguel County, Colorado, on May
28, 2008, at Reception No 401873, the Plaintiff conveyed title to the Property to “Ronold
Von Hagen, as Trustee of the Ronold Von Hagen 2007 Revocable Trust Dated June 15,
2007.”
5. Plaintiff sent formal notice of claim under the Policy to the Defendant by letter
dated December 22, 2010.
6. Defendant denied the Plaintiff’s claim under the Policy by letter dated
February 4, 2011.
7. Plaintiff is currently the owner of the Property by virtue of a Bargain and Sale
Deed from Ronold Von Hagen, as Trustee of the Ronold Von Hagen 2007 Revocable
Trust Dated June 15, 2007, recorded in San Miguel County, Colorado, on June 2, 2011.
The Policy’s Conditions and Stipulations include the following provision:
The coverage of this policy shall continue in force as of Date of Policy in favor
of an insured so long as such insured retains an estate or interest in the land .
. . or so long as such insured shall have liability by reason of covenants of
warranty made by such insured in any transfer or conveyance of such estate
or interest; provided, however, this policy shall not continue in force in favor of
any purchaser from such insured of either said estate or interest . . . .
The transfer of title described in paragraph number four above terminated
coverage of the policy.
The plaintiff contends that he continued to have an interest in the land because
the trust is revocable and he was the sole grantor/settlor, trustee and beneficiary of the
trust. The trust was created for tax purposes. Under Colorado real estate law the
conveyance gave title to the trust as an entity. C.R.S. § 38-30-108.5 and divested Von
2
Hagen of any interest in the land.
He apparently recognized this result by conveying title back to himself after his
claim was denied and before filing this lawsuit.
Because coverage terminated on May 28, 2008, by the express terms of the
insurance contract, it is
ORDERED, that judgment shall enter for the defendant, dismissing this civil
action and awarding costs.
Dated:
August 14th, 2014
BY THE COURT:
s/Richard P. Matsch
________________________________
Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?