is a fairly straight straightforward case based upon a simple undisputed set of facts in a contract in this case the contract is a type of insurance policy i was close on their home august first two thousand  the title insurance policy that we're talking about today at the time of the closing all the parties knew that there was this issue with regard to back taxes that's that's not something that's disputed in this case so let's let's be clear about that because it seems that the romans protected themselves against back taxes arising in two thousand and six that repro ration agree but they didn't protect themselves for those seen that taxes that might have a risen in the very same way that it has by an assessment of the property hasn't proved as opposed to bacon for two thousand and six taxes were just the straightforward taxes because taxes are paid a year and a rears at the time of the closing two thousand and six taxes were going to be paid in two thousand and seven the parties knew that it was under a sas so we put together this escrow stop right there when you knew it was under a sat do you think that under assessment applied only to two thousand and six or do you think that neither assessment applied to two thousand  and two thousand and four we didn't believe that applied to two thousand and forty one because under the statute property tax all nine slash two seventy it's said that a good value for good faith not a full blown trial to determine what the good faith knowledge was on the part of the rose regarding two thousand and five and two thousand for the it's admitted that the rounds knew about the improper assessments how do we get to could think they did not know that it would end up being a lien on your property and that they would be responsible they thought by complying with section two  dash seventy and notifying their assessor that the tax you know that this was improper your sest they would be shielded from liability and that i would end up paying those taxes it would be if the county would would eat those t e seventy says that a good faith purchaser without notice of the tax doesn't have to pay if they provide this notice the notice was provided but the county took the position and it's the you know the position  anyone that if you have notice of the improper assessment that's the same thing as having notice of the tax that wasn't known to the wrong that wasn't known to me as counsel for the runs in the closing now ted the title of the title company not provided insurance over the taxes then there would have been a different result what result would have been different then you would have said it what there has to be some protection for the possibility of back taxes but the policy didn't include exclude back taxes the policy excluded taxes for two thousand and six and subsequent years covered by this language is that what you're saying that that's exactly what i'm saying if you were to walk into the accounting office and say what are these these taxes for what those are for the years two thousand and four and two thousand and five there are not two thousand and six taxes and if you're going but it sort of raises an interesting question that concerns the nature of you say the contract actually between the roans and first american title certainly that's true but it's a it's an insurance contract in an insurance contract but it isn't just by virtue of the contract it is you examine the risks the contract is meant to insure against and often times it's it's it's it's it's a is not unknown to either party it's certainly you're right it's known to first american title but it's also known to the rolls so why should why should the contract insure against the risk both known to both if it's clear that this falls within the four corners of this policy it is of lean or incompetence or defect in title under the definition by the illinois supreme court and again they had every opportunity to expand coverage and that's what the mclachlan hay says this is something that they could have determined and they shouldn't determine if they did want to cover they should exclude coverage now or whether they have written here doesn't exclude coverage at best it's it's ambiguous and those are you saying that the rolls relied on at closing the possibility that first american idol was going to exclude that risk or was going to it include that rests on  if the roles were really concerned about where that risk was they probably would have taken care they've taken steps to protect themselves as opposed to saying well let's go to  closing and see whether or not first america tidal waves this exception if they waive the exception then we're covered if they don't wait a second then what quick rose have got to come pull that money out of their own pocket because they haven't they have to force the sellers who are the really the responsible parties here to assume that liability which they receive the benefits of essentially the contract said you will convey title subject only to two thousand six taxes and afterwards if they did not come in with a title insurance policy that said ok we're we're covering a taxes except for two thousand and six which isn't doing yet i sharing if they didn't do that they would be in breach of the contract so we simply be sorry or hire company raises an issue with these backpacks is how do we resolve it you know we can look at the neighbors and see what they've been taxed at and you're just going to have to put in enough money to cover it and you know that's what would have happened if if the title company did not you know appear to insure over this defect in title it would have been ok how are you going to how we're going to resolve this open issue and the type of company we've been off the hook and then it would have been a private matter between just the seller and the buyer so why if it could have been a this that that the title insurance company was liable to get to bring in the sellers would have you know extended this case you know there might have been factual issues whatever it looked to me like there was clear liability that's why there's a section one fifty five claim and we really you know brought this to a head very quickly and i didn't want this dragging on you know for years because we had a bunch of different parties and the title in the neighborhood and if so they might end up losing i don't think there's a bit any reason for for remanding because the groans conceded that they had knowledge of the improper assessment at closing they didn't have knowledge and in fact believe the opposite that they wouldn't be responsible for the back taxes so long as they comply with section two seventy which is what they did and then the fact that the title company went along with that reinforced that belief one final question for me anyway regarding the lack of knowledge on earth if the buyer said no to seven because if the buyers are good safe purchasers without notice then the county doesn't have any basis for going after those taxes and they're protected by section you know nine dash two  was notice then they say ok this is a lien because because the county can go back in and assess the property for these taxes so it is in fact a de two thousand and six and any years after that which are not yet doing payable if they wanted to do you know this is something that they drafted at closing and they could have crafted this any way they wanted and if they wanted to draft it the way that first american just trying to make it read or they would have just said general taxes which are not yet doing table the interpretation they're taking essentially takes out the two thousand and sixteen and the subsequent years language and makes it meaningless so that is why the rounds interpretation of of this exception makes more sense and gives effect to all the language contained in the special exception case and tends to look towards more like this universal law on title insurance and so you know about don't pay attention to that this is the way things are done with and title insurance but this is a matter of state law and never does an adequate job of distinguishing him and mclaughlin in the two cases i read in conjunction they both reach the same result using you know similar reasoning and that the reasoning found in bell mclachlan and in winter is that something can be a lean just because there's the threat of the brain and it may never materialize just like in maclaughlin those inheritance taxes may never ha materialized and in the present case the back taxes may never have materialized the county could have just you know gone or after three years i believe there's a special invitation so that's the basis for the supreme court's happen that's true that's true didn't notify the county by you know certified mail that this property had been it had been under assessed and that was really that is what the stablish is the good faith belief of the rounds that they were not going to be liable for this that ok we will comply with the sections to seventy and and there won't be any liability and we thought that we were doing you know what the title company would have why is that a good faith basis why i would that insulate them from having to pay the taxes of the counties that you know you're right they are it isn't it understands that we're going to go ahead populous us as we should because every taxpayer should years shut not be made against any property for years prior to the date of ownership of the person owner of the property at the time the liability for the amended tax was first ascertain ownership as used in a section shall refer to bona fide legal an equitable title here where you're saying that this future assessment that occurred has to go back has to be covered under the under this very same language because it pertains to earlier than two thousand a so you're reading these two these two unrelated phrases in precisely the opposite way where there's a difference between back taxes and assessed the the plain language of the brown the supreme court brown and then as was that definition was applied to back taxes in virtually identical situation that there's no question that they were assessed afterwards the fact that they  are back taxes that relate to years before the closing that under the plain language of the policy it looks like they're covered based upon the deficit definition of what is  in order to protect themselves you know i put in order to protect themselves you have to get the package if they continued to assess it it's vacant land during their ownership and you know that that goes on for years and then if in the absence of this notice the county could come back and say pay us for it for these you know these years where you owned it and you say well no we gave you this notice so i was insulating them for actually going to the the the years in which they actually owned it and i did it's not only required to do it ok but if in the absence of doing just in summary the romans went to great lengths they were lying in the weeds on this they believed in good faith that there was no liability here they did what they thought they're supposed to do and then they laid this all out for first american in several letters that went back and forth and first american at all points said if there's anything else you want to consider well we'll look at it and everything that's in these briefs pretty much  claim and that is notice to the first american i think just i can't be sure but i think there may be agents for limited purposes and the question is did notice regarding the under assessed assessment of the real property involved listings services noticed the first american idol that hit waves those exceptions that closing it does fractional duty there's no tort duty for an insurance company for example to go out and search property to determine whether there's potential in coate liens which aren't liens at all the other potential in anything could be a potential this is not a lien on the property pro for payment they made to the county that they never had to pay they might even be able to go back and if their money back the statute reads a charge this is the omitted assessments and by the way i do take issue with the terminology back taxes this isn't a fourteen forty shall not be made against any property for years prior to the date of ownership prior to the date of ownership of the person owning the property at the time the liability for the omitted tax was first ascertain and then it defines ownership as used in this section shall be held to refer to a bona fide legal and equitable titles for interest acquired fairly value without notice of the tax as they may appear by the deed or deed of trust mortgage certificate of purchase  created suffered or soon to or agreed to by the insured claimant so i couldn't get that admission at trial but today i do because they voluntarily went to the county and paid taxes that day that day they it was under assessed so the county knew that they were not responsible if if if they had the same reading of nine s two seven zero as you would have so it isn't such a simple thing to say you know we're not paying taxes they would so it's not such a simple matter and in fact they litigated this which they felt was a better bet a risk with ok there's the question in there is i think is the county assessed these taxes and therefore doesn't that suggest that the romans would have to pay the taxes because they are and you are were they shouldn't you shouldn't be able to stand there and say they should now to pay the taxes pattern never gets the appellate court why because there's only one county in the state of illinois that can charge committed assassins and that's the count counties over three million people there are thousands of transactions out there currently where title companies have not excluded on say there are thousands of properties that are sitting out there probably hundreds of thousands of properties out there for which an omitted assessment will be charged and the homeowner will get it and say i'm a one of the year which ersatz i don't care that their form reads two thousand and forty five in fact their form even says the taxes aren't doing payable until the second installment of two thousand and eight so when you ask me the question what will the assessor say the thousand six hundred cannot be any other conclusion there is no evidence in the record that mr not it knew that there was no improvements of the property in any year other than intentionally two thousand and six because it's the only year that was asked for except that he  there's no evidence he don't want to his deposition ok i mean if we can make educated guesses but there's no evidence and that was the plaintiff's decision in headset here's your warranty but i exclude any i exclude any defects that hatch to the property after the date of closing then one would go a different way and that would be the way to distinguish them in other words is the seller's attorney keep order the title policy each other is no agency contract that's been admitted into evidence in the record i don't even know that one exists i'm not an ija first american title but i could order title insurance from on behalf of the seller first american them in the line and to craft their contract an expert way to make clear what they are still holding in maclaughlin is that there is not a tour of duty by the insurance company title insurance company by the therefore your policy doesn't have to cover the risk that was didn't exist for them that's one way we've also got other exclusions make it up i mean it's covered under so many different exclusions you can pick and choose  which is part of the record here says that they are a major the other thing that run it is part of the record that we notified the county and council was aware of that but the thing that really bothered me when i was sitting here is we filed this as a decade not as a breach of contract action had we just paid the taxes and went after him it would've been a breach of contract it was it back because we brought the sectionin june taxes weren't do as he said they're not doing to the second installment of zero eight which is in the fall we brought it in june there was christmas between or he says you case may not be liable for this you know what that was my reading of section nine days t taxes for two thousand two thousand and five attached are the facts bills for your references insured purchased in two thousand and six insurers do not believe they are liable for the taxes based upon their status as a good faith purchaser for value without notice of  appears they took the ad like let's just deny this and will come up with a you know an explanation for it later but first american i believe under the policy when we said hey we've got this problem they should be able to just say well take care you know we're really talking about cook county one this is easily determinable easily this is a residential condo those assessed as vacant land they could have easily determine this lester agent knew all about so the easier you were saying that's why that explains the absence in the proration three of the years two thousand four to five feet under this section situation where we figured this out afterwards how are we going to get the title policy we've looked at this issue before and concluded that we weren't going to be liable and then decided to abide by section one hundred fifty seven the first american when we notified them should then and protected our interest they had plenty of opportunity to do so and we said we would cooperate with you with you know it every way to do this so and then there was some reference to the property tax code again i'm relying on the illinois supreme court definition of brown he referred to it in lynn as a rambo case in and has been around for almost thirty years you know if you find any significance in the only  well i don't think it is it's cited you know through two thousand and nine and same with the mclachlan aquatinted been around for over thirty years and there's been no criticism of these cases so i don't see this case is any different than melodic walking so i appreciate your questions i appreciate the fact that you've looked at this so thoroughly and thank you for the course and we think both