please accord austin going on behalf of security service federal credit union good morning the appeal of originally was solely wrote relating to coverage provided under title insurance policy was an additional issue hike or an marketability necessarily you were quoted as the title to the property to be forever a vested in the insured most actually all of the cases which are cited by the polies to state that there no claim or that the quote relied on are an attack on the title by a third party well in the another marketability claim it isn't an attack on the title but not all on marketability of property pertains to defect title there can but if we were to disagree with you on the market ability or on the question of defect in title that is if we were to hold as a matter of law that there was no defect in the title just do all of your claims fall or are there any that would remain with out an underlying theory that there's a title defect if there is no title defect the fraud claim still stand to the five claims still stand to the extent that the condition which is preventing the just asking questions about what claims may remain if it's determined that there is no defect in title and wouldn't you say let's assume hypothetically that you did own all thirteen l and that you went to the time your client the time trouble and expense of curing the problem wouldn't you have a contract or and or fraud claim based on that effort and that experience yes right or anything that stems from the fact that we don't have the that's what's confusing to me about the franklin because it all comes in your explanation to an alleged defect in title and i don't understand now if we were to hold that there has has never if we were to halt and i understand you don't agree seeing how the fraud allegations were completely independent of the title defect issue because it is after all a title insurance policy so if there's no title problem it seems like it all would have to go or do you take the position that first american that you have a claim against first american for failure to obtain the approval it was required the claim is not for the fact that they failed to obtain it it's the damages that really means it was it correct well no actually order less security service can't sell the property that's what we received the fee simple interest and to grow and show them if we could sell the property we wouldn't be here but it seems to me you're confusing title with marketability no a you which is not required under the interim provision to read the dollars or to require us to sell the lots and broke i defy you to look in the contract or to find case law that requires under that contract that we go outside scope of the individual title cases a lesion title itself in this case is perfect there is no problem with contends that it has to comply with government regulations in order to be able to sell the property that's not a title defect plaintiff asserts that it cannot sell a lots that's not true it needs to comply with government regulations and as an issue i'm a case as for the end of that opinion the fact that somebody and short might be were quire to comply with reasonable besides any other police power the point here is that the exercise of the police power is not something that isn't sure why the title insurance company and i want to focus on just one point here the and in connection with the painting the public report i would say the obligation to honor our client was at one point what's known in the industry is the single responsible party which is the single point of contact through the department of real estate for processing paperwork all responsible doesn't mean you were supposed to do it that's correct your honor that's exactly right interesting choice of yours it is it's selected by the government and in fact i made a point to throw to declarations in that regard in the record at e r six ninety seven six ninety eight and eight sixty forty eight sixty five a point of contact for the convenience of that apartment or resistor agents are well in a sense i guess yes exactly the do you know he says we want to know that we can communicate with one person we don't want to after worry about ten guess and your client had failed to tell the landowner would they have been responsible i don't think so no particular have that responsibility no your honor and also the reason like a post office box with no forwarding address no but certainly something to that what you're saying but what i'm saying is that under the law in california there is no obligation let's assume that this that the lack of the report does public report is not on that checklist just far as i know it's not yes right your honor i mean it might be because in your view it doesn't affect title it affects something else that's correct now it grabbed me it would be if first american were for example handling the escrow aspect of it which first american here was not keep in mind also that it was orange coast title that was issuing the policies on behalf of first america title insurance company ad the first american had been first american wasn't involved in that aspect of of the transaction but i ask you a question about that you started to talk about the fraud claims and i explored this with mr turner as well  in the most expansive view of the fog claims here would any claim of fraud survive if there is no defect in title and there has never if in fact title was marketable if the lack of a federal court doesn't affect the marketability of the title there can be no fraud but i would go a step further and i would say that under the statutes and has fought in california the laws in our theory is crystal clear that claims of fraud cannot be premised on an insurance title sure's failure to disclose something regarding period the reason for that is the case isn't statute say that no one may well lie on what a title insurance does or doesn't do as a representation or concealment of the condition of the title and so if no one can condition of title at the policy date the less that it suffer must result from something that existed on the policy date that's got into the provisions of the policy california supreme court as explained in  something that in fact a rose years after the policies were issued as a result of plaintiff acquiring the north american over a duty to disclose to new horizons securit certainly i think part of the problem here is that plaintiff was replace predecessor was out of state dealing with in state property it didn't know really what the last words they had met and i think that's a failure of their underwriting as well yes we do and we think that the provision in the purchase an assumption agreement in this case is different in that the purchasing assumption agreement in this case says that except as expressed and provided in that purchase an assumption the under the policy to go forward and to make future claims had there been a defect in the title as opposed to the market ability would it be your position that they could swim your client they have the right to pursue a title anything as a as the single responsible party they do that for nothing now they do that for one reason they provide that service so that they can then have the business to issue these title insurance policies they do that service because they series of transactions they've been issued the title insurance policies their files containing all of that information the price contain the fact that they initiated to be the single responsible party for their files were fact that they didn't do it that they received letters from the d m v that they were single responsible party and then they issued title just policies and then they say we don't play dirty but the case is discussed about their liability for non disclosure talk about cases where they were acting as the abstract or this is not where they took on the responsibility of the home of the abstract or to say good this is where they took on the home for their financial gain to be the single responsible party it's a loss leader for them they take in the business they do the business so that they can issue title insurance policies and in this instance the failure to do so created a circumstance where the title was a marketable to distinguish and to say that the title in this case is not a marketable is to render that provision of the title insurance policy do you agree or disagree with mr squiers assertion that had two chosen to foreclose on only one or two or three properties she would have been