Laserfiche WebLink
South Bind Redevelopment Commission <br />Regular Meeting - January 2, 1980 <br />FLOOR DISCUSSIONS (continued) <br />Ms. Derbeck: That is an issue you didn't <br />ever. bring up. In case it becomes some <br />kin of.an issue between Michiana Title <br />Corporation and the Commission, there is a <br />conflict of interest, is there not, in having <br />an attorney who just happens to work for <br />Michiana Title Corporation again? <br />Mr. Ellison: How do you mean—that we do <br />more business with Michiana Title Corporation? <br />Ms. Derbeck: Does not the Commission see a <br />conflict of interest in having their attorney <br />rep esenting them against Michiana Title <br />Corporation should it become necessary? <br />Mr.Pllison: Obviously, we have to await word <br />froM our outside counsel. <br />Ms. erbeck The Mayor raised that point in <br />his Memorandum. <br />Mr. imtz: Let me explain the concept of title <br />insurance to you. I, as an independent lawyer, <br />put in a request to one of the companies for title <br />insurance. They then issue what they call a pre- <br />liminary policy, or commitment that they will <br />issue a policy. My name and my law firm is not <br />mentioned at all on that policy. When a policy <br />is issued, it is directly between a title <br />company and the person buying the land. Redevelop - <br />men wouldn't be a part of this at all. My inde- <br />pendent client wouldn't be in there at all. When <br />a policy is issued, it is a contract between the <br />title company and the buyer. It will be a policy <br />between Rahn Properties and the title company that <br />the title is alright. <br />Ms. Derbeck: I understand that, but you still have <br />an instance here where it could have happened... <br />that you would have legal counsel if Michiana Title <br />Corporation had refused to refund the policy. <br />Mr. Butler: I could answer that question very <br />readily, but that is why I am not doing it ... precisely <br />for the reason that you are suggesting—the special <br />counsel is going to have to answer that question; <br />1) whether there is need for replacement of policy and <br />return of premium, and then 2) that being the case, <br />the Commission would have to address itself, if they <br />determine that "yes" the policies had to be replaced, <br />whether the money has to be returned. <br />-17- <br />