id	author	title	date	pages	extension	mime	words	sentence	flesch	summary	cache	txt
inlawrev-4131	Reddick, Marci A.	Recent Developments in Real Property Law: October 1, 2009 - September 30, 2010	2011	38	.pdf	application/pdf	16268	992	68	Mat 1156-57. 2011] PROPERTY LAW 1431 done in conjunction with defending the Clarks' claim.^^ Subsequently, the Sebos filed a motion for recusal and a motion to reconsider errors arguing that the Christys should not have been awarded attorneys' fees defending the Clarks' adverse possession claim or their breach ofwarranty claim against the Sebos.^^ The case was transferred to the Morgan Superior Court, and that court set aside the original award of attorneys' fees and costs.^^ At the subsequent damages hearing, the court gave the Christys summaryjudgment but held that they should not receive attorneys' fees under the purchase agreement.^^ On appeal, the court observed that the settlement of the dispute between the Christys and the Clarks concerning the Clarks' adverse possession claim had nothing to do with the question of whether the Sebos breached the warranty of title to the Christys.^^ For instance, courts in Maryland and Texas held that an agent was not the title insurance company's agent for closing a transaction unless the agreement between the agent and the title insurance company establish[ed] an agency relationship for purposes ofsettling and closing activities undertaken by that title agent.^^^	cache/inlawrev-4131.pdf	txt/inlawrev-4131.txt