Court Opinion

ID: 9723449
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:15:32.653047+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:48.861000
License: Public Domain

HUFFMAN, J., Dissenting.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Miller on the basis Fidelity had no greater rights than Gazzo in whose place they stood on a theory of equitable subrogation. Since Gazzo was fully informed of the possible existence of the Whitby easement prior to the completion of the sale, the trial court correctly found no implied covenant of title on the basis of the grant deed.
The parties to the actual transaction diligently sought to determine if the Whitby easement had been perfected. They sought assistance from an escrow company and Fidelity to make that determination. Fidelity was negligent in its search. It failed to find a recorded easement which had been on the books for decades. It is patent from this record the parties, both Gazzo and Miller, relied on Fidelity’s negligent representations and not any implied covenants in the grant deed.
*1177The focus of the reliance is best understood when one realizes it was Gazzo, not Miller, who undertook to work with the escrow to investigate the Whitby easement. Miller had made full disclosure to Gazzo.
In his testimony Gazzo described in detail his efforts through the escrow company to have Fidelity investigate the issue of title. Gazzo was advised, based on Fidelity’s negligent representation: “Miller has fee title, except for this party wall thing [an unrelated matter].” He further pursued the issue with the escrow company and asked them to follow up on the easement specifically. Gazzo was advised that a Mr. Whitmoyer of Fidelity had specifically investigated the easement to Whitby and found it was nonexistent. In short, the person in whose shoes Fidelity seeks to stand made crystal clear he relied on Fidelity’s representations, not on any “implied covenant” within a grant deed which Gazzo knew was prepared by the very escrow agent who was involved in the investigation of the Whitby easement. Clearly, Fidelity has no right to now seek to claim Gazzo’s rights under such an “implied covenant.”
The trial judge understood clearly what had transpired in this case and was absolutely correct in the grant of summary judgment. We should affirm his decision.
A petition for a rehearing was denied November 21, 1989, and the opinion was modified to read as printed as above.