Consumer complaint received 2025-12-30 00:00:00
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service — Domestic (US) money transfer
Issue: Confusing or missing disclosures — 
Company: FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
b"Consumer Financial Protection Bureau\nATTN: Complaint Intake Unit\nTo whom it may concern:\nI would like to file a complaint against First American Title located at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX CA XXXXSummary:\nBackground and relative information:\n-This complaint is to recover money that was erroneously paid by First American Title in the\nsettlement of the sale of the home located at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX CA by First American\nTitle (File No XXXX) to XXXX XXXX in the amount $XXXX and for compensation\nfor emotional, mental pain and suffering and any financial harm resulting in an impact on life.\n- I sold my home to avoid a foreclosure and bankruptcy filing after being laid off from my job. My\nhouse was listed on the market and an offer was submitted/accepted for $XXXX The\nestimated closing date in escrow was XXXX. Countless hours of effort were put in place to\nmeet this deadline.\n- Details related to this complaint is my divorce agreement from XXXX XXXX Family\nCourt XXXX XXXX County Superior XXXX which indicated that if the house were to sell\nprior to XXXX, then my ex-husband, XXXX XXXX would be entitled to 25% of the net\nproceeds. It further indicated that the parties entered into this family residence agreement for\nthe purpose of providing the parties child with the family home to reside so long as it is\nreasonable to do so for one or both partiesXXXX XXXX XXXX.\nFollowing the divorce agreement XXXX  surrendered all of his interest in the property by\nsigning an Interspousal Deed Transfer on XXXX XXXX XXXX with a notary present and filedXXXX in XXXX XXXX Official Records, which states,\nGRANTORS XXXX XXXX as to all\nof his interest, hereby GRANT(S) to XXXX XXXX  as her sole and separate property, so\nthat she now owns 100% of the property.\n XXXX XXXX XXXX and I went back to court in XXXX, where the judge determined that I was to put the\nhouse in a Trust. XXXX XXXX I was never able to put the house in a Trust and XXXX  never\nfollowed up on its enforcement until he filed a Motion to Enforce the original XXXX  on XXXXnbut I was unaware of that motion until XXXX in which the First American Title informed me.\n- This subsequent filing on XXXX the Motion to Enforce was dismissed by the court XXXXXXXX. This dismissal is evidence that the Motion was frivolous and without merit and this dismissal\nis evidence that First American Title negligently and erroneously paid XXXX  money from the\nhome settlement.\nThe issues:\nAll parties involved in the selling of my home have worked extremely hard to close this deal on\ntime, XXXX First American Title, XXXX XXXX sent an email to all parties on XXXX at XXXX indicating To all, as an update, I am still waiting on a reply and or correspondence fromXXXX XXXX  and XXXX XXXX these are exceptions for the dissolution of marriage and child\nsupport. I need some clarification that there is a zero demand on these XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is the attorney in support of me during our divorce agreement in XXXX  and have had no\ncontact with them since)(Email Chain pg 25). This email regarding my divorce arrangements byXXXX XXXX was the first time anyone in this transaction has heard of this information being\nneeded. Also, keep in mind that I have already signed all of the papers for the house with a\nnotary on XXXX  in the morning and also heard nothing of this. Confused, I replied that there\nis no demand, Im the owner of the home, and there is no child support due. XXXX  indicated\nthat the underwriters are seeking information regarding the recording exceptions, and\nessentially the deal cant close without confirmation of no demand from attorneys in XXXX. My\nrealtor had given Title the benefit of the doubt thinking that the Title company just found out\nabout this divorce agreement settlement, however, once he contacted XXXX, XXXX  indicated\nthat Title has known about needing this information for months and apparently has tried\ncontacting the lawyers XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX for months. They never once indicated this\ncould be an issue. My Realtor, XXXX XXXX- who is also my son-in-law, regularly talked with\ntitle and emailed with XXXX and would ask each time, if anything else needs to be done and\nhas never once heard of this issue. If we were aware of this, we would have obtained legal\nadvice and escrow would be closing without issue.\n-\n-\n-\nLateness of bringing this to everyones attention, delaying closing. Under the pressure of\nhaving my home close on time (to avoid foreclosure), this information was brought up a\nday before closing which is totally unacceptable. It gave me less than 24 hours to figure\nout a way to give the title company what they needed- essentially 24 hours to contact my\nprior attorneys to get confirmation that no demand for the money is in place. Because of\nthe late notice, upon calling this law office, the attorney is out of office until the new year,\nand they don't have anyone to cover. If the attorney were present, he could have simply\nstated there is no demand, because there hasnt been one and no indication of official\ndemand for this money.\nBut, since the attorney is not present and Im working against the pressure of getting the\ndeal closed, the last and only option according to title is to contact my ex-husband and\naccording to title, ask if he wants 25% of the net sale. I cant think of many people,\nespecially when turmoil and disagreements are historic, who would deny accepting\n~$XXXX from this sale and getting a check cut for them tomorrow.\nNot only was I not able to consult with an attorney regarding this because of the\npressure of selling this home but I then was placed in an uncomfortable position which\nblindsided everyone, including the buyers, whose loan had already been funded. Had\nthe title company brought this matter to our attention in the beginning, I could have\nsought legal counsel to determine my options. This coerced me into making a binding\nlegal contract with pressure of the closing date and the buyers anxiously awaiting to\nmove into their new home and in my opinion black mailing me to agree to this condition.\n-\n-\nAny payment as a result of the Motion to XXXX  should have been decided between\nme and my ex-husband was to be resolved after the fact of the home selling and would\nneed to be initiated by XXXX. It is not possible to determine the amount to give to my\nex-husband without going to court and it clearly indicates in the divorce decree that\XXXX  MAY be paid so long it is reasonable to do so for one or both parties.\n In my\ncase, it is not reasonable to be paying my ex-husband any amount of money. There are\nnumerous reasons in which my ex-husband should not receive any of this home profit\nand those reasons should be heard in court in front of a Judge WITH ATTORNEYS\nPRESENT. It is not the Title company's position or right to enforce a divorce agreement\nthat has vague wording and I believe that Title company doesnt actually know if they\nshould have issued XXXX $XXXX  check. A payment to XXXX  to satisfy theXXXX agreement was not a condition of selling the home, but was a condition of the\ndivorce that could have been handled appropriately in court between parties- Which\nshould be irrelevant due to his signing of the XXXX  Interspousal Deed Transfer document\nthat gave me 100% ownership in the home. Additionally, the basis for the title companies\ndecision ultimately came down to how they saw a court date for a Motion to Enforce the\noriginal XXXX, which was DISMISSED and NEVER PROPERLY SERVED unto me.\nTitle jeopardized the entire transaction by failing to communicate early, research timely\nand appropriately, and failed to do their due diligence. Because I had to reach out to my\nex-husband personally to see if he is seeking demand, he obviously wanted time to\ndiscuss his options with an attorney, rightfully so- unlike I did. This takes time for people\nto be available and to make extremely important decisions. The buyers of the transaction\ncould have backed out of the deal and/or their loan could potentially have expired.\XXXX  took many days to make the decision on whether or not to sign the demand\ntaking the ~$XXXX or to accept that he is not demanding any of the net proceeds. Title\nwas convinced and concluded that XXXX  was owed 25% of the net proceeds and\nwould not close the deal without his input. In the end, XXXX  accepted Titles offer for\nthe 25% of the net proceeds (~$33,000) and the house finally closed on XXXX after\nseveral days of stress and anxiety.\nThe Title company had conferred with their escrow counsel officers several times throughout\nthis escrow period and each time we questioned them and asked them how it is legal for them\nto request a demand letter from XXXX, their answer was ambiguous and confusing. The Title\ncompany had no authority, jurisdiction or justification to make this decision that XXXX  is\nentitled to proceeds.\nIf the Title company adhered to the industry standard for due diligence to complete an adequate\nsearch then they would have been made aware of filed legal proceedings that could have\nimpacted this settlement. Had the Title company discovered this Motion, then the parties could\nhave adjudicated and negotiated the terms of the sale and who is entitled to proceeds in a\ntimely fashion so that it would now impact escrow timing and negatively impacted money\ndispersed in the settlement. The Title company negligently conducted this search and only\ndiscovered and communicated this to me one day before the sale was to close escrow.\n-In the end, the court Motion for Enforce the XXXX  brought by XXXX  was dismissed indicating\nthat the suit was baseless and without merit. This further shows that if the Title Co had\ncompleted a proper search that the Motion would have been discovered in a timely fashion to\nallow the parties to reach an equitable resolution agreement. The fact that the suit was\ndismissed is evidence that the Title company errored and negligently concluded that XXXX\nwas owed and paid money based on that Motion. On top of this, XXXX  never properly served\nme of this court date and therefore regardless would have been dismissed/taken off calendarXXXX XXXXThe first statements made by Title was by XXXX XXXX who stated XXXX Our\nunderwriters are seeking information regarding these recorded exceptions. It has to deal with\nthis property sale. I know we are trying to close today, is there anything your attorneys can do\nto help expedite this along. Article 6.6 of the settlement agreement attached to exceptions 11\nand 12 has a covenant that applies to the sale of the residence prior to 2029.\n (See Email Chain\npg. 21) XXXX then provided another option to have XXXX sign a document stating he\ndoesnt have any demand. XXXX XXXX  then replied to XXXX stating XXXX I've\nattached a certified Interspousal transfer deed. Removing XXXX XXXX  25% and granting\XXXX  100% ownership of the property.\n (See Email Chain pg. 18)\nThe second statements made by Title was again by XXXX XXXX stating they had the\ninterspousal deed transfer but now they are stating the reason for the hold up is the XXXX  court\nhearing paperwork and how Title needs to remove/revoke the possible claim from the recorded\norders from XXXX however, there was nothing in those papers that indicated XXXX now\nresumed some interest in the home. (See Email Chain pg. 17)\nThe third statement made by Title was by XXXX, who stated XXXX Apologies for the\ndelay. XXXX  hit a bit of a snag on her way back to the office but should be here soon. In the\nmeantime, I forwarded your email to our underwriter who has been working on this transaction\nwith us. Please see his notes below. Article 6.6 of the divorce settlement agreement cites\n[original XXXX  decree] This was recorded in XXXX, even though the settlement agreement was\nexecuted in XXXX. The Court Order (Exception 12) cites the respondent (The former Husband)\nis a beneficiary with the parties minor daughter to the Marital Home (which is PIQ) which also\nalleges a breach of prior agreement wherein said order was filed and recorded in XXXX  (See\nEmail Chain pg. 12) [referencing the XXXX  document]. To which my realtor responded The other\ndocuments say a trust will be set up separately (XXXX said that neither her or XXXX  followed\nup with that and set up a trust) the court sided in her favor during that case. If you have any\ndocuments showing otherwise or beneficiary details, we would love to see them. It also says\nthat this will be good faith between the two, so I am failing to see where his place is in all this\nwhen that is a court matter between them. The documents show that she is 100% the sole\nowner of the deed and property. Additionally it is completely unacceptable that this whole\nsituation was only brought to our attention, hours before the day we were set to close. Is there a\nreason for this? XXXX  has not been given ample notice to contact an attorney regarding this\nand the solution proposed is to have the ex-husband decide whether he wants to sign or not as\nour only option. Why were we never made aware of this? (See Email Chain pg. 10/11)\nForth statement made by Title as to their reasoning why XXXX had a say in this is when\XXXX  emails XXXX  Thank you for sending the additional information, however in\nreviewing the court docket, it appears that the ex-husband filed a Request for Order for\nEnforcement of Judgment/Breach of Fiduciary Duties on XXXX XXXX XXXX. Unfortunately, I am\nunable to pull copies of these documents. Are the parties able to explain what this is for and/or\nprovide a copy of this Request for Order? In reviewing exception 11 of the Preliminary Report, it\nappears the parties came to an agreement on XXXX XXXX XXXX, in which, among other things, the\nhusband waived spousal support and the subject property was to go to the wife, and the\nhusband was to sign an interspousal deed. However, the wife was to maintain the property in\nan irrevocable living trust until XXXX XXXX XXXX, in which the beneficiaries of the subject trust shall\nbe persons the parties mutually agreed to. If wife elected to sell the property prior to XXXX XXXX, the net sale proceeds would be distributed per the parties mutual agreement. The mutual\nagreement was that the husband is entitled to a non-taxable equalizing payment incident to\ndivorce of 25% of the net sale proceeds, less the remaining balance on the first deed of trust,\nreasonable closing costs, and costs of sale reasonably necessary to obtain the best possible\nprice. Exception 12 of the Preliminary Report, appears to be an enforcement of the XXXX\nagreement, in which the parties stipulated and agreed in XXXX XXXX, among other things, that the\nhusband would delay filing a request for order for wifes alleged breach of prior agreements\nand/or judgments or related enforcement proceedings. The wife was to hold whatever interest\nthe husband has in the subject property in a constructive trust and that wifes counsel was to\nprepare formal trust documents. Based on the above, we would typically require a deed from\nthe husband, releases for the judgments recorded against the subject property, and a demand\nfrom the husband for any money owed pursuant to the agreement reflected in the judgment.\nHowever, to expedite the matter, we are willing to waive the deed from the husband and\nreleases of the judgements if the husband is willing to execute the attached Affidavit, which\nbasically confirms that (1) no money is owed to him pursuant to the Judgment that recorded onXXXX XXXX XXXX as Instrument No. XXXX and Stipulation and Order After XXXX XXXX Hearing, and to Vacate Hearing on XXXX XXXX XXXX [And any continued hearing date], filed\XXXX, and (2) he claims no right, title, interest, or liens against the subject property. The\nnotary will need to be done by a First American approved notary and it can be a remote online\nnotary (RON). The notary will need to be set up by First American.\n (See Email Chain pg. 2/3) I\nwas never made aware of a court date for breach of fiduciary duties that XXXX  initiated, and\nper XXXX  attorney XXXX XXXX, the service was improper and therefore a court date should\nnever have been set and if there was a hearing, it would have been dismissed due to improper\nnotice.\nNot only does the reasoning by Title change several times (making it clear that they dont really\nknow if this is supposed to be happening), but they based their final decision off of a motion for\nbreach of duties that was erroneously set. As a result of the Title company's incompetence, I\nwas forced into accepting that XXXX  would receive $XXXX or else the house transaction\nwould terminate, eventually leading to its foreclosure. I had no choice but to give XXXX  this\nmoney because of the Title company. The Title company should not have issued a check toXXXX for $XXXX and I am requesting they be liable for that amount of money to me. I\nunderstand that the Title company was covering themselves and following an original order,\nhowever, there were several reasons why they should not have issued that check, as noted\nabove. If this matter is not resolved internally, I plan to escalate this matter until there is a\nresolution.\nWitnesses:XXXX XXXX Seller, XXXX XXXX XXXX, Realtor for seller, XXXX XXXX XXXX Senior Escrow officer, XXXX XXXX XXXX Escrow officerXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX daughter XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  daughter XXXX XXXXEvidence:\n1. XXXX  Divorce agreement\n2. XXXX  Interspousal Transfer Deed\n3. XXXX  Court documents\n4. Dismissal of the Motion to Enforce XXXX\n5. Email Chain\n6. XXXX  XXXX email acknowledging improper servic"

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation