service paid to them but they were in fact overlooked principle one is that insurance policies are to be interpreted about according to what they say what the words in the particular policy means not some other policy policies don't control what they say is the rational policy terms and provisions so when we get generalities that aren't rooted in policy language about what quote title insurance policies supposedly do or don't do recorded mortgage that was made in that case but more importantly there is a blanket exclusion of all claims based upon unrecorded documents only if a policy but there is a blanket exclusion of all claims made upon a record document that isn't what this policy since the second one is another clearing generality title insurance policies don't protect this was describing damage to his identity rather than rather than what that particular claim was he was he was giving notice out so in your view in your view that triggered the company's duty to investigate ye inquiry parties in possession and that arguably could be constructive notice but what the that was disputed by mr and mrs morgan and the court on choli ultimately found in fact that they did not have actually constructed notice in state court and the question is what were demas ellie's claims now she was named as a party to that foreclosure case initially because she  recorded agreement of sale and a deed in satisfaction of the agreement of sale both of which were recorded after the basically you must sell you responded to the complaint by saying yes i do claim an interest in the property and she said i claim an interest in sale and the deed in even still in the deed and satisfaction of the agreement sale and she also claimed that she had possession of the property prior to the date of the insured mortgage more specifically she claimed that she had built a house on the premises and that she had been in possession of the property and i  here actual open notorious and exclusive possession prior to the date of the execution of the mortgage that's what she says in her answer conclusion is i own the property but the facts upon which she bases for include are either the agreement of sale and the deed or the claim of prior possession in response to the motion for s judgment my recollection is she filed two memos in response to that she raised yet a third argument or a third factual basis for her claim of owning the property and that was on the basis of an earnest money receipts which can plot or up titles even though they go i think exactly and then the next step is for the next potential would be in agreement of sale which is generally for a time i disagree i can i can convey a property that i have that i am the purchaser of under an agreement of sale i can convey that property validly to another party it would be income or of the party in possession the party in possession exception in the title insurance policy as we've laid out is follows the general law when you take title to property you don't take title free and clear of the time the insured mortgage gets recorded it is the policy says we are in we are not going to cover you for claims about people who are in possession of the property prior to the recording of the mortgage and in this instance in her answer she says not only was she in possession she says i built this house she also claims that the morgans knew that that's it it's an interesting aside and it could bring into play an mortgage goes on record if you had made inquiry of them could have responded now there's no dispute that venus shelley consistently claimed that she was in possession of the property coverage under the policy what the morgans would like to say is oh it should be covered because she was claiming title this nothing that serves the title insurer has to ignore the factual basis upon which the claim is being made the factual basis that the selling made her claim of title or ownership or defective mortgage was that she was in possession of a property that was the basis of her house she was in possession of and whether or not she's of tennis is wholly irrelevant she's in possession of whether she's in possession because she's a tenant or whether she's in possession because she claims to have purchased from her doesn't make a difference filed by duma celie claiming an interest in the property by reason of an agreement of sale entered into a record of such and such a day that's what he tells chicago title policy ok when there's a claim that's covered by the policy i guess they'll tell us stories they don't do anything until five years later when mr jacobson writes his water during which time by the way the facts really haven't through the entire record and looked at the subsequent motion for summary judgment and m d m so his claims and they work different they were the same claims so even though at the time the if you take the notice letter as any notice of cloning even if that time the all you got to look at are the answer in the memos in opposition we went beyond that and looked at everything that occurred after that