Supreme Court, Appellate Term, New York,First Department.
CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Margaret EYNARD, Defendant-Respondent.
Nov. 18, 1975.
Title company, which had insured mortgage, but which failed to except existing federal tax lien, brought action against former owner to recover amounts it expended in satisfying the lien. The Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County, Benjamin E. Lander, J., 81 Misc.2d 931, 367 N.Y.S.2d 399, rendered summary judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appealed. The Supreme Court, Appellate Term, held that absent a warranty of some kind in quitclaim deed the defendant was not indebted to the grantee or to subsequent lienor for amount of lien and, hence, plaintiff, as subrogee of the mortgagee, also had no claim against defendant and that since grantee did not assume the tax debt and neither it nor the mortgagee was obligated to pay the taxes, as between plaintiff and the federal government the plaintiff was a volunteer and not a subrogee of the latter on its underlying claim for taxes.
 Deeds 121120k121 Most Cited Cases
Where transfer is by quitclaim deed, the grantee receives only such title as the grantor then had in the property.
 Insurance 3515(1)217k3515(1) Most Cited Cases (Formerly 217k606(2.1), 217k606(1.1))
Where grantor transferred property to corporation by quitclaim deed and mortgage insurance secured by the corporation failed to except federal tax lien which had been recorded against the property prior to its transfer, the grantor was not indebted to the corporation or the mortgagee for the tax lien and, hence, title company, as subrogee of the mortgagee, also had no claim against grantor for reimbursement of amount paid in satisfaction of lien.
 Subrogation 26366k26 Most Cited Cases
Since corporate grantee, which acquired property by quitclaim deed, had not assumed existing federal tax lien and since neither the corporation nor its mortgagee were obligated to satisfy lien, as between title company, which insured mortgage but which failed to except the lien, and the federal government, the title company, which satisfied lien, was a volunteer and was not a subrogee of the federal government on tax claim and, hence, was not entitled to recoup its payment from the grantor. *606 **896 Dreyer & Traub, New York City (Samuel Kirschenbaum and Joel B. Diamond, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Flower & Poltka, Bay Shore (Lark J. Shlimbaum, Bay Shore, of counsel), for respondent.
Before FRANK, J.P., and HUGHES and FINE, JJ.
 Defendant transferred title to a piece of property to a corporation by quit-claim deed. The corporation placed a mortgage on the property to secure a loan by plaintiff's insured. The title policy issued by plaintiff to the mortgagee did not except a Federal tax lien against defendant on the property of record prior to the transfer of the property by defendant to the corporation. As a consequence of this failure to except the lien from the title policy plaintiff was called upon by its insured to, and removed the tax lien, by paying the amount due the Federal government. It now seeks reimbursement from defendant.
Since the transfer to the corporation was by quit-claim deed, the corporation received thereunder only such title as defendant then had in the property, which, as noted, was then subject to the tax lien (Bradt v. Church, 110 N.Y. 537, 18 N.E. 357; Ebenstein v. Pritch, 275 App.Div. 256, 89 N.Y.S.2d 282; Brzozowski v. Boutinger, 181 Misc. 379, 384, 43 N.Y.S.2d 57, 61; Tiffany, Real Property, Vol. 4, ss 959, 1231). Absent a warranty of some kind in the deed, defendant was not indebted to the corporation, or to the subsequent lienor, the *607 mortgagee, for the amount of the lien. Hence plaintiff, as the subrogee of the mortgagee, also has no claim against defendant.
Because the corporation had not assumed the tax debt and neither the corporation nor the mortgagee was obligated to pay the taxes to the Federal government, as between plaintiff and the Federal government plaintiff was a volunteer and is not a subrogee of the Federal government on its underlying claim for taxes against defendant.
**897 Thus, on either basis, defendant is not liable to plaintiff.
Judgment, entered May 5, 1975 and order entered April 11, 1975 (Lander, J.), affirmed with $10 costs.
377 N.Y.S.2d 895, 84 Misc.2d 605
END OF DOCUMENT