Moore v. Title Insurance Co. of Minnesota
Arizona Court of Appeals
148 Ariz. 408 (1985)

- Written by Darius Dehghan, JD
Facts
Michael Moore (plaintiff) entered into an agreement to purchase property at the offices of Title Insurance Company of Minnesota (Minnesota) (defendant). The agreement disclosed the existence of three liens on the property and provided that if the property were found to be subject to any additional liens, Moore could terminate the agreement. Moore could also cancel the agreement if he did not have financing prior to closing. Before signing the agreement, Moore learned from an escrow officer that Minnesota had made a preliminary title report that contained the three liens disclosed in the agreement. Moore closed the sale despite not having any financing. Before closing, Minnesota prepared an amended title report that again showed only the three previously disclosed liens. The following year, Moore was told by a bank officer that there were five additional liens on the property. Moore later lost the property due to his inability to pay off these additional liens. Moore brought suit against Minnesota, alleging that Minnesota was negligent in searching the title and that this negligence prevented him from exercising his option to terminate the agreement. The trial court found for Minnesota, and Moore appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Howard, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.