ALTA INDUSTRY NEWS
Title Company Files Lawsuits Challenging Physical Office Requirements
August 26, 2025
Presidential Title LLC and its founder recently have filed lawsuits against three state departments of insurance challenging in-state brick-and-mortar office requirements.
In lawsuits filed in Texas and Arkansas, the Texas-based title company contends that requiring a physical office imposes illegal barriers to interstate commerce, and discriminates against out-of-state, digitally enabled providers and favors local companies. Meanwhile, Geoffrey Polk, president and founder of Presidential Title, is the plaintiff in a lawsuit in Delaware challenging the state’s physical office requirements.
According to Polk, several states including Alabama and Nevada have removed their brick-and-mortar office requirements or agreed to make exceptions for title companies due to lawsuits and negotiations. He has also challenged residency requirements and employer restrictions in several states.
In the Texas lawsuit, Presidential Title says it maintains an office in Austin “solely to comply with Texas Insurance Code §2652.1511(c)(2)(B), which mandates an in-state office to appoint an escrow officer.” The company leases the office for $600 a month, but does not use it for operations.
“Presidential operates as a modern, technology-enabled title agency that services transactions across multiple states without the need for physical, staffed offices in each jurisdiction,” the lawsuit says. “Its business model emphasizes efficiency, remote document processing, encrypted communications and secure cloud-based closing portals.”
Additionally, Presidential Title says the office requirement forces the company “to divert operational resources away from innovation and customer service to lease, maintain, and pay for unused property that provides no functional benefit to the company or to consumers.”
The Texas lawsuit challenges the mandatory in-state office requirement under the Dormant Commerce Clause, Equal Protection Clause and the Sherman Antitrust Act.
A lawsuit filed in Delaware by Polk individually challenges the requirement that attorneys maintain a physical office within the state as a precondition to practicing law. The suit alleges violations of the Privileges and Immunities Clause, Equal Protection Clause, and the Dormant Commerce Clause, targeting protectionist restrictions that exclude out-of-state practitioners.
Meanwhile, in the Arkansas lawsuit, Polk claims his application for an Arkansas non-resident title agent license was denied because his company did not have an “employer” in the state. The lawsuit also contends Polk was blocked from taking the state’s title exam. Additionally, Presidential Title is challenging the state’s office requirement in the lawsuit.
Several states have historically required attorneys or title professionals to be residents before granting licenses. Polk said he’s been victorious in Oregon and Alaska, where judges issued orders striking down the restrictions. In Nevada, the state conceded and agreed to a dismissal. Negotiated resolutions changed the requirements in Utah and Wyoming.
The Arkansas suit brought the claims under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, Dormant Commerce Clause, Equal Protection, and both federal and state antitrust laws.
Contact ALTA at 202-296-3671 or communications@alta.org.