Should I file the Deed, or wait, for some reason..?
Member since 2025 · 16 posts · 11 votes
Should I file the Deed, or wait, for some reason..?
Most Popular Reply
Specialist · Winter Springs, FL · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 747 votes
1yI don't mean to be condescending here, but based on your question I think you're probably not ready to be purchasing property. It appears you don't have a basic understanding of the laws regarding conveyancing and how the priority of interests is established. You don't mention what state the property is in, but generally, if your deed is not properly recorded, your interest, whatever it may be, may be subject to being subordinated to any interest which is created after your deed. I'm not referring to the existing mortgage you took subject to, but one made by your seller after he gave you your deed or subject to any deed he gave to another buyer after yours. It might also be subject to any suit involving the property or any judgment against your seller. Also, I hope you're not holding your breath waiting for a payoff, generally a lender will only deal with the borrower or his legal representative.
70 Replies
- Investor · Get yourself trained before doing something inadvisable. · Member since 2024 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes1yOops.
Quote from @Account Closed:
I purchase a property recently subject-to, and got the deed to the property. I'm planning to hold it long term.
Though I have the deed, I'm wondering if I should go ahead and 'file it' with the county. I haven't cured the default on the mortgage yet (it was 6 months behind, and in default).
I have considered just wholesaling the property as well.
Are there reasons I would NOT want to file the deed? My thought is that having too many properties in my name could be a problem. And/or that having the property change hands too rapidly (I file the deed in my name, then sell it soon after) could create various kinds of problems.
Also if I file the deed, then need to Quit Claim the property back to the seller, could that create weird title issues that creates a liability for myself and/or the original seller?
Thank you very much for your help!
Your biggest concern at the moment should be getting the loan reinstated. Nothing else matters if they take it to foreclosure sale.
And yes, there is a proper sequence, and you aren't following it. - Member since 2025 · 16 posts · 11 votes1y
Thank you for your help Ken.
What's the proper sequence?- Investor · Get yourself trained before doing something inadvisable. · Member since 2024 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes1yMy training is $15,000 and it trains on that and other techniques for a year, wherein you will buy a Subject To property with equity and low interest rate, or several of them, depending on how many you want; properly and not get sued. You have to have resources (money) and be an accredited investor. It isn't something that can be crammed into a quick post. (The "training" provided by the guys on youtube will generally get you sued.) It's incomplete at best and misleading for sure.
Quote from @Account Closed:
Thank you for your help Ken.
What's the proper sequence?
"Subject To" is legal, when done legally. However, you are dealing with federal laws (foreclosure avoidance consulting, foreclosure law, equity skimming possibly, mortgage fraud possibly, mail fraud possibly, wire fraud possibly, Consumer Protection Act) and local laws as well.
It takes time to set up what you are trying to do and it has to be done before going into the transaction.
Then you have to know how to hold the property, taxes, insurance, payments, deal with issues as they arise and how to exit the situation based on what has already happened. The statute of limitations (how long you can be charged) is 3 years on some of those things and 10 years on others.
It's a big deal.
Sometimes people are lucky and avoid all of that. But, telling you the steps isn't sufficient to keep you out of trouble. Each step leads to a new decision and that depends on your availability of money and your goal. - Member since 2025 · 16 posts · 11 votes1y
Quote from @Ken M.:
My training is $15,000 and it trains on that and other techniques for a year, wherein you will buy a Subject To property with equity and low interest rate, or several of them, depending on how many you want; properly and not get sued. You have to have resources (money) and be an accredited investor. It isn't something that can be crammed into a quick post. (The "training" provided by the guys on youtube will generally get you sued.) It's incomplete at best and misleading for sure.Quote from @Account Closed:
Thank you for your help Ken.
What's the proper sequence?
"Subject To" is legal, when done legally. However, you are dealing with federal laws (foreclosure avoidance consulting, foreclosure law, equity skimming possibly, mortgage fraud possibly, mail fraud possibly, wire fraud possibly, Consumer Protection Act) and local laws as well.
It takes time to set up what you are trying to do and it has to be done before going into the transaction.
Then you have to know how to hold the property, taxes, insurance, payments, deal with issues as they arise and how to exit the situation based on what has already happened. The statute of limitations (how long you can be charged) is 3 years on some of those things and 10 years on others.
It's a big deal.
Sometimes people are lucky and avoid all of that. But, telling you the steps isn't sufficient to keep you out of trouble. Each step leads to a new decision and that depends on your availability of money and your goal.Okay, thank you Ken. That's helpful.
- Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes1y1. Record the deed.
Quote from @Account Closed:
I purchase a property recently subject-to, and got the deed to the property. I'm planning to hold it long term.
Though I have the deed, I'm wondering if I should go ahead and 'file it' with the county. I haven't cured the default on the mortgage yet (it was 6 months behind, and in default).
I have considered just wholesaling the property as well.
Are there reasons I would NOT want to file the deed? My thought is that having too many properties in my name could be a problem. And/or that having the property change hands too rapidly (I file the deed in my name, then sell it soon after) could create various kinds of problems.
Also if I file the deed, then need to Quit Claim the property back to the seller, could that create weird title issues that creates a liability for myself and/or the original seller?
Thank you very much for your help!
2. Accept the fact that you will lose everything because you bought subject-to for a property already on the skyline with the bank and this is just one more example of the owner screwing around.
3. never buy subject-to again.- Member since 2025 · 16 posts · 11 votes1y
Not sure what you mean here John. But thank you for your input.
Quote from @John Clark:
1. Record the deed.Quote from @Account Closed:
I purchase a property recently subject-to, and got the deed to the property. I'm planning to hold it long term.
Though I have the deed, I'm wondering if I should go ahead and 'file it' with the county. I haven't cured the default on the mortgage yet (it was 6 months behind, and in default).
I have considered just wholesaling the property as well.
Are there reasons I would NOT want to file the deed? My thought is that having too many properties in my name could be a problem. And/or that having the property change hands too rapidly (I file the deed in my name, then sell it soon after) could create various kinds of problems.
Also if I file the deed, then need to Quit Claim the property back to the seller, could that create weird title issues that creates a liability for myself and/or the original seller?
Thank you very much for your help!
2. Accept the fact that you will lose everything because you bought subject-to for a property already on the skyline with the bank and this is just one more example of the owner screwing around.
3. never buy subject-to again.
- Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes1y
Quote from @Syed Ahmed:
From what I’ve seen, whether to record the deed right away or wait often depends on your strategy and how comfortable you are with potential risks. Recording it secures your interest publicly, but if the property is already in default, you’ll want to be mindful of how that might affect your next steps especially if you’re considering wholesaling or giving it back. The concerns you mentioned about title history and multiple transfers are definitely valid. This is one of those areas where talking with a local real estate attorney or title professional can save you a lot of headaches. Curious to hear how others here have handled similar situations.
The property is in default. If he wants a seat at the table during foreclosure, he needs to record. He has an equitable interest now, so he can be joined to the suit anyway. Make it official and quit screwing around.
- Member since 2025 · 16 posts · 11 votes1y
Quote from @Syed Ahmed:
From what I’ve seen, whether to record the deed right away or wait often depends on your strategy and how comfortable you are with potential risks. Recording it secures your interest publicly, but if the property is already in default, you’ll want to be mindful of how that might affect your next steps especially if you’re considering wholesaling or giving it back. The concerns you mentioned about title history and multiple transfers are definitely valid. This is one of those areas where talking with a local real estate attorney or title professional can save you a lot of headaches. Curious to hear how others here have handled similar situations.
Thank you for your help Syed!
- Investor · Baltimore, MD · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 13k+ votes1y
@Account Closed so you got a deed but didn't do a settlement and get title insurance? Do you even know what other debts might be attached to the property?
Why haven't you brought the mortgage current if you are planning to hold for the long run?
- Member since 2025 · 16 posts · 11 votes1y
Quote from @Ned Carey:
@Account Closed so you got a deed but didn't do a settlement and get title insurance? Do you even know what other debts might be attached to the property?
Why haven't you brought the mortgage current if you are planning to hold for the long run?
I just got the deed a few days ago. I'm still waiting for payoff amounts from the lender.
- Investor · Get yourself trained before doing something inadvisable. · Member since 2024 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes1yI don't think he understands the critical importance of your question.
Quote from @Ned Carey:
@Account Closed so you got a deed but didn't do a settlement and get title insurance? Do you even know what other debts might be attached to the property?
Why haven't you brought the mortgage current if you are planning to hold for the long run?
- Specialist · Winter Springs, FL · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 747 votes1y
I don't mean to be condescending here, but based on your question I think you're probably not ready to be purchasing property. It appears you don't have a basic understanding of the laws regarding conveyancing and how the priority of interests is established. You don't mention what state the property is in, but generally, if your deed is not properly recorded, your interest, whatever it may be, may be subject to being subordinated to any interest which is created after your deed. I'm not referring to the existing mortgage you took subject to, but one made by your seller after he gave you your deed or subject to any deed he gave to another buyer after yours. It might also be subject to any suit involving the property or any judgment against your seller. Also, I hope you're not holding your breath waiting for a payoff, generally a lender will only deal with the borrower or his legal representative.
- Member since 2025 · 16 posts · 11 votes1y
Quote from @Peter Walther:
I don't mean to be condescending here, but based on your question I think you're probably not ready to be purchasing property. It appears you don't have a basic understanding of the laws regarding conveyancing and how the priority of interests is established. You don't mention what state the property is in, but generally, if your deed is not properly recorded, your interest, whatever it may be, may be subject to being subordinated to any interest which is created after your deed. I'm not referring to the existing mortgage you took subject to, but one made by your seller after he gave you your deed or subject to any deed he gave to another buyer after yours. It might also be subject to any suit involving the property or any judgment against your seller. Also, I hope you're not holding your breath waiting for a payoff, generally a lender will only deal with the borrower or his legal representative.
Oh I'm ready. And I'm buyin it.
Thank you @Peter Walther! - Specialist · Winter Springs, FL · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 747 votes1y
Quote from @Account Closed:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
I don't mean to be condescending here, but based on your question I think you're probably not ready to be purchasing property. It appears you don't have a basic understanding of the laws regarding conveyancing and how the priority of interests is established. You don't mention what state the property is in, but generally, if your deed is not properly recorded, your interest, whatever it may be, may be subject to being subordinated to any interest which is created after your deed. I'm not referring to the existing mortgage you took subject to, but one made by your seller after he gave you your deed or subject to any deed he gave to another buyer after yours. It might also be subject to any suit involving the property or any judgment against your seller. Also, I hope you're not holding your breath waiting for a payoff, generally a lender will only deal with the borrower or his legal representative.
Oh I'm ready. And I'm buyin it.
Thank you @Peter Walther!Sorry Mark I'm not following your response. I asked why you think it's a good idea to hold the deed off record. The concern I have is that it appears you already own the property if you paid consideration and received a deed and I hope you have an insurance policy in your name. Whatever other documents you're waiting for from the seller may not have any effect on your possible liabilities as owner of the property. Recording a deed does not perfect title in your name; it merely puts the world on notice of your interest and generally the onus for recording the deed is on the Grantee, not the Grantor. I believe a properly executed though unrecorded deed passes title and liability. You really need to talk with an CO attorney about your situation and get some actionable advice. I think that if someone gets injured on the property and sues the record owner, your seller, he (your seller) very well might defend by showing he doesn't own the property, you do and possibly bring a third-party complaint against you defend him and indemnify him against loss he suffers because of the plaintiff's claim. At the very least the plaintiff would probably file an Amended Complaint adding you as a defendant to figure out what your interest is and by extension, what your liability is.
- Member since 2025 · 16 posts · 11 votes1y
@Peter Walther - thank you Peter. I appreciate you taking the time to help me out. ☺️
I will incorporate your thoughts with the other helpful tips I've gotten from other posters here. - Specialist · Winter Springs, FL · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 747 votes1y
Quote from @Account Closed:
@Peter Walther - thank you Peter. I appreciate you taking the time to help me out. ☺️
I will incorporate your thoughts with the other helpful tips I've gotten from other posters here.Sure thing.
- Investor · Baltimore, MD · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 13k+ votes1y
@Account Closed's post immediately above
It appears you got the deed, without going through a title company or doing a title search. This would be the second step. The first step is a contract crafted to protect you and outline the responsibilities of both buyer and seller and describe the condition of the title you are acquiring. Getting the deed is the third step.
Are you aware that there could be many debts tied to the property other than the mortgage or that even show up in the land records? There could be a second mortgage, judgements, property tax liens, IRS liens, state tax liens and other miscellaneous liens. Also the owner could be in Bankruptcy. Just because the seller didn't tell you about these does not mean they are not there.
Who created the deed? What kind of deed is it? is it even legal? All of these things could be very serious issues for both you and the seller. They could also prevent you from wholesaling the property.I'm curious where you learned to do a "subject to" deal. Whoever taught you left out a lot of important information. Good luck
- Member since 2025 · 16 posts · 11 votes1y
Quote from @Ned Carey:
@Account Closed What I am about to say is not to criticize you but to help you and especially others reading along understand the issues better. I write this because of @Ken M.'s post immediately above
It appears you got the deed, without going through a title company or doing a title search. This would be the second step. The first step is a contract crafted to protect you and outline the responsibilities of both buyer and seller and describe the condition of the title you are acquiring. Getting the deed is the third step.
Are you aware that there could be many debts tied to the property other than the mortgage or that even show up in the land records? There could be a second mortgage, judgements, property tax liens, IRS liens, state tax liens and other miscellaneous liens. Also the owner could be in Bankruptcy. Just because the seller didn't tell you about these does not mean they are not there.
Who created the deed? What kind of deed is it? is it even legal? All of these things could be very serious issues for both you and the seller. They could also prevent you from wholesaling the property.I'm curious where you learned to do a "subject to" deal. Whoever taught you left out a lot of important information. Good luck
Thank you for your help @Ned Carey!
- Real Estate Broker · Northeast PA · Member since 2017 · 2k+ posts · 2k+ votes1y
Wow, what a sad story. Cart before the horse?
@Account Closed, Most folks think education is expensive. The reality is that the cost of being uneducated is much greater.
Going forward, know what to do and when to do it BEFORE you act upon a 'great deal' you might have stumbled upon.
Listen to the insightful comments by @Ned Carey and @Ken M. and get your ducks in a row. Just chalk this experience up to life tuition.
- Member since 2025 · 16 posts · 11 votes1y
Quote from @Marc Winter:
Wow, what a sad story. Cart before the horse?
@Account Closed, Most folks think education is expensive. The reality is that the cost of being uneducated is much greater.
Going forward, know what to do and when to do it BEFORE you act upon a 'great deal' you might have stumbled upon.
Listen to the insightful comments by @Ned Carey and @Ken M. and get your ducks in a row. Just chalk this experience up to life tuition.
Is it actually sad?
- Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes1yI always liked the bumper sticker: If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.
Quote from @Marc Winter:
Wow, what a sad story. Cart before the horse?
@Account Closed, Most folks think education is expensive. The reality is that the cost of being uneducated is much greater.
Going forward, know what to do and when to do it BEFORE you act upon a 'great deal' you might have stumbled upon.
Listen to the insightful comments by @Ned Carey and @Ken M. and get your ducks in a row. Just chalk this experience up to life tuition.
- 1yJoe S.Pro MemberInvestor · San Antonio · Member since 2020 · 3k+ posts · 3k+ votes
Quote from @Account Closed:
I purchase a property recently subject-to, and got the deed to the property. I'm planning to hold it long term.
Though I have the deed, I'm wondering if I should go ahead and 'file it' with the county. I haven't cured the default on the mortgage yet (it was 6 months behind, and in default).
I have considered just wholesaling the property as well.
Are there reasons I would NOT want to file the deed? My thought is that having too many properties in my name could be a problem. And/or that having the property change hands too rapidly (I file the deed in my name, then sell it soon after) could create various kinds of problems.
Also if I file the deed, then need to Quit Claim the property back to the seller, could that create weird title issues that creates a liability for myself and/or the original seller?
Thank you very much for your help!
This is not easy to explain in a site that is primarily dominated by anti-Sub2 posters to start with. Read the audience. You're not going to get much help unless you pay for training and I suppose that is an option.
Also your original post was contradicting. You’re saying you’re going to keep it long-term and then you’re talking about whole selling the property. You left a lot of details out so some of the posters are assuming you didn’t even get the proper paperwork to ask for a payoff from the lender. Maybe you can comment on that.
It appears Ken M offers sub2 training. Maybe you should talk to him about it. I’m not familiar with what he has to offer, but if it’s one on one, it’s probably better than getting into some overcrowded Facebook group that’s dominated by newbies.- Member since 2025 · 16 posts · 11 votes1y
Quote from @Joe S.:
Quote from @Account Closed:
I purchase a property recently subject-to, and got the deed to the property. I'm planning to hold it long term.
Though I have the deed, I'm wondering if I should go ahead and 'file it' with the county. I haven't cured the default on the mortgage yet (it was 6 months behind, and in default).
I have considered just wholesaling the property as well.
Are there reasons I would NOT want to file the deed? My thought is that having too many properties in my name could be a problem. And/or that having the property change hands too rapidly (I file the deed in my name, then sell it soon after) could create various kinds of problems.
Also if I file the deed, then need to Quit Claim the property back to the seller, could that create weird title issues that creates a liability for myself and/or the original seller?
Thank you very much for your help!
This is not easy to explain in a site that is primarily dominated by anti-Sub2 posters to start with. Read the audience. You're not going to get much help unless you pay for training and I suppose that is an option.
Also your original post was contradicting. You’re saying you’re going to keep it long-term and then you’re talking about whole selling the property. You left a lot of details out so some of the posters are assuming you didn’t even get the proper paperwork to ask for a payoff from the lender. Maybe you can comment on that.
It appears Ken M offers sub2 training. Maybe you should talk to him about it. I’m not familiar with what he has to offer, but if it’s one on one, it’s probably better than getting into some overcrowded Facebook group that’s dominated by newbies.Thank you for your kind post Joe. I haven't gotten hazed like this since I was in college. 🤣
Yes I did leave out details and was contradictory. Some of the comments are helpful. Plenty of sarcasm too. I'm just trying to figure it out here...
I've bought many dozens of houses. But it's been a long time though, and I'm very rusty. I'll sort through it, and find the gems.
Thank you again. ☺️ - Specialist · Winter Springs, FL · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 747 votes1y
Quote from @Account Closed:
Quote from @Joe S.:
Quote from @Account Closed:
I purchase a property recently subject-to, and got the deed to the property. I'm planning to hold it long term.
Though I have the deed, I'm wondering if I should go ahead and 'file it' with the county. I haven't cured the default on the mortgage yet (it was 6 months behind, and in default).
I have considered just wholesaling the property as well.
Are there reasons I would NOT want to file the deed? My thought is that having too many properties in my name could be a problem. And/or that having the property change hands too rapidly (I file the deed in my name, then sell it soon after) could create various kinds of problems.
Also if I file the deed, then need to Quit Claim the property back to the seller, could that create weird title issues that creates a liability for myself and/or the original seller?
Thank you very much for your help!
This is not easy to explain in a site that is primarily dominated by anti-Sub2 posters to start with. Read the audience. You're not going to get much help unless you pay for training and I suppose that is an option.
Also your original post was contradicting. You’re saying you’re going to keep it long-term and then you’re talking about whole selling the property. You left a lot of details out so some of the posters are assuming you didn’t even get the proper paperwork to ask for a payoff from the lender. Maybe you can comment on that.
It appears Ken M offers sub2 training. Maybe you should talk to him about it. I’m not familiar with what he has to offer, but if it’s one on one, it’s probably better than getting into some overcrowded Facebook group that’s dominated by newbies.Thank you for your kind post Joe. I haven't gotten hazed like this since I was in college. 🤣
Yes I did leave out details and was contradictory. Some of the comments are helpful. Plenty of sarcasm too. I'm just trying to figure it out here...
I've bought many dozens of houses. But it's been a long time though, and I'm very rusty. I'll sort through it, and find the gems.
Thank you again. ☺️Could you mention why you thought keeping your deed off record was a good idea?
- 1yWendy PattonBusiness MemberReal Estate Consultant · Clarkston, MI · Member since 2009 · 859 posts · 349 votes
@Account Closed cure the default immediately if you got the deed. Yes, you should file asap or you really have nothing (anyone can file before you) - Cure!!!
Also having the deed recorded or not has nothing to do with your tax situation. Whether you file or not you own it and have a tax liability when it sells.
Why would you need to quit claim the deed back to the seller? Wasn't this a good deal? I have a saying when i am teaching about subject tos: "If you can't make it, Don't take it". i mean if you can't make their payment to keep this property on track financially then you should not be getting the deed from the seller. It is not the best ethical way to do this business. If you don't have the money to cure, or it's not a good deal, then go back and give it back to them. If it is a good deal then get it cured and keep it on track. I hope this helps.
Michigan Real Estate Investors533 Reviews- Member since 2025 · 16 posts · 11 votes1y
Quote from @Wendy Patton:
@Account Closed cure the default immediately if you got the deed. Yes, you should file asap or you really have nothing (anyone can file before you) - Cure!!!
Also having the deed recorded or not has nothing to do with your tax situation. Whether you file or not you own it and have a tax liability when it sells.
Why would you need to quit claim the deed back to the seller? Wasn't this a good deal? I have a saying when i am teaching about subject tos: "If you can't make it, Don't take it". i mean if you can't make their payment to keep this property on track financially then you should not be getting the deed from the seller. It is not the best ethical way to do this business. If you don't have the money to cure, or it's not a good deal, then go back and give it back to them. If it is a good deal then get it cured and keep it on track. I hope this helps.
@Wendy Patton! Amazing to hear from you - I've followed your work for many many years, and am literally re-reading your book on Lease-Option/Subject-to's RIGHT NOW. Planning to buy one of both of those courses from you on your site very soon.
Thank you for your... kind advice.. here.
It is a good deal. I've bought many properties subject-to in the past, but I was always planning to sell them. This time, I want to keep them all, so there's a whole other level of consideration, and I'm just making sure I'm considering everything correctly before I finalize this deal.
I'm SO GRATEFUL for all of the knowledge you share, and the prolific teaching you've done all these years. Thank you..! - Investor · Get yourself trained before doing something inadvisable. · Member since 2024 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes1y
Quote from @Wendy Patton:
@Account Closed cure the default immediately if you got the deed. Yes, you should file asap or you really have nothing (anyone can file before you) - Cure!!!
Also having the deed recorded or not has nothing to do with your tax situation. Whether you file or not you own it and have a tax liability when it sells.
Why would you need to quit claim the deed back to the seller? Wasn't this a good deal? I have a saying when i am teaching about subject tos: "If you can't make it, Don't take it". i mean if you can't make their payment to keep this property on track financially then you should not be getting the deed from the seller. It is not the best ethical way to do this business. If you don't have the money to cure, or it's not a good deal, then go back and give it back to them. If it is a good deal then get it cured and keep it on track. I hope this helps.
Your advice "Yes, you should file asap" seems particularly dangerous in this situation. OP did not say what state he is in, how he identified that it was a "distressed" property, what the agreement is, who created the Deed, if they verified the seller, whether it's a Quit Claim Deed or Warranty Deed, or that he went through escrow, or had a title report done or got clear title. Also, If he files, he assumes the risk of anything attached to title. Usually a foreclosure title has other issues. If he wholesales, anyone he sells to will have that risk and he could be sued. This title is currently "toxic", in foreclosure, subject to "foreclosure prevention fraud" and a host of other problems.
His comment "got the deed to the property" isn't nearly enough to go on.
This one would be really easy to pick apart in court. - Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes1yKen, not recording the deed won’t cure or avoid any defects, and adds problems involving lack of notice. He has an equitable interest right now. Anyone finding out about it will add the original poster to legal proceedings anyway. Recording does not harm him. Not recording does.
Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @Wendy Patton:
@Account Closed cure the default immediately if you got the deed. Yes, you should file asap or you really have nothing (anyone can file before you) - Cure!!!
Also having the deed recorded or not has nothing to do with your tax situation. Whether you file or not you own it and have a tax liability when it sells.
Why would you need to quit claim the deed back to the seller? Wasn't this a good deal? I have a saying when i am teaching about subject tos: "If you can't make it, Don't take it". i mean if you can't make their payment to keep this property on track financially then you should not be getting the deed from the seller. It is not the best ethical way to do this business. If you don't have the money to cure, or it's not a good deal, then go back and give it back to them. If it is a good deal then get it cured and keep it on track. I hope this helps.
Your advice "Yes, you should file asap" seems particularly dangerous in this situation. OP did not say what state he is in, how he identified that it was a "distressed" property, what the agreement is, who created the Deed, if they verified the seller, whether it's a Quit Claim Deed or Warranty Deed, or that he went through escrow, or had a title report done or got clear title. Also, If he files, he assumes the risk of anything attached to title. Usually a foreclosure title has other issues. If he wholesales, anyone he sells to will have that risk and he could be sued. This title is currently "toxic", in foreclosure, subject to "foreclosure prevention fraud" and a host of other problems.
His comment "got the deed to the property" isn't nearly enough to go on.
This one would be really easy to pick apart in court.
- Member since 2025 · 16 posts · 11 votes1y
@Ken M. thank you for clarifying, and for time you've put in to answering my post.
state: Colorado
deed type: warranty deed
verification: Yes I verified the seller. I assume you meant check their ID, and do my own research on the title that shows the person I met with was indeed the owner.
distressed status: I didn't say it was 'distressed.' However, it is in default, wth a sale date in 3 months.
title status: title search and report is in progress. I'm planning to file it as soon as I see clear title, get an inspection, and get some additional paperwork signed with the seller.should I file the deed?: people have commented on this post very strongly both directions on this question - some say I definitely should and some say I shouldn't. Sounds like you're more hesitant, and that I shouldn't. Your quote from above sounds like good advice, and makes me want to proceed more cautiously: "If he files, he assumes the risk of anything attached to title. Usually a foreclosure title has other issues."
Thank you again.
- Investor · Get yourself trained before doing something inadvisable. · Member since 2024 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes1yIn some states, it's against the law to approach anyone missing payments, they are considered to be "distressed" If they have received a Notice of Default or a Notice of Foreclosure, they are classified "for sure" as distressed
Quote from @Account Closed:
@Ken M. thank you for clarifying, and for time you've put in to answering my post.
state: Colorado
deed type: warranty deed
verification: Yes I verified the seller. I assume you meant check their ID, and do my own research on the title that shows the person I met with was indeed the owner.
distressed status: I didn't say it was 'distressed.' However, it is in default, wth a sale date in 3 months.
title status: title search and report is in progress. I'm planning to file it as soon as I see clear title, get an inspection, and get some additional paperwork signed with the seller.should I file the deed?: people have commented on this post very strongly both directions on this question - some say I definitely should and some say I shouldn't. Sounds like you're more hesitant, and that I shouldn't. Your quote from above sounds like good advice, and makes me want to proceed more cautiously: "If he files, he assumes the risk of anything attached to title. Usually a foreclosure title has other issues."
Thank you again.
(federal issues)
In Washington, Oregon, California "for sure" it's a very big deal. I'm not current on Colorado foreclosure law.
there are federal laws involved
I personally, would not rely on self review of title obligations
Warranty deeds have to meet state specific requirements, usually have to be notarized and when done outside of escrow create a "credibility" problem with future title companies and definitely with the court in a lawsuit
Regardless of what you have been told or have read, you can not simply "Quit Claim Back" a property.
and other issues
I would not admit anything further because these sites are monitored
pay for a local attorney for a proper solution He will need to see all paperwork to figure out best options
or simply hope your seller doesn't come back later - Member since 2025 · 16 posts · 11 votes1y
Quote from @Ken M.:
In some states, it's against the law to approach anyone missing payments, they are considered to be "distressed" If they have received a Notice of Default or a Notice of Foreclosure, they are classified "for sure" as distressedQuote from @Account Closed:
@Ken M. thank you for clarifying, and for time you've put in to answering my post.
state: Colorado
deed type: warranty deed
verification: Yes I verified the seller. I assume you meant check their ID, and do my own research on the title that shows the person I met with was indeed the owner.
distressed status: I didn't say it was 'distressed.' However, it is in default, wth a sale date in 3 months.
title status: title search and report is in progress. I'm planning to file it as soon as I see clear title, get an inspection, and get some additional paperwork signed with the seller.should I file the deed?: people have commented on this post very strongly both directions on this question - some say I definitely should and some say I shouldn't. Sounds like you're more hesitant, and that I shouldn't. Your quote from above sounds like good advice, and makes me want to proceed more cautiously: "If he files, he assumes the risk of anything attached to title. Usually a foreclosure title has other issues."
Thank you again.
(federal issues)
In Washington, Oregon, California "for sure" it's a very big deal. I'm not current on Colorado foreclosure law.
there are federal laws involved
I personally, would not rely on self review of title obligations
Warranty deeds have to meet state specific requirements, usually have to be notarized and when done outside of escrow create a "credibility" problem with future title companies and definitely with the court in a lawsuit
Regardless of what you have been told or have read, you can not simply "Quit Claim Back" a property.
and other issues
I would not admit anything further because these sites are monitored
pay for a local attorney for a proper solution He will need to see all paperwork to figure out best options
or simply hope your seller doesn't come back later@Ken M. Very thought-provoking, and helpful. Thank you Ken.
- Specialist · Winter Springs, FL · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 747 votes1y
Quote from @Ken M.:
In some states, it's against the law to approach anyone missing payments, they are considered to be "distressed" If they have received a Notice of Default or a Notice of Foreclosure, they are classified "for sure" as distressedQuote from @Account Closed:
@Ken M. thank you for clarifying, and for time you've put in to answering my post.
state: Colorado
deed type: warranty deed
verification: Yes I verified the seller. I assume you meant check their ID, and do my own research on the title that shows the person I met with was indeed the owner.
distressed status: I didn't say it was 'distressed.' However, it is in default, wth a sale date in 3 months.
title status: title search and report is in progress. I'm planning to file it as soon as I see clear title, get an inspection, and get some additional paperwork signed with the seller.should I file the deed?: people have commented on this post very strongly both directions on this question - some say I definitely should and some say I shouldn't. Sounds like you're more hesitant, and that I shouldn't. Your quote from above sounds like good advice, and makes me want to proceed more cautiously: "If he files, he assumes the risk of anything attached to title. Usually a foreclosure title has other issues."
Thank you again.
(federal issues)
In Washington, Oregon, California "for sure" it's a very big deal. I'm not current on Colorado foreclosure law.
there are federal laws involved
I personally, would not rely on self review of title obligations
Warranty deeds have to meet state specific requirements, usually have to be notarized and when done outside of escrow create a "credibility" problem with future title companies and definitely with the court in a lawsuit
Regardless of what you have been told or have read, you can not simply "Quit Claim Back" a property.
and other issues
I would not admit anything further because these sites are monitored
pay for a local attorney for a proper solution He will need to see all paperwork to figure out best options
or simply hope your seller doesn't come back laterKen, I believe an unnotarized deed can still pass title. Notarization does two things; first it provides prima facia evidence the Grantor acknowledged signing the deed and appeared to understand the nature of the act, second, it's generally a prerequisite for recording in the public records. However, if one is the Grantee of the deed, I think a declaratory judgment action could be filed and upon sufficient evidence the court could find the deed valid and order the Clerk to record it. An unwieldy way to go about it, but possible, I think.
- Investor · Get yourself trained before doing something inadvisable. · Member since 2024 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes1y
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @Ken M.:
In some states, it's against the law to approach anyone missing payments, they are considered to be "distressed" If they have received a Notice of Default or a Notice of Foreclosure, they are classified "for sure" as distressedQuote from @Account Closed:
@Ken M. thank you for clarifying, and for time you've put in to answering my post.
state: Colorado
deed type: warranty deed
verification: Yes I verified the seller. I assume you meant check their ID, and do my own research on the title that shows the person I met with was indeed the owner.
distressed status: I didn't say it was 'distressed.' However, it is in default, wth a sale date in 3 months.
title status: title search and report is in progress. I'm planning to file it as soon as I see clear title, get an inspection, and get some additional paperwork signed with the seller.should I file the deed?: people have commented on this post very strongly both directions on this question - some say I definitely should and some say I shouldn't. Sounds like you're more hesitant, and that I shouldn't. Your quote from above sounds like good advice, and makes me want to proceed more cautiously: "If he files, he assumes the risk of anything attached to title. Usually a foreclosure title has other issues."
Thank you again.
(federal issues)
In Washington, Oregon, California "for sure" it's a very big deal. I'm not current on Colorado foreclosure law.
there are federal laws involved
I personally, would not rely on self review of title obligations
Warranty deeds have to meet state specific requirements, usually have to be notarized and when done outside of escrow create a "credibility" problem with future title companies and definitely with the court in a lawsuit
Regardless of what you have been told or have read, you can not simply "Quit Claim Back" a property.
and other issues
I would not admit anything further because these he sites are monitored
pay for a local attorney for a proper solution He will need to see all paperwork to figure out best options
or simply hope your seller doesn't come back laterKen, I believe an unnotarized deed can still pass title. Notarization does two things; first it provides prima facia evidence the Grantor acknowledged signing the deed and appeared to understand the nature of the act, second, it's generally a prerequisite for recording in the public records. However, if one is the Grantee of the deed, I think a declaratory judgment action could be filed and upon sufficient evidence the court could find the deed valid and order the Clerk to record it. An unwieldy way to go about it, but possible, I think.
Re
In Arizona for instance, in statute, a deed must be properly notarized in order to be recorded.
An un-notarized deed can be litigated pretty easily.
But, an unrecorded deed does pass on title to the new owner, at time of signature for the reasons you stated. However, I'm unwilling to go into the implications by stating that. We'll, I just did. But there are exceptions. There needs to be someone, who can look at the paperwork and the facts, that he can work with to untangle this. By his lack of responding to if it was notarized, if it went through escrow etc I surmise it was a table top closing and he said there were other deals he has done. I don't think this is a "one off" occurrence. Either way, in my opinion, it can't be properly resolved on an exposed forum with people not willing to represent him. If he has a history of doing Subject To or foreclosures this way, it's a bigger issue. But yes, I believe if he has an unrecorded deed, it still transfers title with all the hair attached, legal and tax issues included.
- Specialist · Winter Springs, FL · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 747 votes1y
Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @Ken M.:
In some states, it's against the law to approach anyone missing payments, they are considered to be "distressed" If they have received a Notice of Default or a Notice of Foreclosure, they are classified "for sure" as distressedQuote from @Account Closed:
@Ken M. thank you for clarifying, and for time you've put in to answering my post.
state: Colorado
deed type: warranty deed
verification: Yes I verified the seller. I assume you meant check their ID, and do my own research on the title that shows the person I met with was indeed the owner.
distressed status: I didn't say it was 'distressed.' However, it is in default, wth a sale date in 3 months.
title status: title search and report is in progress. I'm planning to file it as soon as I see clear title, get an inspection, and get some additional paperwork signed with the seller.should I file the deed?: people have commented on this post very strongly both directions on this question - some say I definitely should and some say I shouldn't. Sounds like you're more hesitant, and that I shouldn't. Your quote from above sounds like good advice, and makes me want to proceed more cautiously: "If he files, he assumes the risk of anything attached to title. Usually a foreclosure title has other issues."
Thank you again.
(federal issues)
In Washington, Oregon, California "for sure" it's a very big deal. I'm not current on Colorado foreclosure law.
there are federal laws involved
I personally, would not rely on self review of title obligations
Warranty deeds have to meet state specific requirements, usually have to be notarized and when done outside of escrow create a "credibility" problem with future title companies and definitely with the court in a lawsuit
Regardless of what you have been told or have read, you can not simply "Quit Claim Back" a property.
and other issues
I would not admit anything further because these he sites are monitored
pay for a local attorney for a proper solution He will need to see all paperwork to figure out best options
or simply hope your seller doesn't come back laterKen, I believe an unnotarized deed can still pass title. Notarization does two things; first it provides prima facia evidence the Grantor acknowledged signing the deed and appeared to understand the nature of the act, second, it's generally a prerequisite for recording in the public records. However, if one is the Grantee of the deed, I think a declaratory judgment action could be filed and upon sufficient evidence the court could find the deed valid and order the Clerk to record it. An unwieldy way to go about it, but possible, I think.
Re
In Arizona for instance, in statute, a deed must be properly notarized in order to be recorded.
An un-notarized deed can be litigated pretty easily.
But, an unrecorded deed does pass on title to the new owner, at time of signature for the reasons you stated. However, I'm unwilling to go into the implications by stating that. We'll, I just did. But there are exceptions. There needs to be someone, who can look at the paperwork and the facts, that he can work with to untangle this. By his lack of responding to if it was notarized, if it went through escrow etc I surmise it was a table top closing and he said there were other deals he has done. I don't think this is a "one off" occurrence. Either way, in my opinion, it can't be properly resolved on an exposed forum with people not willing to represent him. If he has a history of doing Subject To or foreclosures this way, it's a bigger issue. But yes, I believe if he has an unrecorded deed, it still transfers title with all the hair attached, legal and tax issues included.
I agree, hence my suggestion he get some advice from a CO real estate attorney post haste.
- Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes1yKen, your post illustrates the adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @Ken M.:
In some states, it's against the law to approach anyone missing payments, they are considered to be "distressed" If they have received a Notice of Default or a Notice of Foreclosure, they are classified "for sure" as distressedQuote from @Account Closed:
@Ken M. thank you for clarifying, and for time you've put in to answering my post.
state: Colorado
deed type: warranty deed
verification: Yes I verified the seller. I assume you meant check their ID, and do my own research on the title that shows the person I met with was indeed the owner.
distressed status: I didn't say it was 'distressed.' However, it is in default, wth a sale date in 3 months.
title status: title search and report is in progress. I'm planning to file it as soon as I see clear title, get an inspection, and get some additional paperwork signed with the seller.should I file the deed?: people have commented on this post very strongly both directions on this question - some say I definitely should and some say I shouldn't. Sounds like you're more hesitant, and that I shouldn't. Your quote from above sounds like good advice, and makes me want to proceed more cautiously: "If he files, he assumes the risk of anything attached to title. Usually a foreclosure title has other issues."
Thank you again.
(federal issues)
In Washington, Oregon, California "for sure" it's a very big deal. I'm not current on Colorado foreclosure law.
there are federal laws involved
I personally, would not rely on self review of title obligations
Warranty deeds have to meet state specific requirements, usually have to be notarized and when done outside of escrow create a "credibility" problem with future title companies and definitely with the court in a lawsuit
Regardless of what you have been told or have read, you can not simply "Quit Claim Back" a property.
and other issues
I would not admit anything further because these he sites are monitored
pay for a local attorney for a proper solution He will need to see all paperwork to figure out best options
or simply hope your seller doesn't come back laterKen, I believe an unnotarized deed can still pass title. Notarization does two things; first it provides prima facia evidence the Grantor acknowledged signing the deed and appeared to understand the nature of the act, second, it's generally a prerequisite for recording in the public records. However, if one is the Grantee of the deed, I think a declaratory judgment action could be filed and upon sufficient evidence the court could find the deed valid and order the Clerk to record it. An unwieldy way to go about it, but possible, I think.
Re
In Arizona for instance, in statute, a deed must be properly notarized in order to be recorded.
An un-notarized deed can be litigated pretty easily.
But, an unrecorded deed does pass on title to the new owner, at time of signature for the reasons you stated. However, I'm unwilling to go into the implications by stating that. We'll, I just did. But there are exceptions. There needs to be someone, who can look at the paperwork and the facts, that he can work with to untangle this. By his lack of responding to if it was notarized, if it went through escrow etc I surmise it was a table top closing and he said there were other deals he has done. I don't think this is a "one off" occurrence. Either way, in my opinion, it can't be properly resolved on an exposed forum with people not willing to represent him. If he has a history of doing Subject To or foreclosures this way, it's a bigger issue. But yes, I believe if he has an unrecorded deed, it still transfers title with all the hair attached, legal and tax issues included.
Yes, an unrecorded deed does pass title — but only as to me the seller, and you, the buyer. The rest of the world is entitled to rely on the recorded chain of title, with a quick look/see at the property to see if there’s anything about the place that would cause a reasonable person to believe that the recorded chain of title might not reflect all interests in the property and therefore further investigation is needed.
Innocent third parties taking without notice and for consideration usually win.
So don’t just say “title passes without recording.” It passes to some people under some circumstances. The original poster needs to record his deed. Full stop. Recording is how he gets a seat at the table. If he’s not at the table, then he’s on the menu. - Investor · Get yourself trained before doing something inadvisable. · Member since 2024 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes1y
Quote from @John Clark:
Ken, your post illustrates the adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @Ken M.:
In some states, it's against the law to approach anyone missing payments, they are considered to be "distressed" If they have received a Notice of Default or a Notice of Foreclosure, they are classified "for sure" as distressedQuote from @Account Closed:
@Ken M. thank you for clarifying, and for time you've put in to answering my post.
state: Colorado
deed type: warranty deed
verification: Yes I verified the seller. I assume you meant check their ID, and do my own research on the title that shows the person I met with was indeed the owner.
distressed status: I didn't say it was 'distressed.' However, it is in default, wth a sale date in 3 months.
title status: title search and report is in progress. I'm planning to file it as soon as I see clear title, get an inspection, and get some additional paperwork signed with the seller.should I file the deed?: people have commented on this post very strongly both directions on this question - some say I definitely should and some say I shouldn't. Sounds like you're more hesitant, and that I shouldn't. Your quote from above sounds like good advice, and makes me want to proceed more cautiously: "If he files, he assumes the risk of anything attached to title. Usually a foreclosure title has other issues."
Thank you again.
(federal issues)
In Washington, Oregon, California "for sure" it's a very big deal. I'm not current on Colorado foreclosure law.
there are federal laws involved
I personally, would not rely on self review of title obligations
Warranty deeds have to meet state specific requirements, usually have to be notarized and when done outside of escrow create a "credibility" problem with future title companies and definitely with the court min a lawsuit
Regardless of what you have been told or have read, you can not simply "Quit Claim Back" a property.
and other issues
I would not admit anything further because these he sites are monitored
pay for a local attorney for a proper solution He will need to see all paperwork to figure out best options
or simply hope your seller doesn't come back laterKen, I believe an unnotarized deed can still pass title. Notarization does two things; first it provides prima facia evidence the Grantor acknowledged signing the deed and appeared to understand the nature of the act, second, it's generally a prerequisite for recording in the public records. However, if one is the Grantee of the deed, I think a declaratory judgment action could be filed and upon sufficient evidence the court could find the deed valid and order the Clerk to record it. An unwieldy way to go about it, but possible, I think.
Re
In Arizona for instance, in statute, a deed must be properly notarized in order to be recorded.
An un-notarized deed can be litigated pretty easily.
But, an unrecorded deed does pass on title to the new owner, at time of signature for the reasons you stated. However, I'm unwilling to go into the implications by stating that. We'll, I just did. But there are exceptions. There needs to be someone, who can look at the paperwork and the facts, that he can work with to untangle this. By his lack of responding to if it was notarized, if it went through escrow etc I surmise it was a table top closing and he said there were other deals he has done. I don't think this is a "one off" occurrence. Either way, in my opinion, it can't be properly resolved on an exposed forum with people not willing to represent him. If he has a history of doing Subject To or foreclosures this way, it's a bigger issue. But yes, I believe if he has an unrecorded deed, it still transfers title with all the hair attached, legal and tax issues included.
Yes, an unrecorded deed does pass title — but only as to me the seller, and you, the buyer. The rest of the world is entitled to rely on the recorded chain of title, with a quick look/see at the property to see if there’s anything about the place that would cause a reasonable person to believe that the recorded chain of title might not reflect all interests in the property and therefore further investigation is needed.
Innocent third parties taking without notice and for consideration usually win.
So don’t just say “title passes without recording.” It passes to some people under some circumstances. The original poster needs to record his deed. Full stop. Recording is how he gets a seat at the table. If he’s not at the table, then he’s on the menu.Yikes! "Recording does not harm him" Sure glad you're not giving legal advice, right?
I'm not sure where to start on that one. For starters, He hasn't stated that the closing was not done as "a table top" closing. Big issues on chain of title, validity of document, possible forgery, un-notified co-owners. All issues in a lawsuit.
On a different issue
An un-notarized deed in a lawsuit is challenged as a forgery. Who wins is subject to what the seller says. Don't be fooled, what you've seen someone on YouTube claim is not what happens in court. I only worry about winning in court, don't care about name calling.
Can't believe your comments for their lack of experience, but let the world know these are your comments, certainly not mine. I'm not making dispersions but you obviously have no experience in actual litigated cases.
Lurkers: it is far better to avoid a lawsuit, which can run $25,000 to $100,000 and take a year and a half of your life, than to take the kind of advice above And risk what you have with little likelihood of coming out on top.But, it is your life, choose the path you will.
- Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes1yAn unrecorded deed will not avoid a lawsuit. The instant he asserts his claim, any defects in his instrument come into play and can be fodder for a suit. He has an equitable interest in the property. It must be dealt with.
Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @John Clark:
Ken, your post illustrates the adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @Ken M.:
In some states, it's against the law to approach anyone missing payments, they are considered to be "distressed" If they have received a Notice of Default or a Notice of Foreclosure, they are classified "for sure" as distressedQuote from @Account Closed:
@Ken M. thank you for clarifying, and for time you've put in to answering my post.
state: Colorado
deed type: warranty deed
verification: Yes I verified the seller. I assume you meant check their ID, and do my own research on the title that shows the person I met with was indeed the owner.
distressed status: I didn't say it was 'distressed.' However, it is in default, wth a sale date in 3 months.
title status: title search and report is in progress. I'm planning to file it as soon as I see clear title, get an inspection, and get some additional paperwork signed with the seller.should I file the deed?: people have commented on this post very strongly both directions on this question - some say I definitely should and some say I shouldn't. Sounds like you're more hesitant, and that I shouldn't. Your quote from above sounds like good advice, and makes me want to proceed more cautiously: "If he files, he assumes the risk of anything attached to title. Usually a foreclosure title has other issues."
Thank you again.
(federal issues)
In Washington, Oregon, California "for sure" it's a very big deal. I'm not current on Colorado foreclosure law.
there are federal laws involved
I personally, would not rely on self review of title obligations
Warranty deeds have to meet state specific requirements, usually have to be notarized and when done outside of escrow create a "credibility" problem with future title companies and definitely with the court min a lawsuit
Regardless of what you have been told or have read, you can not simply "Quit Claim Back" a property.
and other issues
I would not admit anything further because these he sites are monitored
pay for a local attorney for a proper solution He will need to see all paperwork to figure out best options
or simply hope your seller doesn't come back laterKen, I believe an unnotarized deed can still pass title. Notarization does two things; first it provides prima facia evidence the Grantor acknowledged signing the deed and appeared to understand the nature of the act, second, it's generally a prerequisite for recording in the public records. However, if one is the Grantee of the deed, I think a declaratory judgment action could be filed and upon sufficient evidence the court could find the deed valid and order the Clerk to record it. An unwieldy way to go about it, but possible, I think.
Re
In Arizona for instance, in statute, a deed must be properly notarized in order to be recorded.
An un-notarized deed can be litigated pretty easily.
But, an unrecorded deed does pass on title to the new owner, at time of signature for the reasons you stated. However, I'm unwilling to go into the implications by stating that. We'll, I just did. But there are exceptions. There needs to be someone, who can look at the paperwork and the facts, that he can work with to untangle this. By his lack of responding to if it was notarized, if it went through escrow etc I surmise it was a table top closing and he said there were other deals he has done. I don't think this is a "one off" occurrence. Either way, in my opinion, it can't be properly resolved on an exposed forum with people not willing to represent him. If he has a history of doing Subject To or foreclosures this way, it's a bigger issue. But yes, I believe if he has an unrecorded deed, it still transfers title with all the hair attached, legal and tax issues included.
Yes, an unrecorded deed does pass title — but only as to me the seller, and you, the buyer. The rest of the world is entitled to rely on the recorded chain of title, with a quick look/see at the property to see if there’s anything about the place that would cause a reasonable person to believe that the recorded chain of title might not reflect all interests in the property and therefore further investigation is needed.
Innocent third parties taking without notice and for consideration usually win.
So don’t just say “title passes without recording.” It passes to some people under some circumstances. The original poster needs to record his deed. Full stop. Recording is how he gets a seat at the table. If he’s not at the table, then he’s on the menu.Yikes! "Recording does not harm him" Sure glad you're not giving legal advice, right?
I'm not sure where to start on that one. For starters, He hasn't stated that the closing was not done as "a table top" closing. Big issues on chain of title, validity of document, possible forgery, un-notified co-owners. All issues in a lawsuit.
On a different issue
An un-notarized deed in a lawsuit is challenged as a forgery. Who wins is subject to what the seller says. Don't be fooled, what you've seen someone on YouTube claim is not what happens in court. I only worry about winning in court, don't care about name calling.
Can't believe your comments for their lack of experience, but let the world know these are your comments, certainly not mine. I'm not making dispersions but you obviously have no experience in actual litigated cases.
Lurkers: it is far better to avoid a lawsuit, which can run $25,000 to $100,000 and take a year and a half of your life, than to take the kind of advice above And risk what you have with little likelihood of coming out on top.But, it is your life, choose the path you will.
FYI, telling someone not to record is as much legal advice as telling someone to record. - Specialist · Winter Springs, FL · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 747 votes1y
Quote from @John Clark:
Ken, your post illustrates the adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @Ken M.:
In some states, it's against the law to approach anyone missing payments, they are considered to be "distressed" If they have received a Notice of Default or a Notice of Foreclosure, they are classified "for sure" as distressedQuote from @Account Closed:
@Ken M. thank you for clarifying, and for time you've put in to answering my post.
state: Colorado
deed type: warranty deed
verification: Yes I verified the seller. I assume you meant check their ID, and do my own research on the title that shows the person I met with was indeed the owner.
distressed status: I didn't say it was 'distressed.' However, it is in default, wth a sale date in 3 months.
title status: title search and report is in progress. I'm planning to file it as soon as I see clear title, get an inspection, and get some additional paperwork signed with the seller.should I file the deed?: people have commented on this post very strongly both directions on this question - some say I definitely should and some say I shouldn't. Sounds like you're more hesitant, and that I shouldn't. Your quote from above sounds like good advice, and makes me want to proceed more cautiously: "If he files, he assumes the risk of anything attached to title. Usually a foreclosure title has other issues."
Thank you again.
(federal issues)
In Washington, Oregon, California "for sure" it's a very big deal. I'm not current on Colorado foreclosure law.
there are federal laws involved
I personally, would not rely on self review of title obligations
Warranty deeds have to meet state specific requirements, usually have to be notarized and when done outside of escrow create a "credibility" problem with future title companies and definitely with the court in a lawsuit
Regardless of what you have been told or have read, you can not simply "Quit Claim Back" a property.
and other issues
I would not admit anything further because these he sites are monitored
pay for a local attorney for a proper solution He will need to see all paperwork to figure out best options
or simply hope your seller doesn't come back laterKen, I believe an unnotarized deed can still pass title. Notarization does two things; first it provides prima facia evidence the Grantor acknowledged signing the deed and appeared to understand the nature of the act, second, it's generally a prerequisite for recording in the public records. However, if one is the Grantee of the deed, I think a declaratory judgment action could be filed and upon sufficient evidence the court could find the deed valid and order the Clerk to record it. An unwieldy way to go about it, but possible, I think.
Re
In Arizona for instance, in statute, a deed must be properly notarized in order to be recorded.
An un-notarized deed can be litigated pretty easily.
But, an unrecorded deed does pass on title to the new owner, at time of signature for the reasons you stated. However, I'm unwilling to go into the implications by stating that. We'll, I just did. But there are exceptions. There needs to be someone, who can look at the paperwork and the facts, that he can work with to untangle this. By his lack of responding to if it was notarized, if it went through escrow etc I surmise it was a table top closing and he said there were other deals he has done. I don't think this is a "one off" occurrence. Either way, in my opinion, it can't be properly resolved on an exposed forum with people not willing to represent him. If he has a history of doing Subject To or foreclosures this way, it's a bigger issue. But yes, I believe if he has an unrecorded deed, it still transfers title with all the hair attached, legal and tax issues included.
Yes, an unrecorded deed does pass title — but only as to me the seller, and you, the buyer. The rest of the world is entitled to rely on the recorded chain of title, with a quick look/see at the property to see if there’s anything about the place that would cause a reasonable person to believe that the recorded chain of title might not reflect all interests in the property and therefore further investigation is needed.
Innocent third parties taking without notice and for consideration usually win.
So don’t just say “title passes without recording.” It passes to some people under some circumstances. The original poster needs to record his deed. Full stop. Recording is how he gets a seat at the table. If he’s not at the table, then he’s on the menu.In my opinion, fee title passes to the Grantee via a validly executed deed recorded or not. I agree that the interest may be subject to divestment by a subsequent deed, but the first grantee has fee title and not an equitable interest. In addition, occupancy may act as notice of the first grantee's interest, which may defeat a claim of a BFP status even if the deed has not been recorded. A buyer may have an obligation to conduct reasonable due diligence and explore any indicia that his seller may not have title to the property, including exclusive possession. However, in race states such as NC, notice doesn't matter. Whoever gets to the courthouse first wins, irrelevant of notice, constructive or actual.
- Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes1y
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Ken, your post illustrates the adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @Ken M.:
In some states, it's against the law to approach anyone missing payments, they are considered to be "distressed" If they have received a Notice of Default or a Notice of Foreclosure, they are classified "for sure" as distressedQuote from @Account Closed:
@Ken M. thank you for clarifying, and for time you've put in to answering my post.
state: Colorado
deed type: warranty deed
verification: Yes I verified the seller. I assume you meant check their ID, and do my own research on the title that shows the person I met with was indeed the owner.
distressed status: I didn't say it was 'distressed.' However, it is in default, wth a sale date in 3 months.
title status: title search and report is in progress. I'm planning to file it as soon as I see clear title, get an inspection, and get some additional paperwork signed with the seller.should I file the deed?: people have commented on this post very strongly both directions on this question - some say I definitely should and some say I shouldn't. Sounds like you're more hesitant, and that I shouldn't. Your quote from above sounds like good advice, and makes me want to proceed more cautiously: "If he files, he assumes the risk of anything attached to title. Usually a foreclosure title has other issues."
Thank you again.
(federal issues)
In Washington, Oregon, California "for sure" it's a very big deal. I'm not current on Colorado foreclosure law.
there are federal laws involved
I personally, would not rely on self review of title obligations
Warranty deeds have to meet state specific requirements, usually have to be notarized and when done outside of escrow create a "credibility" problem with future title companies and definitely with the court in a lawsuit
Regardless of what you have been told or have read, you can not simply "Quit Claim Back" a property.
and other issues
I would not admit anything further because these he sites are monitored
pay for a local attorney for a proper solution He will need to see all paperwork to figure out best options
or simply hope your seller doesn't come back laterKen, I believe an unnotarized deed can still pass title. Notarization does two things; first it provides prima facia evidence the Grantor acknowledged signing the deed and appeared to understand the nature of the act, second, it's generally a prerequisite for recording in the public records. However, if one is the Grantee of the deed, I think a declaratory judgment action could be filed and upon sufficient evidence the court could find the deed valid and order the Clerk to record it. An unwieldy way to go about it, but possible, I think.
Re
In Arizona for instance, in statute, a deed must be properly notarized in order to be recorded.
An un-notarized deed can be litigated pretty easily.
But, an unrecorded deed does pass on title to the new owner, at time of signature for the reasons you stated. However, I'm unwilling to go into the implications by stating that. We'll, I just did. But there are exceptions. There needs to be someone, who can look at the paperwork and the facts, that he can work with to untangle this. By his lack of responding to if it was notarized, if it went through escrow etc I surmise it was a table top closing and he said there were other deals he has done. I don't think this is a "one off" occurrence. Either way, in my opinion, it can't be properly resolved on an exposed forum with people not willing to represent him. If he has a history of doing Subject To or foreclosures this way, it's a bigger issue. But yes, I believe if he has an unrecorded deed, it still transfers title with all the hair attached, legal and tax issues included.
Yes, an unrecorded deed does pass title — but only as to me the seller, and you, the buyer. The rest of the world is entitled to rely on the recorded chain of title, with a quick look/see at the property to see if there’s anything about the place that would cause a reasonable person to believe that the recorded chain of title might not reflect all interests in the property and therefore further investigation is needed.
Innocent third parties taking without notice and for consideration usually win.
So don’t just say “title passes without recording.” It passes to some people under some circumstances. The original poster needs to record his deed. Full stop. Recording is how he gets a seat at the table. If he’s not at the table, then he’s on the menu.In my opinion, fee title passes to the Grantee via a validly executed deed recorded or not. I agree that the interest may be subject to divestment by a subsequent deed, but the first grantee has fee title and not an equitable interest. In addition, occupancy may act as notice of the first grantee's interest, which may defeat a claim of a BFP status even if the deed has not been recorded. A buyer may have an obligation to conduct reasonable due diligence and explore any indicia that his seller may not have title to the property, including exclusive possession. However, in race states such as NC, notice doesn't matter. Whoever gets to the courthouse first wins, irrelevant of notice, constructive or actual.
Here we get into the weeds of recording systems and whether the state is a race, notice, or race-notice state vis-a-vis recording. At a minimum the original poster has an equitable interest. That we can all agree on.
My point was, and is, that recording does not harm the interests of the original poster. His interest will need to be accounted for in any legal proceedings, and apparently he's already known to the bank, since he said that he's waiting for a reinstatement/pay-off letter from the bank.
All in all, the original poster will be involved in any legal proceedings concerning this property. Any defects in his instrument of title will come out. He might as well record and make sure he's protected by prompt notice. It cannot harm his interests.
- Investor · Get yourself trained before doing something inadvisable. · Member since 2024 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes1y
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Ken, your post illustrates the adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @Ken M.:
In some states, it's against the law to approach anyone missing payments, they are considered to be "distressed" If they have received a Notice of Default or a Notice of Foreclosure, they are classified "for sure" as distressedQuote from @Account Closed:
@Ken M. thank you for clarifying, and for time you've put in to answering my post.
state: Colorado
deed type: warranty deed
verification: Yes I verified the seller. I assume you meant check their ID, and do my own research on the title that shows the person I met with was indeed the owner.
distressed status: I didn't say it was 'distressed.' However, it is in default, wth a sale date in 3 months.
title status: title search and report is in progress. I'm planning to file it as soon as I see clear title, get an inspection, and get some additional paperwork signed with the seller.should I file the deed?: people have commented on this post very strongly both directions on this question - some say I definitely should and some say I shouldn't. Sounds like you're more hesitant, and that I shouldn't. Your quote from above sounds like good advice, and makes me want to proceed more cautiously: "If he files, he assumes the risk of anything attached to title. Usually a foreclosure title has other issues."
Thank you again.
(federal issues)
In Washington, Oregon, California "for sure" it's a very big deal. I'm not current on Colorado foreclosure law.
there are federal laws involved
I personally, would not rely on self review of title obligations
Warranty deeds have to meet state specific requirements, usually have to be notarized and when done outside of escrow create a "credibility" problem with future title companies and definitely with the court in a lawsuit
Regardless of what you have been told or have read, you can not simply "Quit Claim Back" a property.
and other issues
I would not admit anything further because these he sites are monitored
pay for a local attorney for a proper solution He will need to see all paperwork to figure out best options
or simply hope your seller doesn't come back laterKen, I believe an unnotarized deed can still pass title. Notarization does two things; first it provides prima facia evidence the Grantor acknowledged signing the deed and appeared to understand the nature of the act, second, it's generally a prerequisite for recording in the public records. However, if one is the Grantee of the deed, I think a declaratory judgment action could be filed and upon sufficient evidence the court could find the deed valid and order the Clerk to record it. An unwieldy way to go about it, but possible, I think.
Re
In Arizona for instance, in statute, a deed must be properly notarized in order to be recorded.
An un-notarized deed can be litigated pretty easily.
But, an unrecorded deed does pass on title to the new owner, at time of signature for the reasons you stated. However, I'm unwilling to go into the implications by stating that. We'll, I just did. But there are exceptions. There needs to be someone, who can look at the paperwork and the facts, that he can work with to untangle this. By his lack of responding to if it was notarized, if it went through escrow etc I surmise it was a table top closing and he said there were other deals he has done. I don't think this is a "one off" occurrence. Either way, in my opinion, it can't be properly resolved on an exposed forum with people not willing to represent him. If he has a history of doing Subject To or foreclosures this way, it's a bigger issue. But yes, I believe if he has an unrecorded deed, it still transfers title with all the hair attached, legal and tax issues included.
Yes, an unrecorded deed does pass title — but only as to me the seller, and you, the buyer. The rest of the world is entitled to rely on the recorded chain of title, with a quick look/see at the property to see if there’s anything about the place that would cause a reasonable person to believe that the recorded chain of title might not reflect all interests in the property and therefore further investigation is needed.
Innocent third parties taking without notice and for consideration usually win.
So don’t just say “title passes without recording.” It passes to some people under some circumstances. The original poster needs to record his deed. Full stop. Recording is how he gets a seat at the table. If he’s not at the table, then he’s on the menu.In my opinion, fee title passes to the Grantee via a validly executed deed recorded or not. I agree that the interest may be subject to divestment by a subsequent deed, but the first grantee has fee title and not an equitable interest. In addition, occupancy may act as notice of the first grantee's interest, which may defeat a claim of a BFP status even if the deed has not been recorded. A buyer may have an obligation to conduct reasonable due diligence and explore any indicia that his seller may not have title to the property, including exclusive possession. However, in race states such as NC, notice doesn't matter. Whoever gets to the courthouse first wins, irrelevant of notice, constructive or actual.
Here we get into the weeds of recording systems and whether the state is a race, notice, or race-notice state vis-a-vis recording. At a minimum the original poster has an equitable interest. That we can all agree on.
My point was, and is, that recording does not harm the interests of the original poster. His interest will need to be accounted for in any legal proceedings, and apparently he's already known to the bank, since he said that he's waiting for a reinstatement/pay-off letter from the bank.
All in all, the original poster will be involved in any legal proceedings concerning this property. Any defects in his instrument of title will come out. He might as well record and make sure he's protected by prompt notice. It cannot harm his interests.
Yes, it can harm him a lot.
He will be asked why he did what he did, and what did he do to mitigate the damage.The issue isn't who records first. If everything had been done properly and gone through proper escrow and been properly processed, then first recordation matters.
With all of the defects he mentions, recording at all, opens a can of worms you apparently don't know about.
I'm not surprised, unless you've litigated those issues. Since they aren't obvious, you wouldn't be aware of them.
The OP loses nothing by consulting an attorney in the county the property is in, paying a few bucks and getting situational advice from someone who can look at the entire case facts. Then, if that attorney believes the best situation is to record, then record.If not good to record, then rectify first and record. Cavalier recording is not a good idea. He needs someone who will help him avoid the complicated, sometimes contradictory laws involved in Subject To, Contract law, not to mention foreclosure law, he is now in. It is not a single issue problem.
- Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes1y
Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Ken, your post illustrates the adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @Ken M.:
In some states, it's against the law to approach anyone missing payments, they are considered to be "distressed" If they have received a Notice of Default or a Notice of Foreclosure, they are classified "for sure" as distressedQuote from @Account Closed:
@Ken M. thank you for clarifying, and for time you've put in to answering my post.
state: Colorado
deed type: warranty deed
verification: Yes I verified the seller. I assume you meant check their ID, and do my own research on the title that shows the person I met with was indeed the owner.
distressed status: I didn't say it was 'distressed.' However, it is in default, wth a sale date in 3 months.
title status: title search and report is in progress. I'm planning to file it as soon as I see clear title, get an inspection, and get some additional paperwork signed with the seller.should I file the deed?: people have commented on this post very strongly both directions on this question - some say I definitely should and some say I shouldn't. Sounds like you're more hesitant, and that I shouldn't. Your quote from above sounds like good advice, and makes me want to proceed more cautiously: "If he files, he assumes the risk of anything attached to title. Usually a foreclosure title has other issues."
Thank you again.
(federal issues)
In Washington, Oregon, California "for sure" it's a very big deal. I'm not current on Colorado foreclosure law.
there are federal laws involved
I personally, would not rely on self review of title obligations
Warranty deeds have to meet state specific requirements, usually have to be notarized and when done outside of escrow create a "credibility" problem with future title companies and definitely with the court in a lawsuit
Regardless of what you have been told or have read, you can not simply "Quit Claim Back" a property.
and other issues
I would not admit anything further because these he sites are monitored
pay for a local attorney for a proper solution He will need to see all paperwork to figure out best options
or simply hope your seller doesn't come back laterKen, I believe an unnotarized deed can still pass title. Notarization does two things; first it provides prima facia evidence the Grantor acknowledged signing the deed and appeared to understand the nature of the act, second, it's generally a prerequisite for recording in the public records. However, if one is the Grantee of the deed, I think a declaratory judgment action could be filed and upon sufficient evidence the court could find the deed valid and order the Clerk to record it. An unwieldy way to go about it, but possible, I think.
Re
In Arizona for instance, in statute, a deed must be properly notarized in order to be recorded.
An un-notarized deed can be litigated pretty easily.
But, an unrecorded deed does pass on title to the new owner, at time of signature for the reasons you stated. However, I'm unwilling to go into the implications by stating that. We'll, I just did. But there are exceptions. There needs to be someone, who can look at the paperwork and the facts, that he can work with to untangle this. By his lack of responding to if it was notarized, if it went through escrow etc I surmise it was a table top closing and he said there were other deals he has done. I don't think this is a "one off" occurrence. Either way, in my opinion, it can't be properly resolved on an exposed forum with people not willing to represent him. If he has a history of doing Subject To or foreclosures this way, it's a bigger issue. But yes, I believe if he has an unrecorded deed, it still transfers title with all the hair attached, legal and tax issues included.
Yes, an unrecorded deed does pass title — but only as to me the seller, and you, the buyer. The rest of the world is entitled to rely on the recorded chain of title, with a quick look/see at the property to see if there’s anything about the place that would cause a reasonable person to believe that the recorded chain of title might not reflect all interests in the property and therefore further investigation is needed.
Innocent third parties taking without notice and for consideration usually win.
So don’t just say “title passes without recording.” It passes to some people under some circumstances. The original poster needs to record his deed. Full stop. Recording is how he gets a seat at the table. If he’s not at the table, then he’s on the menu.In my opinion, fee title passes to the Grantee via a validly executed deed recorded or not. I agree that the interest may be subject to divestment by a subsequent deed, but the first grantee has fee title and not an equitable interest. In addition, occupancy may act as notice of the first grantee's interest, which may defeat a claim of a BFP status even if the deed has not been recorded. A buyer may have an obligation to conduct reasonable due diligence and explore any indicia that his seller may not have title to the property, including exclusive possession. However, in race states such as NC, notice doesn't matter. Whoever gets to the courthouse first wins, irrelevant of notice, constructive or actual.
Here we get into the weeds of recording systems and whether the state is a race, notice, or race-notice state vis-a-vis recording. At a minimum the original poster has an equitable interest. That we can all agree on.
My point was, and is, that recording does not harm the interests of the original poster. His interest will need to be accounted for in any legal proceedings, and apparently he's already known to the bank, since he said that he's waiting for a reinstatement/pay-off letter from the bank.
All in all, the original poster will be involved in any legal proceedings concerning this property. Any defects in his instrument of title will come out. He might as well record and make sure he's protected by prompt notice. It cannot harm his interests.
Yes, it can harm him a lot.
He will be asked why he did what he did, and what did he do to mitigate the damage.The issue isn't who records first. If everything had been done properly and gone through proper escrow and been properly processed, then first recordation matters.
With all of the defects he mentions, recording at all, opens a can of worms you apparently don't know about.
I'm not surprised, unless you've litigated those issues. Since they aren't obvious, you wouldn't be aware of them.
The OP loses nothing by consulting an attorney in the county the property is in, paying a few bucks and getting situational advice from someone who can look at the entire case facts. Then, if that attorney believes the best situation is to record, then record.If not good to record, then rectify first and record. Cavalier recording is not a good idea. He needs someone who will help him avoid the complicated, sometimes contradictory laws involved in Subject To, Contract law, not to mention foreclosure law, he is now in. It is not a single issue problem.
I will never tell someone to not consult an attorney. What I am saying is that any can of worms he has is already open. Not recording doesn't help him one iota. He can be asked what he did and why regardless of whether he records. Once his interest is discovered, he will be asked, recorded or not.
As for litigating the issues, I have done so. You seem to think that if he lies doggo in the bush that he won't be discovered. That is highly doubtful. That means he will be dragged into the suit and then asked not only why he did what he did, but what did he hope to accomplish by not recording? Given that he apparently has contacted the bank (see his post about waiting for the reinstatement letter), he will be joined/investigated anyway.
Recording does not harm him any more than he is already harmed.
- Specialist · Winter Springs, FL · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 747 votes1y
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Ken, your post illustrates the adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @Ken M.:
In some states, it's against the law to approach anyone missing payments, they are considered to be "distressed" If they have received a Notice of Default or a Notice of Foreclosure, they are classified "for sure" as distressedQuote from @Account Closed:
@Ken M. thank you for clarifying, and for time you've put in to answering my post.
state: Colorado
deed type: warranty deed
verification: Yes I verified the seller. I assume you meant check their ID, and do my own research on the title that shows the person I met with was indeed the owner.
distressed status: I didn't say it was 'distressed.' However, it is in default, wth a sale date in 3 months.
title status: title search and report is in progress. I'm planning to file it as soon as I see clear title, get an inspection, and get some additional paperwork signed with the seller.should I file the deed?: people have commented on this post very strongly both directions on this question - some say I definitely should and some say I shouldn't. Sounds like you're more hesitant, and that I shouldn't. Your quote from above sounds like good advice, and makes me want to proceed more cautiously: "If he files, he assumes the risk of anything attached to title. Usually a foreclosure title has other issues."
Thank you again.
(federal issues)
In Washington, Oregon, California "for sure" it's a very big deal. I'm not current on Colorado foreclosure law.
there are federal laws involved
I personally, would not rely on self review of title obligations
Warranty deeds have to meet state specific requirements, usually have to be notarized and when done outside of escrow create a "credibility" problem with future title companies and definitely with the court in a lawsuit
Regardless of what you have been told or have read, you can not simply "Quit Claim Back" a property.
and other issues
I would not admit anything further because these he sites are monitored
pay for a local attorney for a proper solution He will need to see all paperwork to figure out best options
or simply hope your seller doesn't come back laterKen, I believe an unnotarized deed can still pass title. Notarization does two things; first it provides prima facia evidence the Grantor acknowledged signing the deed and appeared to understand the nature of the act, second, it's generally a prerequisite for recording in the public records. However, if one is the Grantee of the deed, I think a declaratory judgment action could be filed and upon sufficient evidence the court could find the deed valid and order the Clerk to record it. An unwieldy way to go about it, but possible, I think.
Re
In Arizona for instance, in statute, a deed must be properly notarized in order to be recorded.
An un-notarized deed can be litigated pretty easily.
But, an unrecorded deed does pass on title to the new owner, at time of signature for the reasons you stated. However, I'm unwilling to go into the implications by stating that. We'll, I just did. But there are exceptions. There needs to be someone, who can look at the paperwork and the facts, that he can work with to untangle this. By his lack of responding to if it was notarized, if it went through escrow etc I surmise it was a table top closing and he said there were other deals he has done. I don't think this is a "one off" occurrence. Either way, in my opinion, it can't be properly resolved on an exposed forum with people not willing to represent him. If he has a history of doing Subject To or foreclosures this way, it's a bigger issue. But yes, I believe if he has an unrecorded deed, it still transfers title with all the hair attached, legal and tax issues included.
Yes, an unrecorded deed does pass title — but only as to me the seller, and you, the buyer. The rest of the world is entitled to rely on the recorded chain of title, with a quick look/see at the property to see if there’s anything about the place that would cause a reasonable person to believe that the recorded chain of title might not reflect all interests in the property and therefore further investigation is needed.
Innocent third parties taking without notice and for consideration usually win.
So don’t just say “title passes without recording.” It passes to some people under some circumstances. The original poster needs to record his deed. Full stop. Recording is how he gets a seat at the table. If he’s not at the table, then he’s on the menu.In my opinion, fee title passes to the Grantee via a validly executed deed recorded or not. I agree that the interest may be subject to divestment by a subsequent deed, but the first grantee has fee title and not an equitable interest. In addition, occupancy may act as notice of the first grantee's interest, which may defeat a claim of a BFP status even if the deed has not been recorded. A buyer may have an obligation to conduct reasonable due diligence and explore any indicia that his seller may not have title to the property, including exclusive possession. However, in race states such as NC, notice doesn't matter. Whoever gets to the courthouse first wins, irrelevant of notice, constructive or actual.
Here we get into the weeds of recording systems and whether the state is a race, notice, or race-notice state vis-a-vis recording. At a minimum the original poster has an equitable interest. That we can all agree on.
My point was, and is, that recording does not harm the interests of the original poster. His interest will need to be accounted for in any legal proceedings, and apparently he's already known to the bank, since he said that he's waiting for a reinstatement/pay-off letter from the bank.
All in all, the original poster will be involved in any legal proceedings concerning this property. Any defects in his instrument of title will come out. He might as well record and make sure he's protected by prompt notice. It cannot harm his interests.
I have no idea what interest if any the OP has since I haven't seen any of the documents nor do I know whether he should or should not record. That's why I recommended he speak with a CO attorney. I'm also not trying to split hairs, but I try to use correct terminology and generally speak up when my understanding varies from what's posted. In my opinion an equitable interest may arise when you partner with someone to buy property, and he uses your money to buy but puts title in his name only. He has record/fee interest, you probably have an equitable interest. You have a deed where you're the grantee, you have the fee not an equitable interest.
- Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes1yIf the deed is somehow defective or ineffective, a court of chancery will often rule that one has an equitable interest. State laws vary.
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Ken, your post illustrates the adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @Ken M.:
In some states, it's against the law to approach anyone missing payments, they are considered to be "distressed" If they have received a Notice of Default or a Notice of Foreclosure, they are classified "for sure" as distressedQuote from @Account Closed:
@Ken M. thank you for clarifying, and for time you've put in to answering my post.
state: Colorado
deed type: warranty deed
verification: Yes I verified the seller. I assume you meant check their ID, and do my own research on the title that shows the person I met with was indeed the owner.
distressed status: I didn't say it was 'distressed.' However, it is in default, wth a sale date in 3 months.
title status: title search and report is in progress. I'm planning to file it as soon as I see clear title, get an inspection, and get some additional paperwork signed with the seller.should I file the deed?: people have commented on this post very strongly both directions on this question - some say I definitely should and some say I shouldn't. Sounds like you're more hesitant, and that I shouldn't. Your quote from above sounds like good advice, and makes me want to proceed more cautiously: "If he files, he assumes the risk of anything attached to title. Usually a foreclosure title has other issues."
Thank you again.
(federal issues)
In Washington, Oregon, California "for sure" it's a very big deal. I'm not current on Colorado foreclosure law.
there are federal laws involved
I personally, would not rely on self review of title obligations
Warranty deeds have to meet state specific requirements, usually have to be notarized and when done outside of escrow create a "credibility" problem with future title companies and definitely with the court in a lawsuit
Regardless of what you have been told or have read, you can not simply "Quit Claim Back" a property.
and other issues
I would not admit anything further because these he sites are monitored
pay for a local attorney for a proper solution He will need to see all paperwork to figure out best options
or simply hope your seller doesn't come back laterKen, I believe an unnotarized deed can still pass title. Notarization does two things; first it provides prima facia evidence the Grantor acknowledged signing the deed and appeared to understand the nature of the act, second, it's generally a prerequisite for recording in the public records. However, if one is the Grantee of the deed, I think a declaratory judgment action could be filed and upon sufficient evidence the court could find the deed valid and order the Clerk to record it. An unwieldy way to go about it, but possible, I think.
Re
In Arizona for instance, in statute, a deed must be properly notarized in order to be recorded.
An un-notarized deed can be litigated pretty easily.
But, an unrecorded deed does pass on title to the new owner, at time of signature for the reasons you stated. However, I'm unwilling to go into the implications by stating that. We'll, I just did. But there are exceptions. There needs to be someone, who can look at the paperwork and the facts, that he can work with to untangle this. By his lack of responding to if it was notarized, if it went through escrow etc I surmise it was a table top closing and he said there were other deals he has done. I don't think this is a "one off" occurrence. Either way, in my opinion, it can't be properly resolved on an exposed forum with people not willing to represent him. If he has a history of doing Subject To or foreclosures this way, it's a bigger issue. But yes, I believe if he has an unrecorded deed, it still transfers title with all the hair attached, legal and tax issues included.
Yes, an unrecorded deed does pass title — but only as to me the seller, and you, the buyer. The rest of the world is entitled to rely on the recorded chain of title, with a quick look/see at the property to see if there’s anything about the place that would cause a reasonable person to believe that the recorded chain of title might not reflect all interests in the property and therefore further investigation is needed.
Innocent third parties taking without notice and for consideration usually win.
So don’t just say “title passes without recording.” It passes to some people under some circumstances. The original poster needs to record his deed. Full stop. Recording is how he gets a seat at the table. If he’s not at the table, then he’s on the menu.In my opinion, fee title passes to the Grantee via a validly executed deed recorded or not. I agree that the interest may be subject to divestment by a subsequent deed, but the first grantee has fee title and not an equitable interest. In addition, occupancy may act as notice of the first grantee's interest, which may defeat a claim of a BFP status even if the deed has not been recorded. A buyer may have an obligation to conduct reasonable due diligence and explore any indicia that his seller may not have title to the property, including exclusive possession. However, in race states such as NC, notice doesn't matter. Whoever gets to the courthouse first wins, irrelevant of notice, constructive or actual.
Here we get into the weeds of recording systems and whether the state is a race, notice, or race-notice state vis-a-vis recording. At a minimum the original poster has an equitable interest. That we can all agree on.
My point was, and is, that recording does not harm the interests of the original poster. His interest will need to be accounted for in any legal proceedings, and apparently he's already known to the bank, since he said that he's waiting for a reinstatement/pay-off letter from the bank.
All in all, the original poster will be involved in any legal proceedings concerning this property. Any defects in his instrument of title will come out. He might as well record and make sure he's protected by prompt notice. It cannot harm his interests.
I have no idea what interest if any the OP has since I haven't seen any of the documents nor do I know whether he should or should not record. That's why I recommended he speak with a CO attorney. I'm also not trying to split hairs, but I try to use correct terminology and generally speak up when my understanding varies from what's posted. In my opinion an equitable interest may arise when you partner with someone to buy property, and he uses your money to buy but puts title in his name only. He has record/fee interest, you probably have an equitable interest. You have a deed where you're the grantee, you have the fee not an equitable interest.
- Specialist · Winter Springs, FL · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 747 votes1y
Quote from @John Clark:
If the deed is somehow defective or ineffective, a court of chancery will often rule that one has an equitable interest. State laws vary.Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Ken, your post illustrates the adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @Ken M.:
In some states, it's against the law to approach anyone missing payments, they are considered to be "distressed" If they have received a Notice of Default or a Notice of Foreclosure, they are classified "for sure" as distressedQuote from @Account Closed:
@Ken M. thank you for clarifying, and for time you've put in to answering my post.
state: Colorado
deed type: warranty deed
verification: Yes I verified the seller. I assume you meant check their ID, and do my own research on the title that shows the person I met with was indeed the owner.
distressed status: I didn't say it was 'distressed.' However, it is in default, wth a sale date in 3 months.
title status: title search and report is in progress. I'm planning to file it as soon as I see clear title, get an inspection, and get some additional paperwork signed with the seller.should I file the deed?: people have commented on this post very strongly both directions on this question - some say I definitely should and some say I shouldn't. Sounds like you're more hesitant, and that I shouldn't. Your quote from above sounds like good advice, and makes me want to proceed more cautiously: "If he files, he assumes the risk of anything attached to title. Usually a foreclosure title has other issues."
Thank you again.
(federal issues)
In Washington, Oregon, California "for sure" it's a very big deal. I'm not current on Colorado foreclosure law.
there are federal laws involved
I personally, would not rely on self review of title obligations
Warranty deeds have to meet state specific requirements, usually have to be notarized and when done outside of escrow create a "credibility" problem with future title companies and definitely with the court in a lawsuit
Regardless of what you have been told or have read, you can not simply "Quit Claim Back" a property.
and other issues
I would not admit anything further because these he sites are monitored
pay for a local attorney for a proper solution He will need to see all paperwork to figure out best options
or simply hope your seller doesn't come back laterKen, I believe an unnotarized deed can still pass title. Notarization does two things; first it provides prima facia evidence the Grantor acknowledged signing the deed and appeared to understand the nature of the act, second, it's generally a prerequisite for recording in the public records. However, if one is the Grantee of the deed, I think a declaratory judgment action could be filed and upon sufficient evidence the court could find the deed valid and order the Clerk to record it. An unwieldy way to go about it, but possible, I think.
Re
In Arizona for instance, in statute, a deed must be properly notarized in order to be recorded.
An un-notarized deed can be litigated pretty easily.
But, an unrecorded deed does pass on title to the new owner, at time of signature for the reasons you stated. However, I'm unwilling to go into the implications by stating that. We'll, I just did. But there are exceptions. There needs to be someone, who can look at the paperwork and the facts, that he can work with to untangle this. By his lack of responding to if it was notarized, if it went through escrow etc I surmise it was a table top closing and he said there were other deals he has done. I don't think this is a "one off" occurrence. Either way, in my opinion, it can't be properly resolved on an exposed forum with people not willing to represent him. If he has a history of doing Subject To or foreclosures this way, it's a bigger issue. But yes, I believe if he has an unrecorded deed, it still transfers title with all the hair attached, legal and tax issues included.
Yes, an unrecorded deed does pass title — but only as to me the seller, and you, the buyer. The rest of the world is entitled to rely on the recorded chain of title, with a quick look/see at the property to see if there’s anything about the place that would cause a reasonable person to believe that the recorded chain of title might not reflect all interests in the property and therefore further investigation is needed.
Innocent third parties taking without notice and for consideration usually win.
So don’t just say “title passes without recording.” It passes to some people under some circumstances. The original poster needs to record his deed. Full stop. Recording is how he gets a seat at the table. If he’s not at the table, then he’s on the menu.In my opinion, fee title passes to the Grantee via a validly executed deed recorded or not. I agree that the interest may be subject to divestment by a subsequent deed, but the first grantee has fee title and not an equitable interest. In addition, occupancy may act as notice of the first grantee's interest, which may defeat a claim of a BFP status even if the deed has not been recorded. A buyer may have an obligation to conduct reasonable due diligence and explore any indicia that his seller may not have title to the property, including exclusive possession. However, in race states such as NC, notice doesn't matter. Whoever gets to the courthouse first wins, irrelevant of notice, constructive or actual.
Here we get into the weeds of recording systems and whether the state is a race, notice, or race-notice state vis-a-vis recording. At a minimum the original poster has an equitable interest. That we can all agree on.
My point was, and is, that recording does not harm the interests of the original poster. His interest will need to be accounted for in any legal proceedings, and apparently he's already known to the bank, since he said that he's waiting for a reinstatement/pay-off letter from the bank.
All in all, the original poster will be involved in any legal proceedings concerning this property. Any defects in his instrument of title will come out. He might as well record and make sure he's protected by prompt notice. It cannot harm his interests.
I have no idea what interest if any the OP has since I haven't seen any of the documents nor do I know whether he should or should not record. That's why I recommended he speak with a CO attorney. I'm also not trying to split hairs, but I try to use correct terminology and generally speak up when my understanding varies from what's posted. In my opinion an equitable interest may arise when you partner with someone to buy property, and he uses your money to buy but puts title in his name only. He has record/fee interest, you probably have an equitable interest. You have a deed where you're the grantee, you have the fee not an equitable interest.
It could, depending on the facts and evidence.
- Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes1yAgreed. Now, under what circumstances would not recording his deed best protect his interests, and under what circumstances would recording harm his interests? Notice I didn’t say “bring to light” defects, just harms that could not have arisen had there been no recording.
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
If the deed is somehow defective or ineffective, a court of chancery will often rule that one has an equitable interest. State laws vary.Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Ken, your post illustrates the adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @Ken M.:
In some states, it's against the law to approach anyone missing payments, they are considered to be "distressed" If they have received a Notice of Default or a Notice of Foreclosure, they are classified "for sure" as distressedQuote from @Account Closed:
@Ken M. thank you for clarifying, and for time you've put in to answering my post.
state: Colorado
deed type: warranty deed
verification: Yes I verified the seller. I assume you meant check their ID, and do my own research on the title that shows the person I met with was indeed the owner.
distressed status: I didn't say it was 'distressed.' However, it is in default, wth a sale date in 3 months.
title status: title search and report is in progress. I'm planning to file it as soon as I see clear title, get an inspection, and get some additional paperwork signed with the seller.should I file the deed?: people have commented on this post very strongly both directions on this question - some say I definitely should and some say I shouldn't. Sounds like you're more hesitant, and that I shouldn't. Your quote from above sounds like good advice, and makes me want to proceed more cautiously: "If he files, he assumes the risk of anything attached to title. Usually a foreclosure title has other issues."
Thank you again.
(federal issues)
In Washington, Oregon, California "for sure" it's a very big deal. I'm not current on Colorado foreclosure law.
there are federal laws involved
I personally, would not rely on self review of title obligations
Warranty deeds have to meet state specific requirements, usually have to be notarized and when done outside of escrow create a "credibility" problem with future title companies and definitely with the court in a lawsuit
Regardless of what you have been told or have read, you can not simply "Quit Claim Back" a property.
and other issues
I would not admit anything further because these he sites are monitored
pay for a local attorney for a proper solution He will need to see all paperwork to figure out best options
or simply hope your seller doesn't come back laterKen, I believe an unnotarized deed can still pass title. Notarization does two things; first it provides prima facia evidence the Grantor acknowledged signing the deed and appeared to understand the nature of the act, second, it's generally a prerequisite for recording in the public records. However, if one is the Grantee of the deed, I think a declaratory judgment action could be filed and upon sufficient evidence the court could find the deed valid and order the Clerk to record it. An unwieldy way to go about it, but possible, I think.
Re
In Arizona for instance, in statute, a deed must be properly notarized in order to be recorded.
An un-notarized deed can be litigated pretty easily.
But, an unrecorded deed does pass on title to the new owner, at time of signature for the reasons you stated. However, I'm unwilling to go into the implications by stating that. We'll, I just did. But there are exceptions. There needs to be someone, who can look at the paperwork and the facts, that he can work with to untangle this. By his lack of responding to if it was notarized, if it went through escrow etc I surmise it was a table top closing and he said there were other deals he has done. I don't think this is a "one off" occurrence. Either way, in my opinion, it can't be properly resolved on an exposed forum with people not willing to represent him. If he has a history of doing Subject To or foreclosures this way, it's a bigger issue. But yes, I believe if he has an unrecorded deed, it still transfers title with all the hair attached, legal and tax issues included.
Yes, an unrecorded deed does pass title — but only as to me the seller, and you, the buyer. The rest of the world is entitled to rely on the recorded chain of title, with a quick look/see at the property to see if there’s anything about the place that would cause a reasonable person to believe that the recorded chain of title might not reflect all interests in the property and therefore further investigation is needed.
Innocent third parties taking without notice and for consideration usually win.
So don’t just say “title passes without recording.” It passes to some people under some circumstances. The original poster needs to record his deed. Full stop. Recording is how he gets a seat at the table. If he’s not at the table, then he’s on the menu.In my opinion, fee title passes to the Grantee via a validly executed deed recorded or not. I agree that the interest may be subject to divestment by a subsequent deed, but the first grantee has fee title and not an equitable interest. In addition, occupancy may act as notice of the first grantee's interest, which may defeat a claim of a BFP status even if the deed has not been recorded. A buyer may have an obligation to conduct reasonable due diligence and explore any indicia that his seller may not have title to the property, including exclusive possession. However, in race states such as NC, notice doesn't matter. Whoever gets to the courthouse first wins, irrelevant of notice, constructive or actual.
Here we get into the weeds of recording systems and whether the state is a race, notice, or race-notice state vis-a-vis recording. At a minimum the original poster has an equitable interest. That we can all agree on.
My point was, and is, that recording does not harm the interests of the original poster. His interest will need to be accounted for in any legal proceedings, and apparently he's already known to the bank, since he said that he's waiting for a reinstatement/pay-off letter from the bank.
All in all, the original poster will be involved in any legal proceedings concerning this property. Any defects in his instrument of title will come out. He might as well record and make sure he's protected by prompt notice. It cannot harm his interests.
I have no idea what interest if any the OP has since I haven't seen any of the documents nor do I know whether he should or should not record. That's why I recommended he speak with a CO attorney. I'm also not trying to split hairs, but I try to use correct terminology and generally speak up when my understanding varies from what's posted. In my opinion an equitable interest may arise when you partner with someone to buy property, and he uses your money to buy but puts title in his name only. He has record/fee interest, you probably have an equitable interest. You have a deed where you're the grantee, you have the fee not an equitable interest.
It could, depending on the facts and evidence.
- Specialist · Winter Springs, FL · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 747 votes1y
Quote from @John Clark:
Agreed. Now, under what circumstances would not recording his deed best protect his interests, and under what circumstances would recording harm his interests? Notice I didn’t say “bring to light” defects, just harms that could not have arisen had there been no recording.Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
If the deed is somehow defective or ineffective, a court of chancery will often rule that one has an equitable interest. State laws vary.Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Ken, your post illustrates the adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @Ken M.:
In some states, it's against the law to approach anyone missing payments, they are considered to be "distressed" If they have received a Notice of Default or a Notice of Foreclosure, they are classified "for sure" as distressedQuote from @Account Closed:
@Ken M. thank you for clarifying, and for time you've put in to answering my post.
state: Colorado
deed type: warranty deed
verification: Yes I verified the seller. I assume you meant check their ID, and do my own research on the title that shows the person I met with was indeed the owner.
distressed status: I didn't say it was 'distressed.' However, it is in default, wth a sale date in 3 months.
title status: title search and report is in progress. I'm planning to file it as soon as I see clear title, get an inspection, and get some additional paperwork signed with the seller.should I file the deed?: people have commented on this post very strongly both directions on this question - some say I definitely should and some say I shouldn't. Sounds like you're more hesitant, and that I shouldn't. Your quote from above sounds like good advice, and makes me want to proceed more cautiously: "If he files, he assumes the risk of anything attached to title. Usually a foreclosure title has other issues."
Thank you again.
(federal issues)
In Washington, Oregon, California "for sure" it's a very big deal. I'm not current on Colorado foreclosure law.
there are federal laws involved
I personally, would not rely on self review of title obligations
Warranty deeds have to meet state specific requirements, usually have to be notarized and when done outside of escrow create a "credibility" problem with future title companies and definitely with the court in a lawsuit
Regardless of what you have been told or have read, you can not simply "Quit Claim Back" a property.
and other issues
I would not admit anything further because these he sites are monitored
pay for a local attorney for a proper solution He will need to see all paperwork to figure out best options
or simply hope your seller doesn't come back laterKen, I believe an unnotarized deed can still pass title. Notarization does two things; first it provides prima facia evidence the Grantor acknowledged signing the deed and appeared to understand the nature of the act, second, it's generally a prerequisite for recording in the public records. However, if one is the Grantee of the deed, I think a declaratory judgment action could be filed and upon sufficient evidence the court could find the deed valid and order the Clerk to record it. An unwieldy way to go about it, but possible, I think.
Re
In Arizona for instance, in statute, a deed must be properly notarized in order to be recorded.
An un-notarized deed can be litigated pretty easily.
But, an unrecorded deed does pass on title to the new owner, at time of signature for the reasons you stated. However, I'm unwilling to go into the implications by stating that. We'll, I just did. But there are exceptions. There needs to be someone, who can look at the paperwork and the facts, that he can work with to untangle this. By his lack of responding to if it was notarized, if it went through escrow etc I surmise it was a table top closing and he said there were other deals he has done. I don't think this is a "one off" occurrence. Either way, in my opinion, it can't be properly resolved on an exposed forum with people not willing to represent him. If he has a history of doing Subject To or foreclosures this way, it's a bigger issue. But yes, I believe if he has an unrecorded deed, it still transfers title with all the hair attached, legal and tax issues included.
Yes, an unrecorded deed does pass title — but only as to me the seller, and you, the buyer. The rest of the world is entitled to rely on the recorded chain of title, with a quick look/see at the property to see if there’s anything about the place that would cause a reasonable person to believe that the recorded chain of title might not reflect all interests in the property and therefore further investigation is needed.
Innocent third parties taking without notice and for consideration usually win.
So don’t just say “title passes without recording.” It passes to some people under some circumstances. The original poster needs to record his deed. Full stop. Recording is how he gets a seat at the table. If he’s not at the table, then he’s on the menu.In my opinion, fee title passes to the Grantee via a validly executed deed recorded or not. I agree that the interest may be subject to divestment by a subsequent deed, but the first grantee has fee title and not an equitable interest. In addition, occupancy may act as notice of the first grantee's interest, which may defeat a claim of a BFP status even if the deed has not been recorded. A buyer may have an obligation to conduct reasonable due diligence and explore any indicia that his seller may not have title to the property, including exclusive possession. However, in race states such as NC, notice doesn't matter. Whoever gets to the courthouse first wins, irrelevant of notice, constructive or actual.
Here we get into the weeds of recording systems and whether the state is a race, notice, or race-notice state vis-a-vis recording. At a minimum the original poster has an equitable interest. That we can all agree on.
My point was, and is, that recording does not harm the interests of the original poster. His interest will need to be accounted for in any legal proceedings, and apparently he's already known to the bank, since he said that he's waiting for a reinstatement/pay-off letter from the bank.
All in all, the original poster will be involved in any legal proceedings concerning this property. Any defects in his instrument of title will come out. He might as well record and make sure he's protected by prompt notice. It cannot harm his interests.
I have no idea what interest if any the OP has since I haven't seen any of the documents nor do I know whether he should or should not record. That's why I recommended he speak with a CO attorney. I'm also not trying to split hairs, but I try to use correct terminology and generally speak up when my understanding varies from what's posted. In my opinion an equitable interest may arise when you partner with someone to buy property, and he uses your money to buy but puts title in his name only. He has record/fee interest, you probably have an equitable interest. You have a deed where you're the grantee, you have the fee not an equitable interest.
It could, depending on the facts and evidence.
Let's say that his Grantor didn't actually own the property, would clouding the title with a forged deed be in his best interest? What if his Grantor only had a life estate and there was a mutual mistake or misunderstanding in what was intended to be conveyed? Would recording be the best thing to do? What if the Grantor only held a remainderman interest that will only ripen into a fee on the death of the life estate holder. Again, is recording the best thing to do? As I previously wrote, I haven't seen any docs, so I don't have an opinion on what to do, other than talk to an attorney.
- Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes1y
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Agreed. Now, under what circumstances would not recording his deed best protect his interests, and under what circumstances would recording harm his interests? Notice I didn’t say “bring to light” defects, just harms that could not have arisen had there been no recording.Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
If the deed is somehow defective or ineffective, a court of chancery will often rule that one has an equitable interest. State laws vary.Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Ken, your post illustrates the adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @Ken M.:
In some states, it's against the law to approach anyone missing payments, they are considered to be "distressed" If they have received a Notice of Default or a Notice of Foreclosure, they are classified "for sure" as distressedQuote from @Account Closed:
@Ken M. thank you for clarifying, and for time you've put in to answering my post.
state: Colorado
deed type: warranty deed
verification: Yes I verified the seller. I assume you meant check their ID, and do my own research on the title that shows the person I met with was indeed the owner.
distressed status: I didn't say it was 'distressed.' However, it is in default, wth a sale date in 3 months.
title status: title search and report is in progress. I'm planning to file it as soon as I see clear title, get an inspection, and get some additional paperwork signed with the seller.should I file the deed?: people have commented on this post very strongly both directions on this question - some say I definitely should and some say I shouldn't. Sounds like you're more hesitant, and that I shouldn't. Your quote from above sounds like good advice, and makes me want to proceed more cautiously: "If he files, he assumes the risk of anything attached to title. Usually a foreclosure title has other issues."
Thank you again.
(federal issues)
In Washington, Oregon, California "for sure" it's a very big deal. I'm not current on Colorado foreclosure law.
there are federal laws involved
I personally, would not rely on self review of title obligations
Warranty deeds have to meet state specific requirements, usually have to be notarized and when done outside of escrow create a "credibility" problem with future title companies and definitely with the court in a lawsuit
Regardless of what you have been told or have read, you can not simply "Quit Claim Back" a property.
and other issues
I would not admit anything further because these he sites are monitored
pay for a local attorney for a proper solution He will need to see all paperwork to figure out best options
or simply hope your seller doesn't come back laterKen, I believe an unnotarized deed can still pass title. Notarization does two things; first it provides prima facia evidence the Grantor acknowledged signing the deed and appeared to understand the nature of the act, second, it's generally a prerequisite for recording in the public records. However, if one is the Grantee of the deed, I think a declaratory judgment action could be filed and upon sufficient evidence the court could find the deed valid and order the Clerk to record it. An unwieldy way to go about it, but possible, I think.
Re
In Arizona for instance, in statute, a deed must be properly notarized in order to be recorded.
An un-notarized deed can be litigated pretty easily.
But, an unrecorded deed does pass on title to the new owner, at time of signature for the reasons you stated. However, I'm unwilling to go into the implications by stating that. We'll, I just did. But there are exceptions. There needs to be someone, who can look at the paperwork and the facts, that he can work with to untangle this. By his lack of responding to if it was notarized, if it went through escrow etc I surmise it was a table top closing and he said there were other deals he has done. I don't think this is a "one off" occurrence. Either way, in my opinion, it can't be properly resolved on an exposed forum with people not willing to represent him. If he has a history of doing Subject To or foreclosures this way, it's a bigger issue. But yes, I believe if he has an unrecorded deed, it still transfers title with all the hair attached, legal and tax issues included.
Yes, an unrecorded deed does pass title — but only as to me the seller, and you, the buyer. The rest of the world is entitled to rely on the recorded chain of title, with a quick look/see at the property to see if there’s anything about the place that would cause a reasonable person to believe that the recorded chain of title might not reflect all interests in the property and therefore further investigation is needed.
Innocent third parties taking without notice and for consideration usually win.
So don’t just say “title passes without recording.” It passes to some people under some circumstances. The original poster needs to record his deed. Full stop. Recording is how he gets a seat at the table. If he’s not at the table, then he’s on the menu.In my opinion, fee title passes to the Grantee via a validly executed deed recorded or not. I agree that the interest may be subject to divestment by a subsequent deed, but the first grantee has fee title and not an equitable interest. In addition, occupancy may act as notice of the first grantee's interest, which may defeat a claim of a BFP status even if the deed has not been recorded. A buyer may have an obligation to conduct reasonable due diligence and explore any indicia that his seller may not have title to the property, including exclusive possession. However, in race states such as NC, notice doesn't matter. Whoever gets to the courthouse first wins, irrelevant of notice, constructive or actual.
Here we get into the weeds of recording systems and whether the state is a race, notice, or race-notice state vis-a-vis recording. At a minimum the original poster has an equitable interest. That we can all agree on.
My point was, and is, that recording does not harm the interests of the original poster. His interest will need to be accounted for in any legal proceedings, and apparently he's already known to the bank, since he said that he's waiting for a reinstatement/pay-off letter from the bank.
All in all, the original poster will be involved in any legal proceedings concerning this property. Any defects in his instrument of title will come out. He might as well record and make sure he's protected by prompt notice. It cannot harm his interests.
I have no idea what interest if any the OP has since I haven't seen any of the documents nor do I know whether he should or should not record. That's why I recommended he speak with a CO attorney. I'm also not trying to split hairs, but I try to use correct terminology and generally speak up when my understanding varies from what's posted. In my opinion an equitable interest may arise when you partner with someone to buy property, and he uses your money to buy but puts title in his name only. He has record/fee interest, you probably have an equitable interest. You have a deed where you're the grantee, you have the fee not an equitable interest.
It could, depending on the facts and evidence.
Let's say that his Grantor didn't actually own the property, would clouding the title with a forged deed be in his best interest? What if his Grantor only had a life estate and there was a mutual mistake or misunderstanding in what was intended to be conveyed? Would recording be the best thing to do? What if the Grantor only held a remainderman interest that will only ripen into a fee on the death of the life estate holder. Again, is recording the best thing to do? As I previously wrote, I haven't seen any docs, so I don't have an opinion on what to do, other than talk to an attorney.
Doesn't harm him. His deed is a cloud already. Let there be a suit, and he can decide whether he wants to defend or not. Lying doggo in the bush and hoping the storm clouds pass doesn't protect him.
- Attorney · Spanish Fork, UT · Member since 2025 · 77 posts · 97 votes1y
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Agreed. Now, under what circumstances would not recording his deed best protect his interests, and under what circumstances would recording harm his interests? Notice I didn’t say “bring to light” defects, just harms that could not have arisen had there been no recording.Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
If the deed is somehow defective or ineffective, a court of chancery will often rule that one has an equitable interest. State laws vary.Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Ken, your post illustrates the adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @Ken M.:
In some states, it's against the law to approach anyone missing payments, they are considered to be "distressed" If they have received a Notice of Default or a Notice of Foreclosure, they are classified "for sure" as distressedQuote from @Account Closed:
@Ken M. thank you for clarifying, and for time you've put in to answering my post.
state: Colorado
deed type: warranty deed
verification: Yes I verified the seller. I assume you meant check their ID, and do my own research on the title that shows the person I met with was indeed the owner.
distressed status: I didn't say it was 'distressed.' However, it is in default, wth a sale date in 3 months.
title status: title search and report is in progress. I'm planning to file it as soon as I see clear title, get an inspection, and get some additional paperwork signed with the seller.should I file the deed?: people have commented on this post very strongly both directions on this question - some say I definitely should and some say I shouldn't. Sounds like you're more hesitant, and that I shouldn't. Your quote from above sounds like good advice, and makes me want to proceed more cautiously: "If he files, he assumes the risk of anything attached to title. Usually a foreclosure title has other issues."
Thank you again.
(federal issues)
In Washington, Oregon, California "for sure" it's a very big deal. I'm not current on Colorado foreclosure law.
there are federal laws involved
I personally, would not rely on self review of title obligations
Warranty deeds have to meet state specific requirements, usually have to be notarized and when done outside of escrow create a "credibility" problem with future title companies and definitely with the court in a lawsuit
Regardless of what you have been told or have read, you can not simply "Quit Claim Back" a property.
and other issues
I would not admit anything further because these he sites are monitored
pay for a local attorney for a proper solution He will need to see all paperwork to figure out best options
or simply hope your seller doesn't come back laterKen, I believe an unnotarized deed can still pass title. Notarization does two things; first it provides prima facia evidence the Grantor acknowledged signing the deed and appeared to understand the nature of the act, second, it's generally a prerequisite for recording in the public records. However, if one is the Grantee of the deed, I think a declaratory judgment action could be filed and upon sufficient evidence the court could find the deed valid and order the Clerk to record it. An unwieldy way to go about it, but possible, I think.
Re
In Arizona for instance, in statute, a deed must be properly notarized in order to be recorded.
An un-notarized deed can be litigated pretty easily.
But, an unrecorded deed does pass on title to the new owner, at time of signature for the reasons you stated. However, I'm unwilling to go into the implications by stating that. We'll, I just did. But there are exceptions. There needs to be someone, who can look at the paperwork and the facts, that he can work with to untangle this. By his lack of responding to if it was notarized, if it went through escrow etc I surmise it was a table top closing and he said there were other deals he has done. I don't think this is a "one off" occurrence. Either way, in my opinion, it can't be properly resolved on an exposed forum with people not willing to represent him. If he has a history of doing Subject To or foreclosures this way, it's a bigger issue. But yes, I believe if he has an unrecorded deed, it still transfers title with all the hair attached, legal and tax issues included.
Yes, an unrecorded deed does pass title — but only as to me the seller, and you, the buyer. The rest of the world is entitled to rely on the recorded chain of title, with a quick look/see at the property to see if there’s anything about the place that would cause a reasonable person to believe that the recorded chain of title might not reflect all interests in the property and therefore further investigation is needed.
Innocent third parties taking without notice and for consideration usually win.
So don’t just say “title passes without recording.” It passes to some people under some circumstances. The original poster needs to record his deed. Full stop. Recording is how he gets a seat at the table. If he’s not at the table, then he’s on the menu.In my opinion, fee title passes to the Grantee via a validly executed deed recorded or not. I agree that the interest may be subject to divestment by a subsequent deed, but the first grantee has fee title and not an equitable interest. In addition, occupancy may act as notice of the first grantee's interest, which may defeat a claim of a BFP status even if the deed has not been recorded. A buyer may have an obligation to conduct reasonable due diligence and explore any indicia that his seller may not have title to the property, including exclusive possession. However, in race states such as NC, notice doesn't matter. Whoever gets to the courthouse first wins, irrelevant of notice, constructive or actual.
Here we get into the weeds of recording systems and whether the state is a race, notice, or race-notice state vis-a-vis recording. At a minimum the original poster has an equitable interest. That we can all agree on.
My point was, and is, that recording does not harm the interests of the original poster. His interest will need to be accounted for in any legal proceedings, and apparently he's already known to the bank, since he said that he's waiting for a reinstatement/pay-off letter from the bank.
All in all, the original poster will be involved in any legal proceedings concerning this property. Any defects in his instrument of title will come out. He might as well record and make sure he's protected by prompt notice. It cannot harm his interests.
I have no idea what interest if any the OP has since I haven't seen any of the documents nor do I know whether he should or should not record. That's why I recommended he speak with a CO attorney. I'm also not trying to split hairs, but I try to use correct terminology and generally speak up when my understanding varies from what's posted. In my opinion an equitable interest may arise when you partner with someone to buy property, and he uses your money to buy but puts title in his name only. He has record/fee interest, you probably have an equitable interest. You have a deed where you're the grantee, you have the fee not an equitable interest.
It could, depending on the facts and evidence.
Let's say that his Grantor didn't actually own the property, would clouding the title with a forged deed be in his best interest? What if his Grantor only had a life estate and there was a mutual mistake or misunderstanding in what was intended to be conveyed? Would recording be the best thing to do? What if the Grantor only held a remainderman interest that will only ripen into a fee on the death of the life estate holder. Again, is recording the best thing to do? As I previously wrote, I haven't seen any docs, so I don't have an opinion on what to do, other than talk to an attorney.
@Peter Walther Thank you for being a voice of reason and restraint here. I've been following this thread for the last week or so and it was sad to see so many people dogpile on the OP, to the point where it appears that he deleted his account. Yes, he got himself into a mess getting involved in a complicated and fraught real estate strategy like Sub2 without doing the work, or better yet hiring a professional, to get his ducks in a row before pulling the trigger. However, so many of the comments were unhelpful or even fraught with their own potential ill effects, especially considering there was minimal info given and none of the documents (deed, contract, loan docs, etc.) were available to really determine what is the best path forward, if indeed there is a "best" path and not just a number of options with their own pros and cons depending on the OP's goals. The best and most sound advice given in this thread is go talk to an attorney ASAP.
- Investor · Get yourself trained before doing something inadvisable. · Member since 2024 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes1y
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Agreed. Now, under what circumstances would not recording his deed best protect his interests, and under what circumstances would recording harm his interests? Notice I didn’t say “bring to light” defects, just harms that could not have arisen had there been no recording.Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
If the deed is somehow defective or ineffective, a court of chancery will often rule that one has an equitable interest. State laws vary.Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Ken, your post illustrates the adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @Ken M.:
In some states, it's against the law to approach anyone missing payments, they are considered to be "distressed" If they have received a Notice of Default or a Notice of Foreclosure, they are classified "for sure" as distressedQuote from @Account Closed:
@Ken M. thank you for clarifying, and for time you've put in to answering my post.
state: Colorado
deed type: warranty deed
verification: Yes I verified the seller. I assume you meant check their ID, and do my own research on the title that shows the person I met with was indeed the owner.
distressed status: I didn't say it was 'distressed.' However, it is in default, wth a sale date in 3 months.
title status: title search and report is in progress. I'm planning to file it as soon as I see clear title, get an inspection, and get some additional paperwork signed with the seller.should I file the deed?: people have commented on this post very strongly both directions on this question - some say I definitely should and some say I shouldn't. Sounds like you're more hesitant, and that I shouldn't. Your quote from above sounds like good advice, and makes me want to proceed more cautiously: "If he files, he assumes the risk of anything attached to title. Usually a foreclosure title has other issues."
Thank you again.
(federal issues)
In Washington, Oregon, California "for sure" it's a very big deal. I'm not current on Colorado foreclosure law.
there are federal laws involved
I personally, would not rely on self review of title obligations
Warranty deeds have to meet state specific requirements, usually have to be notarized and when done outside of escrow create a "credibility" problem with future title companies and definitely with the court in a lawsuit
Regardless of what you have been told or have read, you can not simply "Quit Claim Back" a property.
and other issues
I would not admit anything further because these he sites are monitored
pay for a local attorney for a proper solution He will need to see all paperwork to figure out best options
or simply hope your seller doesn't come back laterKen, I believe an unnotarized deed can still pass title. Notarization does two things; first it provides prima facia evidence the Grantor acknowledged signing the deed and appeared to understand the nature of the act, second, it's generally a prerequisite for recording in the public records. However, if one is the Grantee of the deed, I think a declaratory judgment action could be filed and upon sufficient evidence the court could find the deed valid and order the Clerk to record it. An unwieldy way to go about it, but possible, I think.
Re
In Arizona for instance, in statute, a deed must be properly notarized in order to be recorded.
An un-notarized deed can be litigated pretty easily.
But, an unrecorded deed does pass on title to the new owner, at time of signature for the reasons you stated. However, I'm unwilling to go into the implications by stating that. We'll, I just did. But there are exceptions. There needs to be someone, who can look at the paperwork and the facts, that he can work with to untangle this. By his lack of responding to if it was notarized, if it went through escrow etc I surmise it was a table top closing and he said there were other deals he has done. I don't think this is a "one off" occurrence. Either way, in my opinion, it can't be properly resolved on an exposed forum with people not willing to represent him. If he has a history of doing Subject To or foreclosures this way, it's a bigger issue. But yes, I believe if he has an unrecorded deed, it still transfers title with all the hair attached, legal and tax issues included.
Yes, an unrecorded deed does pass title — but only as to me the seller, and you, the buyer. The rest of the world is entitled to rely on the recorded chain of title, with a quick look/see at the property to see if there’s anything about the place that would cause a reasonable person to believe that the recorded chain of title might not reflect all interests in the property and therefore further investigation is needed.
Innocent third parties taking without notice and for consideration usually win.
So don’t just say “title passes without recording.” It passes to some people under some circumstances. The original poster needs to record his deed. Full stop. Recording is how he gets a seat at the table. If he’s not at the table, then he’s on the menu.In my opinion, fee title passes to the Grantee via a validly executed deed recorded or not. I agree that the interest may be subject to divestment by a subsequent deed, but the first grantee has fee title and not an equitable interest. In addition, occupancy may act as notice of the first grantee's interest, which may defeat a claim of a BFP status even if the deed has not been recorded. A buyer may have an obligation to conduct reasonable due diligence and explore any indicia that his seller may not have title to the property, including exclusive possession. However, in race states such as NC, notice doesn't matter. Whoever gets to the courthouse first wins, irrelevant of notice, constructive or actual.
Here we get into the weeds of recording systems and whether the state is a race, notice, or race-notice state vis-a-vis recording. At a minimum the original poster has an equitable interest. That we can all agree on.
My point was, and is, that recording does not harm the interests of the original poster. His interest will need to be accounted for in any legal proceedings, and apparently he's already known to the bank, since he said that he's waiting for a reinstatement/pay-off letter from the bank.
All in all, the original poster will be involved in any legal proceedings concerning this property. Any defects in his instrument of title will come out. He might as well record and make sure he's protected by prompt notice. It cannot harm his interests.
I have no idea what interest if any the OP has since I haven't seen any of the documents nor do I know whether he should or should not record. That's why I recommended he speak with a CO attorney. I'm also not trying to split hairs, but I try to use correct terminology and generally speak up when my understanding varies from what's posted. In my opinion an equitable interest may arise when you partner with someone to buy property, and he uses your money to buy but puts title in his name only. He has record/fee interest, you probably have an equitable interest. You have a deed where you're the grantee, you have the fee not an equitable interest.
It could, depending on the facts and evidence.
Let's say that his Grantor didn't actually own the property, would clouding the title with a forged deed be in his best interest? What if his Grantor only had a life estate and there was a mutual mistake or misunderstanding in what was intended to be conveyed? Would recording be the best thing to do? What if the Grantor only held a remainderman interest that will only ripen into a fee on the death of the life estate holder. Again, is recording the best thing to do? As I previously wrote, I haven't seen any docs, so I don't have an opinion on what to do, other than talk to an attorney.
.
His comment "Let there be a suit,"
yes, yes, there's "no harm in that."(sarcasm)Lurkers: be very careful who you listen to, there are a lot of "wanna be" advisors who lack wisdom.
"Let there be a suit," is the worst advice I've heard in a long time.
- Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes1yKen, the decision to file suit will not be made by the original poster. You seem to think that if he doesn’t record, he’s free and clear. The mortgage is in default, however, so it’s already on the skyline. The OP’s interest will be revealed. He can decide if he wants to default on a suit or not, but that’s not a recording issue.
Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Agreed. Now, under what circumstances would not recording his deed best protect his interests, and under what circumstances would recording harm his interests? Notice I didn’t say “bring to light” defects, just harms that could not have arisen had there been no recording.Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
If the deed is somehow defective or ineffective, a court of chancery will often rule that one has an equitable interest. State laws vary.Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Ken, your post illustrates the adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @Ken M.:
In some states, it's against the law to approach anyone missing payments, they are considered to be "distressed" If they have received a Notice of Default or a Notice of Foreclosure, they are classified "for sure" as distressedQuote from @Account Closed:
@Ken M. thank you for clarifying, and for time you've put in to answering my post.
state: Colorado
deed type: warranty deed
verification: Yes I verified the seller. I assume you meant check their ID, and do my own research on the title that shows the person I met with was indeed the owner.
distressed status: I didn't say it was 'distressed.' However, it is in default, wth a sale date in 3 months.
title status: title search and report is in progress. I'm planning to file it as soon as I see clear title, get an inspection, and get some additional paperwork signed with the seller.should I file the deed?: people have commented on this post very strongly both directions on this question - some say I definitely should and some say I shouldn't. Sounds like you're more hesitant, and that I shouldn't. Your quote from above sounds like good advice, and makes me want to proceed more cautiously: "If he files, he assumes the risk of anything attached to title. Usually a foreclosure title has other issues."
Thank you again.
(federal issues)
In Washington, Oregon, California "for sure" it's a very big deal. I'm not current on Colorado foreclosure law.
there are federal laws involved
I personally, would not rely on self review of title obligations
Warranty deeds have to meet state specific requirements, usually have to be notarized and when done outside of escrow create a "credibility" problem with future title companies and definitely with the court in a lawsuit
Regardless of what you have been told or have read, you can not simply "Quit Claim Back" a property.
and other issues
I would not admit anything further because these he sites are monitored
pay for a local attorney for a proper solution He will need to see all paperwork to figure out best options
or simply hope your seller doesn't come back laterKen, I believe an unnotarized deed can still pass title. Notarization does two things; first it provides prima facia evidence the Grantor acknowledged signing the deed and appeared to understand the nature of the act, second, it's generally a prerequisite for recording in the public records. However, if one is the Grantee of the deed, I think a declaratory judgment action could be filed and upon sufficient evidence the court could find the deed valid and order the Clerk to record it. An unwieldy way to go about it, but possible, I think.
Re
In Arizona for instance, in statute, a deed must be properly notarized in order to be recorded.
An un-notarized deed can be litigated pretty easily.
But, an unrecorded deed does pass on title to the new owner, at time of signature for the reasons you stated. However, I'm unwilling to go into the implications by stating that. We'll, I just did. But there are exceptions. There needs to be someone, who can look at the paperwork and the facts, that he can work with to untangle this. By his lack of responding to if it was notarized, if it went through escrow etc I surmise it was a table top closing and he said there were other deals he has done. I don't think this is a "one off" occurrence. Either way, in my opinion, it can't be properly resolved on an exposed forum with people not willing to represent him. If he has a history of doing Subject To or foreclosures this way, it's a bigger issue. But yes, I believe if he has an unrecorded deed, it still transfers title with all the hair attached, legal and tax issues included.
Yes, an unrecorded deed does pass title — but only as to me the seller, and you, the buyer. The rest of the world is entitled to rely on the recorded chain of title, with a quick look/see at the property to see if there’s anything about the place that would cause a reasonable person to believe that the recorded chain of title might not reflect all interests in the property and therefore further investigation is needed.
Innocent third parties taking without notice and for consideration usually win.
So don’t just say “title passes without recording.” It passes to some people under some circumstances. The original poster needs to record his deed. Full stop. Recording is how he gets a seat at the table. If he’s not at the table, then he’s on the menu.In my opinion, fee title passes to the Grantee via a validly executed deed recorded or not. I agree that the interest may be subject to divestment by a subsequent deed, but the first grantee has fee title and not an equitable interest. In addition, occupancy may act as notice of the first grantee's interest, which may defeat a claim of a BFP status even if the deed has not been recorded. A buyer may have an obligation to conduct reasonable due diligence and explore any indicia that his seller may not have title to the property, including exclusive possession. However, in race states such as NC, notice doesn't matter. Whoever gets to the courthouse first wins, irrelevant of notice, constructive or actual.
Here we get into the weeds of recording systems and whether the state is a race, notice, or race-notice state vis-a-vis recording. At a minimum the original poster has an equitable interest. That we can all agree on.
My point was, and is, that recording does not harm the interests of the original poster. His interest will need to be accounted for in any legal proceedings, and apparently he's already known to the bank, since he said that he's waiting for a reinstatement/pay-off letter from the bank.
All in all, the original poster will be involved in any legal proceedings concerning this property. Any defects in his instrument of title will come out. He might as well record and make sure he's protected by prompt notice. It cannot harm his interests.
I have no idea what interest if any the OP has since I haven't seen any of the documents nor do I know whether he should or should not record. That's why I recommended he speak with a CO attorney. I'm also not trying to split hairs, but I try to use correct terminology and generally speak up when my understanding varies from what's posted. In my opinion an equitable interest may arise when you partner with someone to buy property, and he uses your money to buy but puts title in his name only. He has record/fee interest, you probably have an equitable interest. You have a deed where you're the grantee, you have the fee not an equitable interest.
It could, depending on the facts and evidence.
Let's say that his Grantor didn't actually own the property, would clouding the title with a forged deed be in his best interest? What if his Grantor only had a life estate and there was a mutual mistake or misunderstanding in what was intended to be conveyed? Would recording be the best thing to do? What if the Grantor only held a remainderman interest that will only ripen into a fee on the death of the life estate holder. Again, is recording the best thing to do? As I previously wrote, I haven't seen any docs, so I don't have an opinion on what to do, other than talk to an attorney.
.
His comment "Let there be a suit,"
yes, yes, there's "no harm in that."(sarcasm)Lurkers: be very careful who you listen to, there are a lot of "wanna be" advisors who lack wisdom.
"Let there be a suit," is the worst advice I've heard in a long time.
- Investor · Get yourself trained before doing something inadvisable. · Member since 2024 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes1y
Quote from @John Clark:
Ken, the decision to file suit will not be made by the original poster. You seem to think that if he doesn’t record, he’s free and clear. The mortgage is in default, however, so it’s already on the skyline. The OP’s interest will be revealed. He can decide if he wants to default on a suit or not, but that’s not a recording issue.Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Agreed. Now, under what circumstances would not recording his deed best protect his interests, and under what circumstances would recording harm his interests? Notice I didn’t say “bring to light” defects, just harms that could not have arisen had there been no recording.Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
If the deed is somehow defective or ineffective, a court of chancery will often rule that one has an equitable interest. State laws vary.Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Ken, your post illustrates the adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @Ken M.:
In some states, it's against the law to approach anyone missing payments, they are considered to be "distressed" If they have received a Notice of Default or a Notice of Foreclosure, they are classified "for sure" as distressedQuote from @Account Closed:
@Ken M. thank you for clarifying, and for time you've put in to answering my post.
state: Colorado
deed type: warranty deed
verification: Yes I verified the seller. I assume you meant check their ID, and do my own research on the title that shows the person I met with was indeed the owner.
distressed status: I didn't say it was 'distressed.' However, it is in default, wth a sale date in 3 months.
title status: title search and report is in progress. I'm planning to file it as soon as I see clear title, get an inspection, and get some additional paperwork signed with the seller.should I file the deed?: people have commented on this post very strongly both directions on this question - some say I definitely should and some say I shouldn't. Sounds like you're more hesitant, and that I shouldn't. Your quote from above sounds like good advice, and makes me want to proceed more cautiously: "If he files, he assumes the risk of anything attached to title. Usually a foreclosure title has other issues."
Thank you again.
(federal issues)
In Washington, Oregon, California "for sure" it's a very big deal. I'm not current on Colorado foreclosure law.
there are federal laws involved
I personally, would not rely on self review of title obligations
Warranty deeds have to meet state specific requirements, usually have to be notarized and when done outside of escrow create a "credibility" problem with future title companies and definitely with the court in a lawsuit
Regardless of what you have been told or have read, you can not simply "Quit Claim Back" a property.
and other issues
I would not admit anything further because these he sites are monitored
pay for a local attorney for a proper solution He will need to see all paperwork to figure out best options
or simply hope your seller doesn't come back laterKen, I believe an unnotarized deed can still pass title. Notarization does two things; first it provides prima facia evidence the Grantor acknowledged signing the deed and appeared to understand the nature of the act, second, it's generally a prerequisite for recording in the public records. However, if one is the Grantee of the deed, I think a declaratory judgment action could be filed and upon sufficient evidence the court could find the deed valid and order the Clerk to record it. An unwieldy way to go about it, but possible, I think.
Re
In Arizona for instance, in statute, a deed must be properly notarized in order to be recorded.
An un-notarized deed can be litigated pretty easily.
But, an unrecorded deed does pass on title to the new owner, at time of signature for the reasons you stated. However, I'm unwilling to go into the implications by stating that. We'll, I just did. But there are exceptions. There needs to be someone, who can look at the paperwork and the facts, that he can work with to untangle this. By his lack of responding to if it was notarized, if it went through escrow etc I surmise it was a table top closing and he said there were other deals he has done. I don't think this is a "one off" occurrence. Either way, in my opinion, it can't be properly resolved on an exposed forum with people not willing to represent him. If he has a history of doing Subject To or foreclosures this way, it's a bigger issue. But yes, I believe if he has an unrecorded deed, it still transfers title with all the hair attached, legal and tax issues included.
Yes, an unrecorded deed does pass title — but only as to me the seller, and you, the buyer. The rest of the world is entitled to rely on the recorded chain of title, with a quick look/see at the property to see if there’s anything about the place that would cause a reasonable person to believe that the recorded chain of title might not reflect all interests in the property and therefore further investigation is needed.
Innocent third parties taking without notice and for consideration usually win.
So don’t just say “title passes without recording.” It passes to some people under some circumstances. The original poster needs to record his deed. Full stop. Recording is how he gets a seat at the table. If he’s not at the table, then he’s on the menu.In my opinion, fee title passes to the Grantee via a validly executed deed recorded or not. I agree that the interest may be subject to divestment by a subsequent deed, but the first grantee has fee title and not an equitable interest. In addition, occupancy may act as notice of the first grantee's interest, which may defeat a claim of a BFP status even if the deed has not been recorded. A buyer may have an obligation to conduct reasonable due diligence and explore any indicia that his seller may not have title to the property, including exclusive possession. However, in race states such as NC, notice doesn't matter. Whoever gets to the courthouse first wins, irrelevant of notice, constructive or actual.
Here we get into the weeds of recording systems and whether the state is a race, notice, or race-notice state vis-a-vis recording. At a minimum the original poster has an equitable interest. That we can all agree on.
My point was, and is, that recording does not harm the interests of the original poster. His interest will need to be accounted for in any legal proceedings, and apparently he's already known to the bank, since he said that he's waiting for a reinstatement/pay-off letter from the bank.
All in all, the original poster will be involved in any legal proceedings concerning this property. Any defects in his instrument of title will come out. He might as well record and make sure he's protected by prompt notice. It cannot harm his interests.
I have no idea what interest if any the OP has since I haven't seen any of the documents nor do I know whether he should or should not record. That's why I recommended he speak with a CO attorney. I'm also not trying to split hairs, but I try to use correct terminology and generally speak up when my understanding varies from what's posted. In my opinion an equitable interest may arise when you partner with someone to buy property, and he uses your money to buy but puts title in his name only. He has record/fee interest, you probably have an equitable interest. You have a deed where you're the grantee, you have the fee not an equitable interest.
It could, depending on the facts and evidence.
Let's say that his Grantor didn't actually own the property, would clouding the title with a forged deed be in his best interest? What if his Grantor only had a life estate and there was a mutual mistake or misunderstanding in what was intended to be conveyed? Would recording be the best thing to do? What if the Grantor only held a remainderman interest that will only ripen into a fee on the death of the life estate holder. Again, is recording the best thing to do? As I previously wrote, I haven't seen any docs, so I don't have an opinion on what to do, other than talk to an attorney.
.
His comment "Let there be a suit,"
yes, yes, there's "no harm in that."(sarcasm)Lurkers: be very careful who you listen to, there are a lot of "wanna be" advisors who lack wisdom.
"Let there be a suit," is the worst advice I've heard in a long time.
.
The solution is to AVOID being sued and AVOID being investigated by concerned parties - this goes way beyond what you understand, but I get that. I believe @peter walther: has the experience of investigations and lawsuits that he hasn't mentioned, that make him someone to pay attention to if you can't follow what I have cautioned. - Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes1y
Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @John Clark:
Ken, the decision to file suit will not be made by the original poster. You seem to think that if he doesn’t record, he’s free and clear. The mortgage is in default, however, so it’s already on the skyline. The OP’s interest will be revealed. He can decide if he wants to default on a suit or not, but that’s not a recording issue.Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Agreed. Now, under what circumstances would not recording his deed best protect his interests, and under what circumstances would recording harm his interests? Notice I didn’t say “bring to light” defects, just harms that could not have arisen had there been no recording.Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
If the deed is somehow defective or ineffective, a court of chancery will often rule that one has an equitable interest. State laws vary.Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Ken, your post illustrates the adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @Ken M.:
In some states, it's against the law to approach anyone missing payments, they are considered to be "distressed" If they have received a Notice of Default or a Notice of Foreclosure, they are classified "for sure" as distressedQuote from @Account Closed:
@Ken M. thank you for clarifying, and for time you've put in to answering my post.
state: Colorado
deed type: warranty deed
verification: Yes I verified the seller. I assume you meant check their ID, and do my own research on the title that shows the person I met with was indeed the owner.
distressed status: I didn't say it was 'distressed.' However, it is in default, wth a sale date in 3 months.
title status: title search and report is in progress. I'm planning to file it as soon as I see clear title, get an inspection, and get some additional paperwork signed with the seller.should I file the deed?: people have commented on this post very strongly both directions on this question - some say I definitely should and some say I shouldn't. Sounds like you're more hesitant, and that I shouldn't. Your quote from above sounds like good advice, and makes me want to proceed more cautiously: "If he files, he assumes the risk of anything attached to title. Usually a foreclosure title has other issues."
Thank you again.
(federal issues)
In Washington, Oregon, California "for sure" it's a very big deal. I'm not current on Colorado foreclosure law.
there are federal laws involved
I personally, would not rely on self review of title obligations
Warranty deeds have to meet state specific requirements, usually have to be notarized and when done outside of escrow create a "credibility" problem with future title companies and definitely with the court in a lawsuit
Regardless of what you have been told or have read, you can not simply "Quit Claim Back" a property.
and other issues
I would not admit anything further because these he sites are monitored
pay for a local attorney for a proper solution He will need to see all paperwork to figure out best options
or simply hope your seller doesn't come back laterKen, I believe an unnotarized deed can still pass title. Notarization does two things; first it provides prima facia evidence the Grantor acknowledged signing the deed and appeared to understand the nature of the act, second, it's generally a prerequisite for recording in the public records. However, if one is the Grantee of the deed, I think a declaratory judgment action could be filed and upon sufficient evidence the court could find the deed valid and order the Clerk to record it. An unwieldy way to go about it, but possible, I think.
Re
In Arizona for instance, in statute, a deed must be properly notarized in order to be recorded.
An un-notarized deed can be litigated pretty easily.
But, an unrecorded deed does pass on title to the new owner, at time of signature for the reasons you stated. However, I'm unwilling to go into the implications by stating that. We'll, I just did. But there are exceptions. There needs to be someone, who can look at the paperwork and the facts, that he can work with to untangle this. By his lack of responding to if it was notarized, if it went through escrow etc I surmise it was a table top closing and he said there were other deals he has done. I don't think this is a "one off" occurrence. Either way, in my opinion, it can't be properly resolved on an exposed forum with people not willing to represent him. If he has a history of doing Subject To or foreclosures this way, it's a bigger issue. But yes, I believe if he has an unrecorded deed, it still transfers title with all the hair attached, legal and tax issues included.
Yes, an unrecorded deed does pass title — but only as to me the seller, and you, the buyer. The rest of the world is entitled to rely on the recorded chain of title, with a quick look/see at the property to see if there’s anything about the place that would cause a reasonable person to believe that the recorded chain of title might not reflect all interests in the property and therefore further investigation is needed.
Innocent third parties taking without notice and for consideration usually win.
So don’t just say “title passes without recording.” It passes to some people under some circumstances. The original poster needs to record his deed. Full stop. Recording is how he gets a seat at the table. If he’s not at the table, then he’s on the menu.In my opinion, fee title passes to the Grantee via a validly executed deed recorded or not. I agree that the interest may be subject to divestment by a subsequent deed, but the first grantee has fee title and not an equitable interest. In addition, occupancy may act as notice of the first grantee's interest, which may defeat a claim of a BFP status even if the deed has not been recorded. A buyer may have an obligation to conduct reasonable due diligence and explore any indicia that his seller may not have title to the property, including exclusive possession. However, in race states such as NC, notice doesn't matter. Whoever gets to the courthouse first wins, irrelevant of notice, constructive or actual.
Here we get into the weeds of recording systems and whether the state is a race, notice, or race-notice state vis-a-vis recording. At a minimum the original poster has an equitable interest. That we can all agree on.
My point was, and is, that recording does not harm the interests of the original poster. His interest will need to be accounted for in any legal proceedings, and apparently he's already known to the bank, since he said that he's waiting for a reinstatement/pay-off letter from the bank.
All in all, the original poster will be involved in any legal proceedings concerning this property. Any defects in his instrument of title will come out. He might as well record and make sure he's protected by prompt notice. It cannot harm his interests.
I have no idea what interest if any the OP has since I haven't seen any of the documents nor do I know whether he should or should not record. That's why I recommended he speak with a CO attorney. I'm also not trying to split hairs, but I try to use correct terminology and generally speak up when my understanding varies from what's posted. In my opinion an equitable interest may arise when you partner with someone to buy property, and he uses your money to buy but puts title in his name only. He has record/fee interest, you probably have an equitable interest. You have a deed where you're the grantee, you have the fee not an equitable interest.
It could, depending on the facts and evidence.
Let's say that his Grantor didn't actually own the property, would clouding the title with a forged deed be in his best interest? What if his Grantor only had a life estate and there was a mutual mistake or misunderstanding in what was intended to be conveyed? Would recording be the best thing to do? What if the Grantor only held a remainderman interest that will only ripen into a fee on the death of the life estate holder. Again, is recording the best thing to do? As I previously wrote, I haven't seen any docs, so I don't have an opinion on what to do, other than talk to an attorney.
.
His comment "Let there be a suit,"
yes, yes, there's "no harm in that."(sarcasm)Lurkers: be very careful who you listen to, there are a lot of "wanna be" advisors who lack wisdom.
"Let there be a suit," is the worst advice I've heard in a long time.
.
The solution is to AVOID being sued and AVOID being investigated by concerned parties - this goes way beyond what you understand, but I get that. I believe @peter walther: has the experience of investigations and lawsuits that he hasn't mentioned, that make him someone to pay attention to if you can't follow what I have cautioned."The solution is to AVOID being sued and AVOID being investigated by concerned parties . . . "
----------------------------------------------
And as I have told you, that ship for the OP has almost certainly sailed. That's what my 39 years of legal practice says anyway. You can have your conclusions, I'll have mine. - Investor · Get yourself trained before doing something inadvisable. · Member since 2024 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes1yDid you litigate title disputesin Colorado?
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @John Clark:
Ken, the decision to file suit will not be made by the original poster. You seem to think that if he doesn’t record, he’s free and clear. The mortgage is in default, however, so it’s already on the skyline. The OP’s interest will be revealed. He can decide if he wants to default on a suit or not, but that’s not a recording issue.Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Agreed. Now, under what circumstances would not recording his deed best protect his interests, and under what circumstances would recording harm his interests? Notice I didn’t say “bring to light” defects, just harms that could not have arisen had there been no recording.Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
If the deed is somehow defective or ineffective, a court of chancery will often rule that one has an equitable interest. State laws vary.Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Ken, your post illustrates the adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @Ken M.:
In some states, it's against the law to approach anyone missing payments, they are considered to be "distressed" If they have received a Notice of Default or a Notice of Foreclosure, they are classified "for sure" as distressedQuote from @Account Closed:
@Ken M. thank you for clarifying, and for time you've put in to answering my post.
state: Colorado
deed type: warranty deed
verification: Yes I verified the seller. I assume you meant check their ID, and do my own research on the title that shows the person I met with was indeed the owner.
distressed status: I didn't say it was 'distressed.' However, it is in default, wth a sale date in 3 months.
title status: title search and report is in progress. I'm planning to file it as soon as I see clear title, get an inspection, and get some additional paperwork signed with the seller.should I file the deed?: people have commented on this post very strongly both directions on this question - some say I definitely should and some say I shouldn't. Sounds like you're more hesitant, and that I shouldn't. Your quote from above sounds like good advice, and makes me want to proceed more cautiously: "If he files, he assumes the risk of anything attached to title. Usually a foreclosure title has other issues."
Thank you again.
(federal issues)
In Washington, Oregon, California "for sure" it's a very big deal. I'm not current on Colorado foreclosure law.
there are federal laws involved
I personally, would not rely on self review of title obligations
Warranty deeds have to meet state specific requirements, usually have to be notarized and when done outside of escrow create a "credibility" problem with future title companies and definitely with the court in a lawsuit
Regardless of what you have been told or have read, you can not simply "Quit Claim Back" a property.
and other issues
I would not admit anything further because these he sites are monitored
pay for a local attorney for a proper solution He will need to see all paperwork to figure out best options
or simply hope your seller doesn't come back laterKen, I believe an unnotarized deed can still pass title. Notarization does two things; first it provides prima facia evidence the Grantor acknowledged signing the deed and appeared to understand the nature of the act, second, it's generally a prerequisite for recording in the public records. However, if one is the Grantee of the deed, I think a declaratory judgment action could be filed and upon sufficient evidence the court could find the deed valid and order the Clerk to record it. An unwieldy way to go about it, but possible, I think.
Re
In Arizona for instance, in statute, a deed must be properly notarized in order to be recorded.
An un-notarized deed can be litigated pretty easily.
But, an unrecorded deed does pass on title to the new owner, at time of signature for the reasons you stated. However, I'm unwilling to go into the implications by stating that. We'll, I just did. But there are exceptions. There needs to be someone, who can look at the paperwork and the facts, that he can work with to untangle this. By his lack of responding to if it was notarized, if it went through escrow etc I surmise it was a table top closing and he said there were other deals he has done. I don't think this is a "one off" occurrence. Either way, in my opinion, it can't be properly resolved on an exposed forum with people not willing to represent him. If he has a history of doing Subject To or foreclosures this way, it's a bigger issue. But yes, I believe if he has an unrecorded deed, it still transfers title with all the hair attached, legal and tax issues included.
Yes, an unrecorded deed does pass title — but only as to me the seller, and you, the buyer. The rest of the world is entitled to rely on the recorded chain of title, with a quick look/see at the property to see if there’s anything about the place that would cause a reasonable person to believe that the recorded chain of title might not reflect all interests in the property and therefore further investigation is needed.
Innocent third parties taking without notice and for consideration usually win.
So don’t just say “title passes without recording.” It passes to some people under some circumstances. The original poster needs to record his deed. Full stop. Recording is how he gets a seat at the table. If he’s not at the table, then he’s on the menu.In my opinion, fee title passes to the Grantee via a validly executed deed recorded or not. I agree that the interest may be subject to divestment by a subsequent deed, but the first grantee has fee title and not an equitable interest. In addition, occupancy may act as notice of the first grantee's interest, which may defeat a claim of a BFP status even if the deed has not been recorded. A buyer may have an obligation to conduct reasonable due diligence and explore any indicia that his seller may not have title to the property, including exclusive possession. However, in race states such as NC, notice doesn't matter. Whoever gets to the courthouse first wins, irrelevant of notice, constructive or actual.
Here we get into the weeds of recording systems and whether the state is a race, notice, or race-notice state vis-a-vis recording. At a minimum the original poster has an equitable interest. That we can all agree on.
My point was, and is, that recording does not harm the interests of the original poster. His interest will need to be accounted for in any legal proceedings, and apparently he's already known to the bank, since he said that he's waiting for a reinstatement/pay-off letter from the bank.
All in all, the original poster will be involved in any legal proceedings concerning this property. Any defects in his instrument of title will come out. He might as well record and make sure he's protected by prompt notice. It cannot harm his interests.
I have no idea what interest if any the OP has since I haven't seen any of the documents nor do I know whether he should or should not record. That's why I recommended he speak with a CO attorney. I'm also not trying to split hairs, but I try to use correct terminology and generally speak up when my understanding varies from what's posted. In my opinion an equitable interest may arise when you partner with someone to buy property, and he uses your money to buy but puts title in his name only. He has record/fee interest, you probably have an equitable interest. You have a deed where you're the grantee, you have the fee not an equitable interest.
It could, depending on the facts and evidence.
Let's say that his Grantor didn't actually own the property, would clouding the title with a forged deed be in his best interest? What if his Grantor only had a life estate and there was a mutual mistake or misunderstanding in what was intended to be conveyed? Would recording be the best thing to do? What if the Grantor only held a remainderman interest that will only ripen into a fee on the death of the life estate holder. Again, is recording the best thing to do? As I previously wrote, I haven't seen any docs, so I don't have an opinion on what to do, other than talk to an attorney.
.
His comment "Let there be a suit,"
yes, yes, there's "no harm in that."(sarcasm)Lurkers: be very careful who you listen to, there are a lot of "wanna be" advisors who lack wisdom.
"Let there be a suit," is the worst advice I've heard in a long time.
.
The solution is to AVOID being sued and AVOID being investigated by concerned parties - this goes way beyond what you understand, but I get that. I believe @peter walther: has the experience of investigations and lawsuits that he hasn't mentioned, that make him someone to pay attention to if you can't follow what I have cautioned."The solution is to AVOID being sued and AVOID being investigated by concerned parties . . . "
----------------------------------------------
And as I have told you, that ship for the OP has almost certainly sailed. That's what my 39 years of legal practice says anyway. You can have your conclusions, I'll have mine. - Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes1y
Quote from @Ken M.:
Did you litigate title disputesin Colorado?Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @John Clark:
Ken, the decision to file suit will not be made by the original poster. You seem to think that if he doesn’t record, he’s free and clear. The mortgage is in default, however, so it’s already on the skyline. The OP’s interest will be revealed. He can decide if he wants to default on a suit or not, but that’s not a recording issue.Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Agreed. Now, under what circumstances would not recording his deed best protect his interests, and under what circumstances would recording harm his interests? Notice I didn’t say “bring to light” defects, just harms that could not have arisen had there been no recording.Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
If the deed is somehow defective or ineffective, a court of chancery will often rule that one has an equitable interest. State laws vary.Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Ken, your post illustrates the adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @Ken M.:
In some states, it's against the law to approach anyone missing payments, they are considered to be "distressed" If they have received a Notice of Default or a Notice of Foreclosure, they are classified "for sure" as distressedQuote from @Account Closed:
@Ken M. thank you for clarifying, and for time you've put in to answering my post.
state: Colorado
deed type: warranty deed
verification: Yes I verified the seller. I assume you meant check their ID, and do my own research on the title that shows the person I met with was indeed the owner.
distressed status: I didn't say it was 'distressed.' However, it is in default, wth a sale date in 3 months.
title status: title search and report is in progress. I'm planning to file it as soon as I see clear title, get an inspection, and get some additional paperwork signed with the seller.should I file the deed?: people have commented on this post very strongly both directions on this question - some say I definitely should and some say I shouldn't. Sounds like you're more hesitant, and that I shouldn't. Your quote from above sounds like good advice, and makes me want to proceed more cautiously: "If he files, he assumes the risk of anything attached to title. Usually a foreclosure title has other issues."
Thank you again.
(federal issues)
In Washington, Oregon, California "for sure" it's a very big deal. I'm not current on Colorado foreclosure law.
there are federal laws involved
I personally, would not rely on self review of title obligations
Warranty deeds have to meet state specific requirements, usually have to be notarized and when done outside of escrow create a "credibility" problem with future title companies and definitely with the court in a lawsuit
Regardless of what you have been told or have read, you can not simply "Quit Claim Back" a property.
and other issues
I would not admit anything further because these he sites are monitored
pay for a local attorney for a proper solution He will need to see all paperwork to figure out best options
or simply hope your seller doesn't come back laterKen, I believe an unnotarized deed can still pass title. Notarization does two things; first it provides prima facia evidence the Grantor acknowledged signing the deed and appeared to understand the nature of the act, second, it's generally a prerequisite for recording in the public records. However, if one is the Grantee of the deed, I think a declaratory judgment action could be filed and upon sufficient evidence the court could find the deed valid and order the Clerk to record it. An unwieldy way to go about it, but possible, I think.
Re
In Arizona for instance, in statute, a deed must be properly notarized in order to be recorded.
An un-notarized deed can be litigated pretty easily.
But, an unrecorded deed does pass on title to the new owner, at time of signature for the reasons you stated. However, I'm unwilling to go into the implications by stating that. We'll, I just did. But there are exceptions. There needs to be someone, who can look at the paperwork and the facts, that he can work with to untangle this. By his lack of responding to if it was notarized, if it went through escrow etc I surmise it was a table top closing and he said there were other deals he has done. I don't think this is a "one off" occurrence. Either way, in my opinion, it can't be properly resolved on an exposed forum with people not willing to represent him. If he has a history of doing Subject To or foreclosures this way, it's a bigger issue. But yes, I believe if he has an unrecorded deed, it still transfers title with all the hair attached, legal and tax issues included.
Yes, an unrecorded deed does pass title — but only as to me the seller, and you, the buyer. The rest of the world is entitled to rely on the recorded chain of title, with a quick look/see at the property to see if there’s anything about the place that would cause a reasonable person to believe that the recorded chain of title might not reflect all interests in the property and therefore further investigation is needed.
Innocent third parties taking without notice and for consideration usually win.
So don’t just say “title passes without recording.” It passes to some people under some circumstances. The original poster needs to record his deed. Full stop. Recording is how he gets a seat at the table. If he’s not at the table, then he’s on the menu.In my opinion, fee title passes to the Grantee via a validly executed deed recorded or not. I agree that the interest may be subject to divestment by a subsequent deed, but the first grantee has fee title and not an equitable interest. In addition, occupancy may act as notice of the first grantee's interest, which may defeat a claim of a BFP status even if the deed has not been recorded. A buyer may have an obligation to conduct reasonable due diligence and explore any indicia that his seller may not have title to the property, including exclusive possession. However, in race states such as NC, notice doesn't matter. Whoever gets to the courthouse first wins, irrelevant of notice, constructive or actual.
Here we get into the weeds of recording systems and whether the state is a race, notice, or race-notice state vis-a-vis recording. At a minimum the original poster has an equitable interest. That we can all agree on.
My point was, and is, that recording does not harm the interests of the original poster. His interest will need to be accounted for in any legal proceedings, and apparently he's already known to the bank, since he said that he's waiting for a reinstatement/pay-off letter from the bank.
All in all, the original poster will be involved in any legal proceedings concerning this property. Any defects in his instrument of title will come out. He might as well record and make sure he's protected by prompt notice. It cannot harm his interests.
I have no idea what interest if any the OP has since I haven't seen any of the documents nor do I know whether he should or should not record. That's why I recommended he speak with a CO attorney. I'm also not trying to split hairs, but I try to use correct terminology and generally speak up when my understanding varies from what's posted. In my opinion an equitable interest may arise when you partner with someone to buy property, and he uses your money to buy but puts title in his name only. He has record/fee interest, you probably have an equitable interest. You have a deed where you're the grantee, you have the fee not an equitable interest.
It could, depending on the facts and evidence.
Let's say that his Grantor didn't actually own the property, would clouding the title with a forged deed be in his best interest? What if his Grantor only had a life estate and there was a mutual mistake or misunderstanding in what was intended to be conveyed? Would recording be the best thing to do? What if the Grantor only held a remainderman interest that will only ripen into a fee on the death of the life estate holder. Again, is recording the best thing to do? As I previously wrote, I haven't seen any docs, so I don't have an opinion on what to do, other than talk to an attorney.
.
His comment "Let there be a suit,"
yes, yes, there's "no harm in that."(sarcasm)Lurkers: be very careful who you listen to, there are a lot of "wanna be" advisors who lack wisdom.
"Let there be a suit," is the worst advice I've heard in a long time.
.
The solution is to AVOID being sued and AVOID being investigated by concerned parties - this goes way beyond what you understand, but I get that. I believe @peter walther: has the experience of investigations and lawsuits that he hasn't mentioned, that make him someone to pay attention to if you can't follow what I have cautioned."The solution is to AVOID being sued and AVOID being investigated by concerned parties . . . "
----------------------------------------------
And as I have told you, that ship for the OP has almost certainly sailed. That's what my 39 years of legal practice says anyway. You can have your conclusions, I'll have mine.Nope. Did you?
- Investor · Get yourself trained before doing something inadvisable. · Member since 2024 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes1y
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Ken M.:
Did you litigate title disputesin Colorado?Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @John Clark:
Ken, the decision to file suit will not be made by the original poster. You seem to think that if he doesn’t record, he’s free and clear. The mortgage is in default, however, so it’s already on the skyline. The OP’s interest will be revealed. He can decide if he wants to default on a suit or not, but that’s not a recording issue.Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Agreed. Now, under what circumstances would not recording his deed best protect his interests, and under what circumstances would recording harm his interests? Notice I didn’t say “bring to light” defects, just harms that could not have arisen had there been no recording.Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
If the deed is somehow defective or ineffective, a court of chancery will often rule that one has an equitable interest. State laws vary.Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Ken, your post illustrates the adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @Ken M.:
In some states, it's against the law to approach anyone missing payments, they are considered to be "distressed" If they have received a Notice of Default or a Notice of Foreclosure, they are classified "for sure" as distressedQuote from @Account Closed:
@Ken M. thank you for clarifying, and for time you've put in to answering my post.
state: Colorado
deed type: warranty deed
verification: Yes I verified the seller. I assume you meant check their ID, and do my own research on the title that shows the person I met with was indeed the owner.
distressed status: I didn't say it was 'distressed.' However, it is in default, wth a sale date in 3 months.
title status: title search and report is in progress. I'm planning to file it as soon as I see clear title, get an inspection, and get some additional paperwork signed with the seller.should I file the deed?: people have commented on this post very strongly both directions on this question - some say I definitely should and some say I shouldn't. Sounds like you're more hesitant, and that I shouldn't. Your quote from above sounds like good advice, and makes me want to proceed more cautiously: "If he files, he assumes the risk of anything attached to title. Usually a foreclosure title has other issues."
Thank you again.
(federal issues)
In Washington, Oregon, California "for sure" it's a very big deal. I'm not current on Colorado foreclosure law.
there are federal laws involved
I personally, would not rely on self review of title obligations
Warranty deeds have to meet state specific requirements, usually have to be notarized and when done outside of escrow create a "credibility" problem with future title companies and definitely with the court in a lawsuit
Regardless of what you have been told or have read, you can not simply "Quit Claim Back" a property.
and other issues
I would not admit anything further because these he sites are monitored
pay for a local attorney for a proper solution He will need to see all paperwork to figure out best options
or simply hope your seller doesn't come back laterKen, I believe an unnotarized deed can still pass title. Notarization does two things; first it provides prima facia evidence the Grantor acknowledged signing the deed and appeared to understand the nature of the act, second, it's generally a prerequisite for recording in the public records. However, if one is the Grantee of the deed, I think a declaratory judgment action could be filed and upon sufficient evidence the court could find the deed valid and order the Clerk to record it. An unwieldy way to go about it, but possible, I think.
Re
In Arizona for instance, in statute, a deed must be properly notarized in order to be recorded.
An un-notarized deed can be litigated pretty easily.
But, an unrecorded deed does pass on title to the new owner, at time of signature for the reasons you stated. However, I'm unwilling to go into the implications by stating that. We'll, I just did. But there are exceptions. There needs to be someone, who can look at the paperwork and the facts, that he can work with to untangle this. By his lack of responding to if it was notarized, if it went through escrow etc I surmise it was a table top closing and he said there were other deals he has done. I don't think this is a "one off" occurrence. Either way, in my opinion, it can't be properly resolved on an exposed forum with people not willing to represent him. If he has a history of doing Subject To or foreclosures this way, it's a bigger issue. But yes, I believe if he has an unrecorded deed, it still transfers title with all the hair attached, legal and tax issues included.
Yes, an unrecorded deed does pass title — but only as to me the seller, and you, the buyer. The rest of the world is entitled to rely on the recorded chain of title, with a quick look/see at the property to see if there’s anything about the place that would cause a reasonable person to believe that the recorded chain of title might not reflect all interests in the property and therefore further investigation is needed.
Innocent third parties taking without notice and for consideration usually win.
So don’t just say “title passes without recording.” It passes to some people under some circumstances. The original poster needs to record his deed. Full stop. Recording is how he gets a seat at the table. If he’s not at the table, then he’s on the menu.In my opinion, fee title passes to the Grantee via a validly executed deed recorded or not. I agree that the interest may be subject to divestment by a subsequent deed, but the first grantee has fee title and not an equitable interest. In addition, occupancy may act as notice of the first grantee's interest, which may defeat a claim of a BFP status even if the deed has not been recorded. A buyer may have an obligation to conduct reasonable due diligence and explore any indicia that his seller may not have title to the property, including exclusive possession. However, in race states such as NC, notice doesn't matter. Whoever gets to the courthouse first wins, irrelevant of notice, constructive or actual.
Here we get into the weeds of recording systems and whether the state is a race, notice, or race-notice state vis-a-vis recording. At a minimum the original poster has an equitable interest. That we can all agree on.
My point was, and is, that recording does not harm the interests of the original poster. His interest will need to be accounted for in any legal proceedings, and apparently he's already known to the bank, since he said that he's waiting for a reinstatement/pay-off letter from the bank.
All in all, the original poster will be involved in any legal proceedings concerning this property. Any defects in his instrument of title will come out. He might as well record and make sure he's protected by prompt notice. It cannot harm his interests.
I have no idea what interest if any the OP has since I haven't seen any of the documents nor do I know whether he should or should not record. That's why I recommended he speak with a CO attorney. I'm also not trying to split hairs, but I try to use correct terminology and generally speak up when my understanding varies from what's posted. In my opinion an equitable interest may arise when you partner with someone to buy property, and he uses your money to buy but puts title in his name only. He has record/fee interest, you probably have an equitable interest. You have a deed where you're the grantee, you have the fee not an equitable interest.
It could, depending on the facts and evidence.
Let's say that his Grantor didn't actually own the property, would clouding the title with a forged deed be in his best interest? What if his Grantor only had a life estate and there was a mutual mistake or misunderstanding in what was intended to be conveyed? Would recording be the best thing to do? What if the Grantor only held a remainderman interest that will only ripen into a fee on the death of the life estate holder. Again, is recording the best thing to do? As I previously wrote, I haven't seen any docs, so I don't have an opinion on what to do, other than talk to an attorney.
.
His comment "Let there be a suit,"
yes, yes, there's "no harm in that."(sarcasm)Lurkers: be very careful who you listen to, there are a lot of "wanna be" advisors who lack wisdom.
"Let there be a suit," is the worst advice I've heard in a long time.
.
The solution is to AVOID being sued and AVOID being investigated by concerned parties - this goes way beyond what you understand, but I get that. I believe @peter walther: has the experience of investigations and lawsuits that he hasn't mentioned, that make him someone to pay attention to if you can't follow what I have cautioned."The solution is to AVOID being sued and AVOID being investigated by concerned parties . . . "
----------------------------------------------
And as I have told you, that ship for the OP has almost certainly sailed. That's what my 39 years of legal practice says anyway. You can have your conclusions, I'll have mine.Nope. Did you?
.
Mine were not in Colorado, which is why I recommended he receive local advice.
My First was a "table top" closing with a Quit claim deed on a foreclosure using Subject To. That was about 1998. Which I won.
Then in 2001 another table top closing using a Warranty Deed this time. Eventual adversary was billion dollar company Fidelity Title and their army of attorneys and Special witnesses" Seller was in foreclosure at time ofPurchase using Warranty Deed using Subject To. Case was filed nearly 6 years after sale. Court would not dismiss based on Statute of limitations. But, Did dismiss on "credibility " of seller who claimed he didn't sell the property. They Refiled on appeal and a new judge accepted new complaint, different issue.
A second property I had bought in foreclosure the same way, using a Warranty Deed, table top closing joined.! It was forced into bankruptcy court. Judge dismissed the allegations as not credible.
Mine were in Washington, very, very liberal but won't turn down a good lawsuit.They Appealed on a different issue to District court. Remanded back (judge didn't agree with appeal and remanded. When remanded, a few more contortions and finally won. I think the order was in 2016. More than 10 years after the first filing. Each new attorney along the way had to be taught, by me, what was going on.
During that period of time, the seller pulled a gun and threatened me which resulted in a concurrent criminal case.
plenty more involved but you get the idea
I've been there, through the entire process every court level and prevailed each time - Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes1yThat's nice, Ken but I notice that you omit to tell us about the issue here: Recording. In each one of your cases, had you recorded your deed? Yes or No?
Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Ken M.:
Did you litigate title disputesin Colorado?Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @John Clark:
Ken, the decision to file suit will not be made by the original poster. You seem to think that if he doesn’t record, he’s free and clear. The mortgage is in default, however, so it’s already on the skyline. The OP’s interest will be revealed. He can decide if he wants to default on a suit or not, but that’s not a recording issue.Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Agreed. Now, under what circumstances would not recording his deed best protect his interests, and under what circumstances would recording harm his interests? Notice I didn’t say “bring to light” defects, just harms that could not have arisen had there been no recording.Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
If the deed is somehow defective or ineffective, a court of chancery will often rule that one has an equitable interest. State laws vary.Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Ken, your post illustrates the adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @Ken M.:
In some states, it's against the law to approach anyone missing payments, they are considered to be "distressed" If they have received a Notice of Default or a Notice of Foreclosure, they are classified "for sure" as distressedQuote from @Account Closed:
@Ken M. thank you for clarifying, and for time you've put in to answering my post.
state: Colorado
deed type: warranty deed
verification: Yes I verified the seller. I assume you meant check their ID, and do my own research on the title that shows the person I met with was indeed the owner.
distressed status: I didn't say it was 'distressed.' However, it is in default, wth a sale date in 3 months.
title status: title search and report is in progress. I'm planning to file it as soon as I see clear title, get an inspection, and get some additional paperwork signed with the seller.should I file the deed?: people have commented on this post very strongly both directions on this question - some say I definitely should and some say I shouldn't. Sounds like you're more hesitant, and that I shouldn't. Your quote from above sounds like good advice, and makes me want to proceed more cautiously: "If he files, he assumes the risk of anything attached to title. Usually a foreclosure title has other issues."
Thank you again.
(federal issues)
In Washington, Oregon, California "for sure" it's a very big deal. I'm not current on Colorado foreclosure law.
there are federal laws involved
I personally, would not rely on self review of title obligations
Warranty deeds have to meet state specific requirements, usually have to be notarized and when done outside of escrow create a "credibility" problem with future title companies and definitely with the court in a lawsuit
Regardless of what you have been told or have read, you can not simply "Quit Claim Back" a property.
and other issues
I would not admit anything further because these he sites are monitored
pay for a local attorney for a proper solution He will need to see all paperwork to figure out best options
or simply hope your seller doesn't come back laterKen, I believe an unnotarized deed can still pass title. Notarization does two things; first it provides prima facia evidence the Grantor acknowledged signing the deed and appeared to understand the nature of the act, second, it's generally a prerequisite for recording in the public records. However, if one is the Grantee of the deed, I think a declaratory judgment action could be filed and upon sufficient evidence the court could find the deed valid and order the Clerk to record it. An unwieldy way to go about it, but possible, I think.
Re
In Arizona for instance, in statute, a deed must be properly notarized in order to be recorded.
An un-notarized deed can be litigated pretty easily.
But, an unrecorded deed does pass on title to the new owner, at time of signature for the reasons you stated. However, I'm unwilling to go into the implications by stating that. We'll, I just did. But there are exceptions. There needs to be someone, who can look at the paperwork and the facts, that he can work with to untangle this. By his lack of responding to if it was notarized, if it went through escrow etc I surmise it was a table top closing and he said there were other deals he has done. I don't think this is a "one off" occurrence. Either way, in my opinion, it can't be properly resolved on an exposed forum with people not willing to represent him. If he has a history of doing Subject To or foreclosures this way, it's a bigger issue. But yes, I believe if he has an unrecorded deed, it still transfers title with all the hair attached, legal and tax issues included.
Yes, an unrecorded deed does pass title — but only as to me the seller, and you, the buyer. The rest of the world is entitled to rely on the recorded chain of title, with a quick look/see at the property to see if there’s anything about the place that would cause a reasonable person to believe that the recorded chain of title might not reflect all interests in the property and therefore further investigation is needed.
Innocent third parties taking without notice and for consideration usually win.
So don’t just say “title passes without recording.” It passes to some people under some circumstances. The original poster needs to record his deed. Full stop. Recording is how he gets a seat at the table. If he’s not at the table, then he’s on the menu.In my opinion, fee title passes to the Grantee via a validly executed deed recorded or not. I agree that the interest may be subject to divestment by a subsequent deed, but the first grantee has fee title and not an equitable interest. In addition, occupancy may act as notice of the first grantee's interest, which may defeat a claim of a BFP status even if the deed has not been recorded. A buyer may have an obligation to conduct reasonable due diligence and explore any indicia that his seller may not have title to the property, including exclusive possession. However, in race states such as NC, notice doesn't matter. Whoever gets to the courthouse first wins, irrelevant of notice, constructive or actual.
Here we get into the weeds of recording systems and whether the state is a race, notice, or race-notice state vis-a-vis recording. At a minimum the original poster has an equitable interest. That we can all agree on.
My point was, and is, that recording does not harm the interests of the original poster. His interest will need to be accounted for in any legal proceedings, and apparently he's already known to the bank, since he said that he's waiting for a reinstatement/pay-off letter from the bank.
All in all, the original poster will be involved in any legal proceedings concerning this property. Any defects in his instrument of title will come out. He might as well record and make sure he's protected by prompt notice. It cannot harm his interests.
I have no idea what interest if any the OP has since I haven't seen any of the documents nor do I know whether he should or should not record. That's why I recommended he speak with a CO attorney. I'm also not trying to split hairs, but I try to use correct terminology and generally speak up when my understanding varies from what's posted. In my opinion an equitable interest may arise when you partner with someone to buy property, and he uses your money to buy but puts title in his name only. He has record/fee interest, you probably have an equitable interest. You have a deed where you're the grantee, you have the fee not an equitable interest.
It could, depending on the facts and evidence.
Let's say that his Grantor didn't actually own the property, would clouding the title with a forged deed be in his best interest? What if his Grantor only had a life estate and there was a mutual mistake or misunderstanding in what was intended to be conveyed? Would recording be the best thing to do? What if the Grantor only held a remainderman interest that will only ripen into a fee on the death of the life estate holder. Again, is recording the best thing to do? As I previously wrote, I haven't seen any docs, so I don't have an opinion on what to do, other than talk to an attorney.
.
His comment "Let there be a suit,"
yes, yes, there's "no harm in that."(sarcasm)Lurkers: be very careful who you listen to, there are a lot of "wanna be" advisors who lack wisdom.
"Let there be a suit," is the worst advice I've heard in a long time.
.
The solution is to AVOID being sued and AVOID being investigated by concerned parties - this goes way beyond what you understand, but I get that. I believe @peter walther: has the experience of investigations and lawsuits that he hasn't mentioned, that make him someone to pay attention to if you can't follow what I have cautioned."The solution is to AVOID being sued and AVOID being investigated by concerned parties . . . "
----------------------------------------------
And as I have told you, that ship for the OP has almost certainly sailed. That's what my 39 years of legal practice says anyway. You can have your conclusions, I'll have mine.Nope. Did you?
.
Mine were not in Colorado, which is why I recommended he receive local advice.
My First was a "table top" closing with a Quit claim deed on a foreclosure using Subject To. That was about 1998. Which I won.
Then in 2001 another table top closing using a Warranty Deed this time. Eventual adversary was billion dollar company Fidelity Title and their army of attorneys and Special witnesses" Seller was in foreclosure at time ofPurchase using Warranty Deed using Subject To. Case was filed nearly 6 years after sale. Court would not dismiss based on Statute of limitations. But, Did dismiss on "credibility " of seller who claimed he didn't sell the property. They Refiled on appeal and a new judge accepted new complaint, different issue.
A second property I had bought in foreclosure the same way, using a Warranty Deed, table top closing joined.! It was forced into bankruptcy court. Judge dismissed the allegations as not credible.
Mine were in Washington, very, very liberal but won't turn down a good lawsuit.They Appealed on a different issue to District court. Remanded back (judge didn't agree with appeal and remanded. When remanded, a few more contortions and finally won. I think the order was in 2016. More than 10 years after the first filing. Each new attorney along the way had to be taught, by me, what was going on.
During that period of time, the seller pulled a gun and threatened me which resulted in a concurrent criminal case.
plenty more involved but you get the idea
I've been there, through the entire process every court level and prevailed each time
After you answer that question for each of your cases, tell us whether recording or not recording saved you any trouble -- either way. Did recording make your life/issues simpler, or avoided issues? Did not recording (if you didn't record) make your life/issues simpler, or avoided issues?
I think it telling that you went on and on in this thread about my telling someone he should record, but when you give us your bona fides, you neglect to mention the entire point of the thread.
After you inform us of the recording status of each of the above cases you mentioned about yourself, I'll ask you how you were found out on those cases that you didn't record.
And as I said before: telling someone not to record is as much legal advice as telling someone to record. - Investor · Get yourself trained before doing something inadvisable. · Member since 2024 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes1y.
Quote from @John Clark:
That's nice, Ken but I notice that you omit to tell us about the issue here: Recording. In each one of your cases, had you recorded your deed? Yes or No?Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Ken M.:
Did you litigate title disputesin Colorado?Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @John Clark:
Ken, the decision to file suit will not be made by the original poster. You seem to think that if he doesn’t record, he’s free and clear. The mortgage is in default, however, so it’s already on the skyline. The OP’s interest will be revealed. He can decide if he wants to default on a suit or not, but that’s not a recording issue.Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Agreed. Now, under what circumstances would not recording his deed best protect his interests, and under what circumstances would recording harm his interests? Notice I didn’t say “bring to light” defects, just harms that could not have arisen had there been no recording.Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
If the deed is somehow defective or ineffective, a court of chancery will often rule that one has an equitable interest. State laws vary.Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Ken, your post illustrates the adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @Ken M.:
In some states, it's against the law to approach anyone missing payments, they are considered to be "distressed" If they have received a Notice of Default or a Notice of Foreclosure, they are classified "for sure" as distressedQuote from @Account Closed:
@Ken M. thank you for clarifying, and for time you've put in to answering my post.
state: Colorado
deed type: warranty deed
verification: Yes I verified the seller. I assume you meant check their ID, and do my own research on the title that shows the person I met with was indeed the owner.
distressed status: I didn't say it was 'distressed.' However, it is in default, wth a sale date in 3 months.
title status: title search and report is in progress. I'm planning to file it as soon as I see clear title, get an inspection, and get some additional paperwork signed with the seller.should I file the deed?: people have commented on this post very strongly both directions on this question - some say I definitely should and some say I shouldn't. Sounds like you're more hesitant, and that I shouldn't. Your quote from above sounds like good advice, and makes me want to proceed more cautiously: "If he files, he assumes the risk of anything attached to title. Usually a foreclosure title has other issues."
Thank you again.
(federal issues)
In Washington, Oregon, California "for sure" it's a very big deal. I'm not current on Colorado foreclosure law.
there are federal laws involved
I personally, would not rely on self review of title obligations
Warranty deeds have to meet state specific requirements, usually have to be notarized and when done outside of escrow create a "credibility" problem with future title companies and definitely with the court in a lawsuit
Regardless of what you have been told or have read, you can not simply "Quit Claim Back" a property.
and other issues
I would not admit anything further because these he sites are monitored
pay for a local attorney for a proper solution He will need to see all paperwork to figure out best options
or simply hope your seller doesn't come back laterKen, I believe an unnotarized deed can still pass title. Notarization does two things; first it provides prima facia evidence the Grantor acknowledged signing the deed and appeared to understand the nature of the act, second, it's generally a prerequisite for recording in the public records. However, if one is the Grantee of the deed, I think a declaratory judgment action could be filed and upon sufficient evidence the court could find the deed valid and order the Clerk to record it. An unwieldy way to go about it, but possible, I think.
Re
In Arizona for instance, in statute, a deed must be properly notarized in order to be recorded.
An un-notarized deed can be litigated pretty easily.
But, an unrecorded deed does pass on title to the new owner, at time of signature for the reasons you stated. However, I'm unwilling to go into the implications by stating that. We'll, I just did. But there are exceptions. There needs to be someone, who can look at the paperwork and the facts, that he can work with to untangle this. By his lack of responding to if it was notarized, if it went through escrow etc I surmise it was a table top closing and he said there were other deals he has done. I don't think this is a "one off" occurrence. Either way, in my opinion, it can't be properly resolved on an exposed forum with people not willing to represent him. If he has a history of doing Subject To or foreclosures this way, it's a bigger issue. But yes, I believe if he has an unrecorded deed, it still transfers title with all the hair attached, legal and tax issues included.
Yes, an unrecorded deed does pass title — but only as to me the seller, and you, the buyer. The rest of the world is entitled to rely on the recorded chain of title, with a quick look/see at the property to see if there’s anything about the place that would cause a reasonable person to believe that the recorded chain of title might not reflect all interests in the property and therefore further investigation is needed.
Innocent third parties taking without notice and for consideration usually win.
So don’t just say “title passes without recording.” It passes to some people under some circumstances. The original poster needs to record his deed. Full stop. Recording is how he gets a seat at the table. If he’s not at the table, then he’s on the menu.In my opinion, fee title passes to the Grantee via a validly executed deed recorded or not. I agree that the interest may be subject to divestment by a subsequent deed, but the first grantee has fee title and not an equitable interest. In addition, occupancy may act as notice of the first grantee's interest, which may defeat a claim of a BFP status even if the deed has not been recorded. A buyer may have an obligation to conduct reasonable due diligence and explore any indicia that his seller may not have title to the property, including exclusive possession. However, in race states such as NC, notice doesn't matter. Whoever gets to the courthouse first wins, irrelevant of notice, constructive or actual.
Here we get into the weeds of recording systems and whether the state is a race, notice, or race-notice state vis-a-vis recording. At a minimum the original poster has an equitable interest. That we can all agree on.
My point was, and is, that recording does not harm the interests of the original poster. His interest will need to be accounted for in any legal proceedings, and apparently he's already known to the bank, since he said that he's waiting for a reinstatement/pay-off letter from the bank.
All in all, the original poster will be involved in any legal proceedings concerning this property. Any defects in his instrument of title will come out. He might as well record and make sure he's protected by prompt notice. It cannot harm his interests.
I have no idea what interest if any the OP has since I haven't seen any of the documents nor do I know whether he should or should not record. That's why I recommended he speak with a CO attorney. I'm also not trying to split hairs, but I try to use correct terminology and generally speak up when my understanding varies from what's posted. In my opinion an equitable interest may arise when you partner with someone to buy property, and he uses your money to buy but puts title in his name only. He has record/fee interest, you probably have an equitable interest. You have a deed where you're the grantee, you have the fee not an equitable interest.
It could, depending on the facts and evidence.
Let's say that his Grantor didn't actually own the property, would clouding the title with a forged deed be in his best interest? What if his Grantor only had a life estate and there was a mutual mistake or misunderstanding in what was intended to be conveyed? Would recording be the best thing to do? What if the Grantor only held a remainderman interest that will only ripen into a fee on the death of the life estate holder. Again, is recording the best thing to do? As I previously wrote, I haven't seen any docs, so I don't have an opinion on what to do, other than talk to an attorney.
.
His comment "Let there be a suit,"
yes, yes, there's "no harm in that."(sarcasm)Lurkers: be very careful who you listen to, there are a lot of "wanna be" advisors who lack wisdom.
"Let there be a suit," is the worst advice I've heard in a long time.
.
The solution is to AVOID being sued and AVOID being investigated by concerned parties - this goes way beyond what you understand, but I get that. I believe @peter walther: has the experience of investigations and lawsuits that he hasn't mentioned, that make him someone to pay attention to if you can't follow what I have cautioned."The solution is to AVOID being sued and AVOID being investigated by concerned parties . . . "
----------------------------------------------
And as I have told you, that ship for the OP has almost certainly sailed. That's what my 39 years of legal practice says anyway. You can have your conclusions, I'll have mine.Nope. Did you?
.
Mine were not in Colorado, which is why I recommended he receive local advice.
My First was a "table top" closing with a Quit claim deed on a foreclosure using Subject To. That was about 1998. Which I won.
Then in 2001 another table top closing using a Warranty Deed this time. Eventual adversary was billion dollar company Fidelity Title and their army of attorneys and Special witnesses" Seller was in foreclosure at time ofPurchase using Warranty Deed using Subject To. Case was filed nearly 6 years after sale. Court would not dismiss based on Statute of limitations. But, Did dismiss on "credibility " of seller who claimed he didn't sell the property. They Refiled on appeal and a new judge accepted new complaint, different issue.
A second property I had bought in foreclosure the same way, using a Warranty Deed, table top closing joined.! It was forced into bankruptcy court. Judge dismissed the allegations as not credible.
Mine were in Washington, very, very liberal but won't turn down a good lawsuit.They Appealed on a different issue to District court. Remanded back (judge didn't agree with appeal and remanded. When remanded, a few more contortions and finally won. I think the order was in 2016. More than 10 years after the first filing. Each new attorney along the way had to be taught, by me, what was going on.
During that period of time, the seller pulled a gun and threatened me which resulted in a concurrent criminal case.
plenty more involved but you get the idea
I've been there, through the entire process every court level and prevailed each time
After you answer that question for each of your cases, tell us whether recording or not recording saved you any trouble -- either way. Did recording make your life/issues simpler, or avoided issues? Did not recording (if you didn't record) make your life/issues simpler, or avoided issues?
I think it telling that you went on and on in this thread about my telling someone he should record, but when you give us your bona fides, you neglect to mention the entire point of the thread.
After you inform us of the recording status of each of the above cases you mentioned about yourself, I'll ask you how you were found out on those cases that you didn't record.
And as I said before: telling someone not to record is as much legal advice as telling someone to record.
You've lost me. One too many martinis?You'd be a kick to discuss real estate tactics with.
Your solution is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic while it sinks. It doesn't provide a viable solution.
Look, this guy's issue is to keep from getting sued, which he may or maybe not understand. Recording raises serious questions. Now, I would never officially suggest that he simply burn the "probably very incriminating deed" and simply tell the seller he is no longer involved in the transaction so the seller can find a proper solution for his foreclosure.But, if he were to do so, the likelihood of this coming back at him is remote. No recorded deed, in fact no deed at all, perfected or defective and the seller has time to correct the problem without relying on an imperfect transaction. The seller has no money to sue, he can't pay an attorney, he's in foreclosure and the benefit to the buyer is very questionable at best, and the state has little interest in pursuing a "non complaint" with no damage. On the other hand, recording the deed establishes a fact pattern worth pursuing. The seller still may lose his house, but now we have someone to blame and sue.So, I'm not going to suggest the buyer burn the deed and get out of the deal, but it has interesting options.
- Investor · Get yourself trained before doing something inadvisable. · Member since 2024 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes1yTo your question, no the deeds were not recorded. That is obviously something big, bad Fidelity brought up, fought and lost on.
Quote from @John Clark:
That's nice, Ken but I notice that you omit to tell us about the issue here: Recording. In each one of your cases, had you recorded your deed? Yes or No?Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Ken M.:
Did you litigate title disputesin Colorado?Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @John Clark:
Ken, the decision to file suit will not be made by the original poster. You seem to think that if he doesn’t record, he’s free and clear. The mortgage is in default, however, so it’s already on the skyline. The OP’s interest will be revealed. He can decide if he wants to default on a suit or not, but that’s not a recording issue.Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Agreed. Now, under what circumstances would not recording his deed best protect his interests, and under what circumstances would recording harm his interests? Notice I didn’t say “bring to light” defects, just harms that could not have arisen had there been no recording.Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
If the deed is somehow defective or ineffective, a court of chancery will often rule that one has an equitable interest. State laws vary.Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Ken, your post illustrates the adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @Ken M.:
In some states, it's against the law to approach anyone missing payments, they are considered to be "distressed" If they have received a Notice of Default or a Notice of Foreclosure, they are classified "for sure" as distressedQuote from @Account Closed:
@Ken M. thank you for clarifying, and for time you've put in to answering my post.
state: Colorado
deed type: warranty deed
verification: Yes I verified the seller. I assume you meant check their ID, and do my own research on the title that shows the person I met with was indeed the owner.
distressed status: I didn't say it was 'distressed.' However, it is in default, wth a sale date in 3 months.
title status: title search and report is in progress. I'm planning to file it as soon as I see clear title, get an inspection, and get some additional paperwork signed with the seller.should I file the deed?: people have commented on this post very strongly both directions on this question - some say I definitely should and some say I shouldn't. Sounds like you're more hesitant, and that I shouldn't. Your quote from above sounds like good advice, and makes me want to proceed more cautiously: "If he files, he assumes the risk of anything attached to title. Usually a foreclosure title has other issues."
Thank you again.
(federal issues)
In Washington, Oregon, California "for sure" it's a very big deal. I'm not current on Colorado foreclosure law.
there are federal laws involved
I personally, would not rely on self review of title obligations
Warranty deeds have to meet state specific requirements, usually have to be notarized and when done outside of escrow create a "credibility" problem with future title companies and definitely with the court in a lawsuit
Regardless of what you have been told or have read, you can not simply "Quit Claim Back" a property.
and other issues
I would not admit anything further because these he sites are monitored
pay for a local attorney for a proper solution He will need to see all paperwork to figure out best options
or simply hope your seller doesn't come back laterKen, I believe an unnotarized deed can still pass title. Notarization does two things; first it provides prima facia evidence the Grantor acknowledged signing the deed and appeared to understand the nature of the act, second, it's generally a prerequisite for recording in the public records. However, if one is the Grantee of the deed, I think a declaratory judgment action could be filed and upon sufficient evidence the court could find the deed valid and order the Clerk to record it. An unwieldy way to go about it, but possible, I think.
Re
In Arizona for instance, in statute, a deed must be properly notarized in order to be recorded.
An un-notarized deed can be litigated pretty easily.
But, an unrecorded deed does pass on title to the new owner, at time of signature for the reasons you stated. However, I'm unwilling to go into the implications by stating that. We'll, I just did. But there are exceptions. There needs to be someone, who can look at the paperwork and the facts, that he can work with to untangle this. By his lack of responding to if it was notarized, if it went through escrow etc I surmise it was a table top closing and he said there were other deals he has done. I don't think this is a "one off" occurrence. Either way, in my opinion, it can't be properly resolved on an exposed forum with people not willing to represent him. If he has a history of doing Subject To or foreclosures this way, it's a bigger issue. But yes, I believe if he has an unrecorded deed, it still transfers title with all the hair attached, legal and tax issues included.
Yes, an unrecorded deed does pass title — but only as to me the seller, and you, the buyer. The rest of the world is entitled to rely on the recorded chain of title, with a quick look/see at the property to see if there’s anything about the place that would cause a reasonable person to believe that the recorded chain of title might not reflect all interests in the property and therefore further investigation is needed.
Innocent third parties taking without notice and for consideration usually win.
So don’t just say “title passes without recording.” It passes to some people under some circumstances. The original poster needs to record his deed. Full stop. Recording is how he gets a seat at the table. If he’s not at the table, then he’s on the menu.In my opinion, fee title passes to the Grantee via a validly executed deed recorded or not. I agree that the interest may be subject to divestment by a subsequent deed, but the first grantee has fee title and not an equitable interest. In addition, occupancy may act as notice of the first grantee's interest, which may defeat a claim of a BFP status even if the deed has not been recorded. A buyer may have an obligation to conduct reasonable due diligence and explore any indicia that his seller may not have title to the property, including exclusive possession. However, in race states such as NC, notice doesn't matter. Whoever gets to the courthouse first wins, irrelevant of notice, constructive or actual.
Here we get into the weeds of recording systems and whether the state is a race, notice, or race-notice state vis-a-vis recording. At a minimum the original poster has an equitable interest. That we can all agree on.
My point was, and is, that recording does not harm the interests of the original poster. His interest will need to be accounted for in any legal proceedings, and apparently he's already known to the bank, since he said that he's waiting for a reinstatement/pay-off letter from the bank.
All in all, the original poster will be involved in any legal proceedings concerning this property. Any defects in his instrument of title will come out. He might as well record and make sure he's protected by prompt notice. It cannot harm his interests.
I have no idea what interest if any the OP has since I haven't seen any of the documents nor do I know whether he should or should not record. That's why I recommended he speak with a CO attorney. I'm also not trying to split hairs, but I try to use correct terminology and generally speak up when my understanding varies from what's posted. In my opinion an equitable interest may arise when you partner with someone to buy property, and he uses your money to buy but puts title in his name only. He has record/fee interest, you probably have an equitable interest. You have a deed where you're the grantee, you have the fee not an equitable interest.
It could, depending on the facts and evidence.
Let's say that his Grantor didn't actually own the property, would clouding the title with a forged deed be in his best interest? What if his Grantor only had a life estate and there was a mutual mistake or misunderstanding in what was intended to be conveyed? Would recording be the best thing to do? What if the Grantor only held a remainderman interest that will only ripen into a fee on the death of the life estate holder. Again, is recording the best thing to do? As I previously wrote, I haven't seen any docs, so I don't have an opinion on what to do, other than talk to an attorney.
.
His comment "Let there be a suit,"
yes, yes, there's "no harm in that."(sarcasm)Lurkers: be very careful who you listen to, there are a lot of "wanna be" advisors who lack wisdom.
"Let there be a suit," is the worst advice I've heard in a long time.
.
The solution is to AVOID being sued and AVOID being investigated by concerned parties - this goes way beyond what you understand, but I get that. I believe @peter walther: has the experience of investigations and lawsuits that he hasn't mentioned, that make him someone to pay attention to if you can't follow what I have cautioned."The solution is to AVOID being sued and AVOID being investigated by concerned parties . . . "
----------------------------------------------
And as I have told you, that ship for the OP has almost certainly sailed. That's what my 39 years of legal practice says anyway. You can have your conclusions, I'll have mine.Nope. Did you?
.
Mine were not in Colorado, which is why I recommended he receive local advice.
My First was a "table top" closing with a Quit claim deed on a foreclosure using Subject To. That was about 1998. Which I won.
Then in 2001 another table top closing using a Warranty Deed this time. Eventual adversary was billion dollar company Fidelity Title and their army of attorneys and Special witnesses" Seller was in foreclosure at time ofPurchase using Warranty Deed using Subject To. Case was filed nearly 6 years after sale. Court would not dismiss based on Statute of limitations. But, Did dismiss on "credibility " of seller who claimed he didn't sell the property. They Refiled on appeal and a new judge accepted new complaint, different issue.
A second property I had bought in foreclosure the same way, using a Warranty Deed, table top closing joined.! It was forced into bankruptcy court. Judge dismissed the allegations as not credible.
Mine were in Washington, very, very liberal but won't turn down a good lawsuit.They Appealed on a different issue to District court. Remanded back (judge didn't agree with appeal and remanded. When remanded, a few more contortions and finally won. I think the order was in 2016. More than 10 years after the first filing. Each new attorney along the way had to be taught, by me, what was going on.
During that period of time, the seller pulled a gun and threatened me which resulted in a concurrent criminal case.
plenty more involved but you get the idea
I've been there, through the entire process every court level and prevailed each time
After you answer that question for each of your cases, tell us whether recording or not recording saved you any trouble -- either way. Did recording make your life/issues simpler, or avoided issues? Did not recording (if you didn't record) make your life/issues simpler, or avoided issues?
I think it telling that you went on and on in this thread about my telling someone he should record, but when you give us your bona fides, you neglect to mention the entire point of the thread.
After you inform us of the recording status of each of the above cases you mentioned about yourself, I'll ask you how you were found out on those cases that you didn't record.
And as I said before: telling someone not to record is as much legal advice as telling someone to record.
I was making the payments, lender admitted I had, I won.
It changed the way Fidelity has dealt with that issue since, me in my "little" way, made it easier for people doing Subject To. - Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes1ySo, at long last, we know that not only did not recording NOT save you from any grief, but actually gave Fidelity something to club you with, complicating matters (your “Fidelity brought up” statement).
Quote from @Ken M.:
To your question, no the deeds were not recorded. That is obviously something big, bad Fidelity brought up, fought and lost on.Quote from @John Clark:
That's nice, Ken but I notice that you omit to tell us about the issue here: Recording. In each one of your cases, had you recorded your deed? Yes or No?Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Ken M.:
Did you litigate title disputesin Colorado?Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @John Clark:
Ken, the decision to file suit will not be made by the original poster. You seem to think that if he doesn’t record, he’s free and clear. The mortgage is in default, however, so it’s already on the skyline. The OP’s interest will be revealed. He can decide if he wants to default on a suit or not, but that’s not a recording issue.Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Agreed. Now, under what circumstances would not recording his deed best protect his interests, and under what circumstances would recording harm his interests? Notice I didn’t say “bring to light” defects, just harms that could not have arisen had there been no recording.Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
If the deed is somehow defective or ineffective, a court of chancery will often rule that one has an equitable interest. State laws vary.Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Ken, your post illustrates the adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @Ken M.:
In some states, it's against the law to approach anyone missing payments, they are considered to be "distressed" If they have received a Notice of Default or a Notice of Foreclosure, they are classified "for sure" as distressedQuote from @Account Closed:
@Ken M. thank you for clarifying, and for time you've put in to answering my post.
state: Colorado
deed type: warranty deed
verification: Yes I verified the seller. I assume you meant check their ID, and do my own research on the title that shows the person I met with was indeed the owner.
distressed status: I didn't say it was 'distressed.' However, it is in default, wth a sale date in 3 months.
title status: title search and report is in progress. I'm planning to file it as soon as I see clear title, get an inspection, and get some additional paperwork signed with the seller.should I file the deed?: people have commented on this post very strongly both directions on this question - some say I definitely should and some say I shouldn't. Sounds like you're more hesitant, and that I shouldn't. Your quote from above sounds like good advice, and makes me want to proceed more cautiously: "If he files, he assumes the risk of anything attached to title. Usually a foreclosure title has other issues."
Thank you again.
(federal issues)
In Washington, Oregon, California "for sure" it's a very big deal. I'm not current on Colorado foreclosure law.
there are federal laws involved
I personally, would not rely on self review of title obligations
Warranty deeds have to meet state specific requirements, usually have to be notarized and when done outside of escrow create a "credibility" problem with future title companies and definitely with the court in a lawsuit
Regardless of what you have been told or have read, you can not simply "Quit Claim Back" a property.
and other issues
I would not admit anything further because these he sites are monitored
pay for a local attorney for a proper solution He will need to see all paperwork to figure out best options
or simply hope your seller doesn't come back laterKen, I believe an unnotarized deed can still pass title. Notarization does two things; first it provides prima facia evidence the Grantor acknowledged signing the deed and appeared to understand the nature of the act, second, it's generally a prerequisite for recording in the public records. However, if one is the Grantee of the deed, I think a declaratory judgment action could be filed and upon sufficient evidence the court could find the deed valid and order the Clerk to record it. An unwieldy way to go about it, but possible, I think.
Re
In Arizona for instance, in statute, a deed must be properly notarized in order to be recorded.
An un-notarized deed can be litigated pretty easily.
But, an unrecorded deed does pass on title to the new owner, at time of signature for the reasons you stated. However, I'm unwilling to go into the implications by stating that. We'll, I just did. But there are exceptions. There needs to be someone, who can look at the paperwork and the facts, that he can work with to untangle this. By his lack of responding to if it was notarized, if it went through escrow etc I surmise it was a table top closing and he said there were other deals he has done. I don't think this is a "one off" occurrence. Either way, in my opinion, it can't be properly resolved on an exposed forum with people not willing to represent him. If he has a history of doing Subject To or foreclosures this way, it's a bigger issue. But yes, I believe if he has an unrecorded deed, it still transfers title with all the hair attached, legal and tax issues included.
Yes, an unrecorded deed does pass title — but only as to me the seller, and you, the buyer. The rest of the world is entitled to rely on the recorded chain of title, with a quick look/see at the property to see if there’s anything about the place that would cause a reasonable person to believe that the recorded chain of title might not reflect all interests in the property and therefore further investigation is needed.
Innocent third parties taking without notice and for consideration usually win.
So don’t just say “title passes without recording.” It passes to some people under some circumstances. The original poster needs to record his deed. Full stop. Recording is how he gets a seat at the table. If he’s not at the table, then he’s on the menu.In my opinion, fee title passes to the Grantee via a validly executed deed recorded or not. I agree that the interest may be subject to divestment by a subsequent deed, but the first grantee has fee title and not an equitable interest. In addition, occupancy may act as notice of the first grantee's interest, which may defeat a claim of a BFP status even if the deed has not been recorded. A buyer may have an obligation to conduct reasonable due diligence and explore any indicia that his seller may not have title to the property, including exclusive possession. However, in race states such as NC, notice doesn't matter. Whoever gets to the courthouse first wins, irrelevant of notice, constructive or actual.
Here we get into the weeds of recording systems and whether the state is a race, notice, or race-notice state vis-a-vis recording. At a minimum the original poster has an equitable interest. That we can all agree on.
My point was, and is, that recording does not harm the interests of the original poster. His interest will need to be accounted for in any legal proceedings, and apparently he's already known to the bank, since he said that he's waiting for a reinstatement/pay-off letter from the bank.
All in all, the original poster will be involved in any legal proceedings concerning this property. Any defects in his instrument of title will come out. He might as well record and make sure he's protected by prompt notice. It cannot harm his interests.
I have no idea what interest if any the OP has since I haven't seen any of the documents nor do I know whether he should or should not record. That's why I recommended he speak with a CO attorney. I'm also not trying to split hairs, but I try to use correct terminology and generally speak up when my understanding varies from what's posted. In my opinion an equitable interest may arise when you partner with someone to buy property, and he uses your money to buy but puts title in his name only. He has record/fee interest, you probably have an equitable interest. You have a deed where you're the grantee, you have the fee not an equitable interest.
It could, depending on the facts and evidence.
Let's say that his Grantor didn't actually own the property, would clouding the title with a forged deed be in his best interest? What if his Grantor only had a life estate and there was a mutual mistake or misunderstanding in what was intended to be conveyed? Would recording be the best thing to do? What if the Grantor only held a remainderman interest that will only ripen into a fee on the death of the life estate holder. Again, is recording the best thing to do? As I previously wrote, I haven't seen any docs, so I don't have an opinion on what to do, other than talk to an attorney.
.
His comment "Let there be a suit,"
yes, yes, there's "no harm in that."(sarcasm)Lurkers: be very careful who you listen to, there are a lot of "wanna be" advisors who lack wisdom.
"Let there be a suit," is the worst advice I've heard in a long time.
.
The solution is to AVOID being sued and AVOID being investigated by concerned parties - this goes way beyond what you understand, but I get that. I believe @peter walther: has the experience of investigations and lawsuits that he hasn't mentioned, that make him someone to pay attention to if you can't follow what I have cautioned."The solution is to AVOID being sued and AVOID being investigated by concerned parties . . . "
----------------------------------------------
And as I have told you, that ship for the OP has almost certainly sailed. That's what my 39 years of legal practice says anyway. You can have your conclusions, I'll have mine.Nope. Did you?
.
Mine were not in Colorado, which is why I recommended he receive local advice.
My First was a "table top" closing with a Quit claim deed on a foreclosure using Subject To. That was about 1998. Which I won.
Then in 2001 another table top closing using a Warranty Deed this time. Eventual adversary was billion dollar company Fidelity Title and their army of attorneys and Special witnesses" Seller was in foreclosure at time ofPurchase using Warranty Deed using Subject To. Case was filed nearly 6 years after sale. Court would not dismiss based on Statute of limitations. But, Did dismiss on "credibility " of seller who claimed he didn't sell the property. They Refiled on appeal and a new judge accepted new complaint, different issue.
A second property I had bought in foreclosure the same way, using a Warranty Deed, table top closing joined.! It was forced into bankruptcy court. Judge dismissed the allegations as not credible.
Mine were in Washington, very, very liberal but won't turn down a good lawsuit.They Appealed on a different issue to District court. Remanded back (judge didn't agree with appeal and remanded. When remanded, a few more contortions and finally won. I think the order was in 2016. More than 10 years after the first filing. Each new attorney along the way had to be taught, by me, what was going on.
During that period of time, the seller pulled a gun and threatened me which resulted in a concurrent criminal case.
plenty more involved but you get the idea
I've been there, through the entire process every court level and prevailed each time
After you answer that question for each of your cases, tell us whether recording or not recording saved you any trouble -- either way. Did recording make your life/issues simpler, or avoided issues? Did not recording (if you didn't record) make your life/issues simpler, or avoided issues?
I think it telling that you went on and on in this thread about my telling someone he should record, but when you give us your bona fides, you neglect to mention the entire point of the thread.
After you inform us of the recording status of each of the above cases you mentioned about yourself, I'll ask you how you were found out on those cases that you didn't record.
And as I said before: telling someone not to record is as much legal advice as telling someone to record.
I was making the payments, lender admitted I had, I won.
It changed the way Fidelity has dealt with that issue since, me in my "little" way, made it easier for people doing Subject To.
Sure, you won on the issue (good for you) but recording never would have harmed you, and recording doesn’t alter the analysis of “subject to.”
The question of recording was the focus of the entire thread. Your own experience supports my statement to the original poster. - Specialist · Winter Springs, FL · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 747 votes1y
Quote from @Ryan Coon:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Agreed. Now, under what circumstances would not recording his deed best protect his interests, and under what circumstances would recording harm his interests? Notice I didn’t say “bring to light” defects, just harms that could not have arisen had there been no recording.Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
If the deed is somehow defective or ineffective, a court of chancery will often rule that one has an equitable interest. State laws vary.Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Ken, your post illustrates the adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @Ken M.:
In some states, it's against the law to approach anyone missing payments, they are considered to be "distressed" If they have received a Notice of Default or a Notice of Foreclosure, they are classified "for sure" as distressedQuote from @Account Closed:
@Ken M. thank you for clarifying, and for time you've put in to answering my post.
state: Colorado
deed type: warranty deed
verification: Yes I verified the seller. I assume you meant check their ID, and do my own research on the title that shows the person I met with was indeed the owner.
distressed status: I didn't say it was 'distressed.' However, it is in default, wth a sale date in 3 months.
title status: title search and report is in progress. I'm planning to file it as soon as I see clear title, get an inspection, and get some additional paperwork signed with the seller.should I file the deed?: people have commented on this post very strongly both directions on this question - some say I definitely should and some say I shouldn't. Sounds like you're more hesitant, and that I shouldn't. Your quote from above sounds like good advice, and makes me want to proceed more cautiously: "If he files, he assumes the risk of anything attached to title. Usually a foreclosure title has other issues."
Thank you again.
(federal issues)
In Washington, Oregon, California "for sure" it's a very big deal. I'm not current on Colorado foreclosure law.
there are federal laws involved
I personally, would not rely on self review of title obligations
Warranty deeds have to meet state specific requirements, usually have to be notarized and when done outside of escrow create a "credibility" problem with future title companies and definitely with the court in a lawsuit
Regardless of what you have been told or have read, you can not simply "Quit Claim Back" a property.
and other issues
I would not admit anything further because these he sites are monitored
pay for a local attorney for a proper solution He will need to see all paperwork to figure out best options
or simply hope your seller doesn't come back laterKen, I believe an unnotarized deed can still pass title. Notarization does two things; first it provides prima facia evidence the Grantor acknowledged signing the deed and appeared to understand the nature of the act, second, it's generally a prerequisite for recording in the public records. However, if one is the Grantee of the deed, I think a declaratory judgment action could be filed and upon sufficient evidence the court could find the deed valid and order the Clerk to record it. An unwieldy way to go about it, but possible, I think.
Re
In Arizona for instance, in statute, a deed must be properly notarized in order to be recorded.
An un-notarized deed can be litigated pretty easily.
But, an unrecorded deed does pass on title to the new owner, at time of signature for the reasons you stated. However, I'm unwilling to go into the implications by stating that. We'll, I just did. But there are exceptions. There needs to be someone, who can look at the paperwork and the facts, that he can work with to untangle this. By his lack of responding to if it was notarized, if it went through escrow etc I surmise it was a table top closing and he said there were other deals he has done. I don't think this is a "one off" occurrence. Either way, in my opinion, it can't be properly resolved on an exposed forum with people not willing to represent him. If he has a history of doing Subject To or foreclosures this way, it's a bigger issue. But yes, I believe if he has an unrecorded deed, it still transfers title with all the hair attached, legal and tax issues included.
Yes, an unrecorded deed does pass title — but only as to me the seller, and you, the buyer. The rest of the world is entitled to rely on the recorded chain of title, with a quick look/see at the property to see if there’s anything about the place that would cause a reasonable person to believe that the recorded chain of title might not reflect all interests in the property and therefore further investigation is needed.
Innocent third parties taking without notice and for consideration usually win.
So don’t just say “title passes without recording.” It passes to some people under some circumstances. The original poster needs to record his deed. Full stop. Recording is how he gets a seat at the table. If he’s not at the table, then he’s on the menu.In my opinion, fee title passes to the Grantee via a validly executed deed recorded or not. I agree that the interest may be subject to divestment by a subsequent deed, but the first grantee has fee title and not an equitable interest. In addition, occupancy may act as notice of the first grantee's interest, which may defeat a claim of a BFP status even if the deed has not been recorded. A buyer may have an obligation to conduct reasonable due diligence and explore any indicia that his seller may not have title to the property, including exclusive possession. However, in race states such as NC, notice doesn't matter. Whoever gets to the courthouse first wins, irrelevant of notice, constructive or actual.
Here we get into the weeds of recording systems and whether the state is a race, notice, or race-notice state vis-a-vis recording. At a minimum the original poster has an equitable interest. That we can all agree on.
My point was, and is, that recording does not harm the interests of the original poster. His interest will need to be accounted for in any legal proceedings, and apparently he's already known to the bank, since he said that he's waiting for a reinstatement/pay-off letter from the bank.
All in all, the original poster will be involved in any legal proceedings concerning this property. Any defects in his instrument of title will come out. He might as well record and make sure he's protected by prompt notice. It cannot harm his interests.
I have no idea what interest if any the OP has since I haven't seen any of the documents nor do I know whether he should or should not record. That's why I recommended he speak with a CO attorney. I'm also not trying to split hairs, but I try to use correct terminology and generally speak up when my understanding varies from what's posted. In my opinion an equitable interest may arise when you partner with someone to buy property, and he uses your money to buy but puts title in his name only. He has record/fee interest, you probably have an equitable interest. You have a deed where you're the grantee, you have the fee not an equitable interest.
It could, depending on the facts and evidence.
Let's say that his Grantor didn't actually own the property, would clouding the title with a forged deed be in his best interest? What if his Grantor only had a life estate and there was a mutual mistake or misunderstanding in what was intended to be conveyed? Would recording be the best thing to do? What if the Grantor only held a remainderman interest that will only ripen into a fee on the death of the life estate holder. Again, is recording the best thing to do? As I previously wrote, I haven't seen any docs, so I don't have an opinion on what to do, other than talk to an attorney.
@Peter Walther Thank you for being a voice of reason and restraint here. I've been following this thread for the last week or so and it was sad to see so many people dogpile on the OP, to the point where it appears that he deleted his account. Yes, he got himself into a mess getting involved in a complicated and fraught real estate strategy like Sub2 without doing the work, or better yet hiring a professional, to get his ducks in a row before pulling the trigger. However, so many of the comments were unhelpful or even fraught with their own potential ill effects, especially considering there was minimal info given and none of the documents (deed, contract, loan docs, etc.) were available to really determine what is the best path forward, if indeed there is a "best" path and not just a number of options with their own pros and cons depending on the OP's goals. The best and most sound advice given in this thread is go talk to an attorney ASAP.
Thanks Ryan, I appreciate the thought. I'm just trying to do what I can to help people when they pose a question involving matters I have some experience with.
- Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes1yThe state has little time to pursue the matter? Why would the state pursue a non-criminal matter? Buying subject to is legal.
Quote from @Ken M.:
.Quote from @John Clark:
That's nice, Ken but I notice that you omit to tell us about the issue here: Recording. In each one of your cases, had you recorded your deed? Yes or No?Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Ken M.:
Did you litigate title disputesin Colorado?Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @John Clark:
Ken, the decision to file suit will not be made by the original poster. You seem to think that if he doesn’t record, he’s free and clear. The mortgage is in default, however, so it’s already on the skyline. The OP’s interest will be revealed. He can decide if he wants to default on a suit or not, but that’s not a recording issue.Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Agreed. Now, under what circumstances would not recording his deed best protect his interests, and under what circumstances would recording harm his interests? Notice I didn’t say “bring to light” defects, just harms that could not have arisen had there been no recording.Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
If the deed is somehow defective or ineffective, a court of chancery will often rule that one has an equitable interest. State laws vary.Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Ken, your post illustrates the adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @Ken M.:
In some states, it's against the law to approach anyone missing payments, they are considered to be "distressed" If they have received a Notice of Default or a Notice of Foreclosure, they are classified "for sure" as distressedQuote from @Account Closed:
@Ken M. thank you for clarifying, and for time you've put in to answering my post.
state: Colorado
deed type: warranty deed
verification: Yes I verified the seller. I assume you meant check their ID, and do my own research on the title that shows the person I met with was indeed the owner.
distressed status: I didn't say it was 'distressed.' However, it is in default, wth a sale date in 3 months.
title status: title search and report is in progress. I'm planning to file it as soon as I see clear title, get an inspection, and get some additional paperwork signed with the seller.should I file the deed?: people have commented on this post very strongly both directions on this question - some say I definitely should and some say I shouldn't. Sounds like you're more hesitant, and that I shouldn't. Your quote from above sounds like good advice, and makes me want to proceed more cautiously: "If he files, he assumes the risk of anything attached to title. Usually a foreclosure title has other issues."
Thank you again.
(federal issues)
In Washington, Oregon, California "for sure" it's a very big deal. I'm not current on Colorado foreclosure law.
there are federal laws involved
I personally, would not rely on self review of title obligations
Warranty deeds have to meet state specific requirements, usually have to be notarized and when done outside of escrow create a "credibility" problem with future title companies and definitely with the court in a lawsuit
Regardless of what you have been told or have read, you can not simply "Quit Claim Back" a property.
and other issues
I would not admit anything further because these he sites are monitored
pay for a local attorney for a proper solution He will need to see all paperwork to figure out best options
or simply hope your seller doesn't come back laterKen, I believe an unnotarized deed can still pass title. Notarization does two things; first it provides prima facia evidence the Grantor acknowledged signing the deed and appeared to understand the nature of the act, second, it's generally a prerequisite for recording in the public records. However, if one is the Grantee of the deed, I think a declaratory judgment action could be filed and upon sufficient evidence the court could find the deed valid and order the Clerk to record it. An unwieldy way to go about it, but possible, I think.
Re
In Arizona for instance, in statute, a deed must be properly notarized in order to be recorded.
An un-notarized deed can be litigated pretty easily.
But, an unrecorded deed does pass on title to the new owner, at time of signature for the reasons you stated. However, I'm unwilling to go into the implications by stating that. We'll, I just did. But there are exceptions. There needs to be someone, who can look at the paperwork and the facts, that he can work with to untangle this. By his lack of responding to if it was notarized, if it went through escrow etc I surmise it was a table top closing and he said there were other deals he has done. I don't think this is a "one off" occurrence. Either way, in my opinion, it can't be properly resolved on an exposed forum with people not willing to represent him. If he has a history of doing Subject To or foreclosures this way, it's a bigger issue. But yes, I believe if he has an unrecorded deed, it still transfers title with all the hair attached, legal and tax issues included.
Yes, an unrecorded deed does pass title — but only as to me the seller, and you, the buyer. The rest of the world is entitled to rely on the recorded chain of title, with a quick look/see at the property to see if there’s anything about the place that would cause a reasonable person to believe that the recorded chain of title might not reflect all interests in the property and therefore further investigation is needed.
Innocent third parties taking without notice and for consideration usually win.
So don’t just say “title passes without recording.” It passes to some people under some circumstances. The original poster needs to record his deed. Full stop. Recording is how he gets a seat at the table. If he’s not at the table, then he’s on the menu.In my opinion, fee title passes to the Grantee via a validly executed deed recorded or not. I agree that the interest may be subject to divestment by a subsequent deed, but the first grantee has fee title and not an equitable interest. In addition, occupancy may act as notice of the first grantee's interest, which may defeat a claim of a BFP status even if the deed has not been recorded. A buyer may have an obligation to conduct reasonable due diligence and explore any indicia that his seller may not have title to the property, including exclusive possession. However, in race states such as NC, notice doesn't matter. Whoever gets to the courthouse first wins, irrelevant of notice, constructive or actual.
Here we get into the weeds of recording systems and whether the state is a race, notice, or race-notice state vis-a-vis recording. At a minimum the original poster has an equitable interest. That we can all agree on.
My point was, and is, that recording does not harm the interests of the original poster. His interest will need to be accounted for in any legal proceedings, and apparently he's already known to the bank, since he said that he's waiting for a reinstatement/pay-off letter from the bank.
All in all, the original poster will be involved in any legal proceedings concerning this property. Any defects in his instrument of title will come out. He might as well record and make sure he's protected by prompt notice. It cannot harm his interests.
I have no idea what interest if any the OP has since I haven't seen any of the documents nor do I know whether he should or should not record. That's why I recommended he speak with a CO attorney. I'm also not trying to split hairs, but I try to use correct terminology and generally speak up when my understanding varies from what's posted. In my opinion an equitable interest may arise when you partner with someone to buy property, and he uses your money to buy but puts title in his name only. He has record/fee interest, you probably have an equitable interest. You have a deed where you're the grantee, you have the fee not an equitable interest.
It could, depending on the facts and evidence.
Let's say that his Grantor didn't actually own the property, would clouding the title with a forged deed be in his best interest? What if his Grantor only had a life estate and there was a mutual mistake or misunderstanding in what was intended to be conveyed? Would recording be the best thing to do? What if the Grantor only held a remainderman interest that will only ripen into a fee on the death of the life estate holder. Again, is recording the best thing to do? As I previously wrote, I haven't seen any docs, so I don't have an opinion on what to do, other than talk to an attorney.
.
His comment "Let there be a suit,"
yes, yes, there's "no harm in that."(sarcasm)Lurkers: be very careful who you listen to, there are a lot of "wanna be" advisors who lack wisdom.
"Let there be a suit," is the worst advice I've heard in a long time.
.
The solution is to AVOID being sued and AVOID being investigated by concerned parties - this goes way beyond what you understand, but I get that. I believe @peter walther: has the experience of investigations and lawsuits that he hasn't mentioned, that make him someone to pay attention to if you can't follow what I have cautioned."The solution is to AVOID being sued and AVOID being investigated by concerned parties . . . "
----------------------------------------------
And as I have told you, that ship for the OP has almost certainly sailed. That's what my 39 years of legal practice says anyway. You can have your conclusions, I'll have mine.Nope. Did you?
.
Mine were not in Colorado, which is why I recommended he receive local advice.
My First was a "table top" closing with a Quit claim deed on a foreclosure using Subject To. That was about 1998. Which I won.
Then in 2001 another table top closing using a Warranty Deed this time. Eventual adversary was billion dollar company Fidelity Title and their army of attorneys and Special witnesses" Seller was in foreclosure at time ofPurchase using Warranty Deed using Subject To. Case was filed nearly 6 years after sale. Court would not dismiss based on Statute of limitations. But, Did dismiss on "credibility " of seller who claimed he didn't sell the property. They Refiled on appeal and a new judge accepted new complaint, different issue.
A second property I had bought in foreclosure the same way, using a Warranty Deed, table top closing joined.! It was forced into bankruptcy court. Judge dismissed the allegations as not credible.
Mine were in Washington, very, very liberal but won't turn down a good lawsuit.They Appealed on a different issue to District court. Remanded back (judge didn't agree with appeal and remanded. When remanded, a few more contortions and finally won. I think the order was in 2016. More than 10 years after the first filing. Each new attorney along the way had to be taught, by me, what was going on.
During that period of time, the seller pulled a gun and threatened me which resulted in a concurrent criminal case.
plenty more involved but you get the idea
I've been there, through the entire process every court level and prevailed each time
After you answer that question for each of your cases, tell us whether recording or not recording saved you any trouble -- either way. Did recording make your life/issues simpler, or avoided issues? Did not recording (if you didn't record) make your life/issues simpler, or avoided issues?
I think it telling that you went on and on in this thread about my telling someone he should record, but when you give us your bona fides, you neglect to mention the entire point of the thread.
After you inform us of the recording status of each of the above cases you mentioned about yourself, I'll ask you how you were found out on those cases that you didn't record.
And as I said before: telling someone not to record is as much legal advice as telling someone to record.
You've lost me. One too many martinis?You'd be a kick to discuss real estate tactics with.
Your solution is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic while it sinks. It doesn't provide a viable solution.
Look, this guy's issue is to keep from getting sued, which he may or maybe not understand. Recording raises serious questions. Now, I would never officially suggest that he simply burn the "probably very incriminating deed" and simply tell the seller he is no longer involved in the transaction so the seller can find a proper solution for his foreclosure.But, if he were to do so, the likelihood of this coming back at him is remote. No recorded deed, in fact no deed at all, perfected or defective and the seller has time to correct the problem without relying on an imperfect transaction. The seller has no money to sue, he can't pay an attorney, he's in foreclosure and the benefit to the buyer is very questionable at best, and the state has little interest in pursuing a "non complaint" with no damage. On the other hand, recording the deed establishes a fact pattern worth pursuing. The seller still may lose his house, but now we have someone to blame and sue.So, I'm not going to suggest the buyer burn the deed and get out of the deal, but it has interesting options.
My earlier comment was that you seemed to think that lying dogging in the bush would save the original poster. You FINALLY admit it. Turns out that from your own experience (see your post below), it doesn’t. - Investor · Get yourself trained before doing something inadvisable. · Member since 2024 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes1yYou are conflating totally different matters. I was attempting to prove we had a meeting of the minds in my situation, even though I had not Recorded.
Quote from @John Clark:
So, at long last, we know that not only did not recording NOT save you from any grief, but actually gave Fidelity something to club you with, complicating matters (your “Fidelity brought up” statement).Quote from @Ken M.:
To your question, no the deeds were not recorded. That is obviously something big, bad Fidelity brought up, fought and lost on.Quote from @John Clark:
That's nice, Ken but I notice that you omit to tell us about the issue here: Recording. In each one of your cases, had you recorded your deed? Yes or No?Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Ken M.:
Did you litigate title disputesin Colorado?Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @John Clark:
Ken, the decision to file suit will not be made by the original poster. You seem to think that if he doesn’t record, he’s free and clear. The mortgage is in default, however, so it’s already on the skyline. The OP’s interest will be revealed. He can decide if he wants to default on a suit or not, but that’s not a recording issue.Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Agreed. Now, under what circumstances would not recording his deed best protect his interests, and under what circumstances would recording harm his interests? Notice I didn’t say “bring to light” defects, just harms that could not have arisen had there been no recording.Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
If the deed is somehow defective or ineffective, a court of chancery will often rule that one has an equitable interest. State laws vary.Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Ken, your post illustrates the adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @Ken M.:
In some states, it's against the law to approach anyone missing payments, they are considered to be "distressed" If they have received a Notice of Default or a Notice of Foreclosure, they are classified "for sure" as distressedQuote from @Account Closed:
@Ken M. thank you for clarifying, and for time you've put in to answering my post.
state: Colorado
deed type: warranty deed
verification: Yes I verified the seller. I assume you meant check their ID, and do my own research on the title that shows the person I met with was indeed the owner.
distressed status: I didn't say it was 'distressed.' However, it is in default, wth a sale date in 3 months.
title status: title search and report is in progress. I'm planning to file it as soon as I see clear title, get an inspection, and get some additional paperwork signed with the seller.should I file the deed?: people have commented on this post very strongly both directions on this question - some say I definitely should and some say I shouldn't. Sounds like you're more hesitant, and that I shouldn't. Your quote from above sounds like good advice, and makes me want to proceed more cautiously: "If he files, he assumes the risk of anything attached to title. Usually a foreclosure title has other issues."
Thank you again.
(federal issues)
In Washington, Oregon, California "for sure" it's a very big deal. I'm not current on Colorado foreclosure law.
there are federal laws involved
I personally, would not rely on self review of title obligations
Warranty deeds have to meet state specific requirements, usually have to be notarized and when done outside of escrow create a "credibility" problem with future title companies and definitely with the court in a lawsuit
Regardless of what you have been told or have read, you can not simply "Quit Claim Back" a property.
and other issues
I would not admit anything further because these he sites are monitored
pay for a local attorney for a proper solution He will need to see all paperwork to figure out best options
or simply hope your seller doesn't come back laterKen, I believe an unnotarized deed can still pass title. Notarization does two things; first it provides prima facia evidence the Grantor acknowledged signing the deed and appeared to understand the nature of the act, second, it's generally a prerequisite for recording in the public records. However, if one is the Grantee of the deed, I think a declaratory judgment action could be filed and upon sufficient evidence the court could find the deed valid and order the Clerk to record it. An unwieldy way to go about it, but possible, I think.
Re
In Arizona for instance, in statute, a deed must be properly notarized in order to be recorded.
An un-notarized deed can be litigated pretty easily.
But, an unrecorded deed does pass on title to the new owner, at time of signature for the reasons you stated. However, I'm unwilling to go into the implications by stating that. We'll, I just did. But there are exceptions. There needs to be someone, who can look at the paperwork and the facts, that he can work with to untangle this. By his lack of responding to if it was notarized, if it went through escrow etc I surmise it was a table top closing and he said there were other deals he has done. I don't think this is a "one off" occurrence. Either way, in my opinion, it can't be properly resolved on an exposed forum with people not willing to represent him. If he has a history of doing Subject To or foreclosures this way, it's a bigger issue. But yes, I believe if he has an unrecorded deed, it still transfers title with all the hair attached, legal and tax issues included.
Yes, an unrecorded deed does pass title — but only as to me the seller, and you, the buyer. The rest of the world is entitled to rely on the recorded chain of title, with a quick look/see at the property to see if there’s anything about the place that would cause a reasonable person to believe that the recorded chain of title might not reflect all interests in the property and therefore further investigation is needed.
Innocent third parties taking without notice and for consideration usually win.
So don’t just say “title passes without recording.” It passes to some people under some circumstances. The original poster needs to record his deed. Full stop. Recording is how he gets a seat at the table. If he’s not at the table, then he’s on the menu.In my opinion, fee title passes to the Grantee via a validly executed deed recorded or not. I agree that the interest may be subject to divestment by a subsequent deed, but the first grantee has fee title and not an equitable interest. In addition, occupancy may act as notice of the first grantee's interest, which may defeat a claim of a BFP status even if the deed has not been recorded. A buyer may have an obligation to conduct reasonable due diligence and explore any indicia that his seller may not have title to the property, including exclusive possession. However, in race states such as NC, notice doesn't matter. Whoever gets to the courthouse first wins, irrelevant of notice, constructive or actual.
Here we get into the weeds of recording systems and whether the state is a race, notice, or race-notice state vis-a-vis recording. At a minimum the original poster has an equitable interest. That we can all agree on.
My point was, and is, that recording does not harm the interests of the original poster. His interest will need to be accounted for in any legal proceedings, and apparently he's already known to the bank, since he said that he's waiting for a reinstatement/pay-off letter from the bank.
All in all, the original poster will be involved in any legal proceedings concerning this property. Any defects in his instrument of title will come out. He might as well record and make sure he's protected by prompt notice. It cannot harm his interests.
I have no idea what interest if any the OP has since I haven't seen any of the documents nor do I know whether he should or should not record. That's why I recommended he speak with a CO attorney. I'm also not trying to split hairs, but I try to use correct terminology and generally speak up when my understanding varies from what's posted. In my opinion an equitable interest may arise when you partner with someone to buy property, and he uses your money to buy but puts title in his name only. He has record/fee interest, you probably have an equitable interest. You have a deed where you're the grantee, you have the fee not an equitable interest.
It could, depending on the facts and evidence.
Let's say that his Grantor didn't actually own the property, would clouding the title with a forged deed be in his best interest? What if his Grantor only had a life estate and there was a mutual mistake or misunderstanding in what was intended to be conveyed? Would recording be the best thing to do? What if the Grantor only held a remainderman interest that will only ripen into a fee on the death of the life estate holder. Again, is recording the best thing to do? As I previously wrote, I haven't seen any docs, so I don't have an opinion on what to do, other than talk to an attorney.
.
His comment "Let there be a suit,"
yes, yes, there's "no harm in that."(sarcasm)Lurkers: be very careful who you listen to, there are a lot of "wanna be" advisors who lack wisdom.
"Let there be a suit," is the worst advice I've heard in a long time.
.
The solution is to AVOID being sued and AVOID being investigated by concerned parties - this goes way beyond what you understand, but I get that. I believe @peter walther: has the experience of investigations and lawsuits that he hasn't mentioned, that make him someone to pay attention to if you can't follow what I have cautioned."The solution is to AVOID being sued and AVOID being investigated by concerned parties . . . "
----------------------------------------------
And as I have told you, that ship for the OP has almost certainly sailed. That's what my 39 years of legal practice says anyway. You can have your conclusions, I'll have mine.Nope. Did you?
.
Mine were not in Colorado, which is why I recommended he receive local advice.
My First was a "table top" closing with a Quit claim deed on a foreclosure using Subject To. That was about 1998. Which I won.
Then in 2001 another table top closing using a Warranty Deed this time. Eventual adversary was billion dollar company Fidelity Title and their army of attorneys and Special witnesses" Seller was in foreclosure at time ofPurchase using Warranty Deed using Subject To. Case was filed nearly 6 years after sale. Court would not dismiss based on Statute of limitations. But, Did dismiss on "credibility " of seller who claimed he didn't sell the property. They Refiled on appeal and a new judge accepted new complaint, different issue.
A second property I had bought in foreclosure the same way, using a Warranty Deed, table top closing joined.! It was forced into bankruptcy court. Judge dismissed the allegations as not credible.
Mine were in Washington, very, very liberal but won't turn down a good lawsuit.They Appealed on a different issue to District court. Remanded back (judge didn't agree with appeal and remanded. When remanded, a few more contortions and finally won. I think the order was in 2016. More than 10 years after the first filing. Each new attorney along the way had to be taught, by me, what was going on.
During that period of time, the seller pulled a gun and threatened me which resulted in a concurrent criminal case.
plenty more involved but you get the idea
I've been there, through the entire process every court level and prevailed each time
After you answer that question for each of your cases, tell us whether recording or not recording saved you any trouble -- either way. Did recording make your life/issues simpler, or avoided issues? Did not recording (if you didn't record) make your life/issues simpler, or avoided issues?
I think it telling that you went on and on in this thread about my telling someone he should record, but when you give us your bona fides, you neglect to mention the entire point of the thread.
After you inform us of the recording status of each of the above cases you mentioned about yourself, I'll ask you how you were found out on those cases that you didn't record.
And as I said before: telling someone not to record is as much legal advice as telling someone to record.
I was making the payments, lender admitted I had, I won.
It changed the way Fidelity has dealt with that issue since, me in my "little" way, made it easier for people doing Subject To.
Sure, you won on the issue (good for you) but recording never would have harmed you, and recording doesn’t alter the analysis of “subject to.”
The question of recording was the focus of the entire thread. Your own experience supports my statement to the original poster.
Conversely The OP, under my hypothetical scenario that he simply burn the unrecorded deed, has an argument that he doesn't own the property and no one would have evidence to the contrary. It would save him a great deal of litigation. No paper trail. The court would have a tough time believing a simple accusation from the seller who couldn't prove he sold it.
Sorry that you can't tell the difference, but you are so intent on being right that you missed what the OP argument was about and that just caused you to lose in court. But it really doesn't matter because you think billing your client is justified anyway and your client doesn't understand why he lost Nor do you understand. - Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes1yWrong, and in fact your failure to explain to us how you came to the notice of the banks in all of those cases where you didn't record your deed -- which I had asked for, remember? -- shows the point.
Quote from @Ken M.:
You are conflating totally different matters. I was attempting to prove we had a meeting of the minds in my situation, even though I had not Recorded.Quote from @John Clark:
So, at long last, we know that not only did not recording NOT save you from any grief, but actually gave Fidelity something to club you with, complicating matters (your “Fidelity brought up” statement).Quote from @Ken M.:
To your question, no the deeds were not recorded. That is obviously something big, bad Fidelity brought up, fought and lost on.Quote from @John Clark:
That's nice, Ken but I notice that you omit to tell us about the issue here: Recording. In each one of your cases, had you recorded your deed? Yes or No?Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Ken M.:
Did you litigate title disputesin Colorado?Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @John Clark:
Ken, the decision to file suit will not be made by the original poster. You seem to think that if he doesn’t record, he’s free and clear. The mortgage is in default, however, so it’s already on the skyline. The OP’s interest will be revealed. He can decide if he wants to default on a suit or not, but that’s not a recording issue.Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Agreed. Now, under what circumstances would not recording his deed best protect his interests, and under what circumstances would recording harm his interests? Notice I didn’t say “bring to light” defects, just harms that could not have arisen had there been no recording.Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
If the deed is somehow defective or ineffective, a court of chancery will often rule that one has an equitable interest. State laws vary.Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @John Clark:
Ken, your post illustrates the adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @Ken M.:
In some states, it's against the law to approach anyone missing payments, they are considered to be "distressed" If they have received a Notice of Default or a Notice of Foreclosure, they are classified "for sure" as distressedQuote from @Account Closed:
@Ken M. thank you for clarifying, and for time you've put in to answering my post.
state: Colorado
deed type: warranty deed
verification: Yes I verified the seller. I assume you meant check their ID, and do my own research on the title that shows the person I met with was indeed the owner.
distressed status: I didn't say it was 'distressed.' However, it is in default, wth a sale date in 3 months.
title status: title search and report is in progress. I'm planning to file it as soon as I see clear title, get an inspection, and get some additional paperwork signed with the seller.should I file the deed?: people have commented on this post very strongly both directions on this question - some say I definitely should and some say I shouldn't. Sounds like you're more hesitant, and that I shouldn't. Your quote from above sounds like good advice, and makes me want to proceed more cautiously: "If he files, he assumes the risk of anything attached to title. Usually a foreclosure title has other issues."
Thank you again.
(federal issues)
In Washington, Oregon, California "for sure" it's a very big deal. I'm not current on Colorado foreclosure law.
there are federal laws involved
I personally, would not rely on self review of title obligations
Warranty deeds have to meet state specific requirements, usually have to be notarized and when done outside of escrow create a "credibility" problem with future title companies and definitely with the court in a lawsuit
Regardless of what you have been told or have read, you can not simply "Quit Claim Back" a property.
and other issues
I would not admit anything further because these he sites are monitored
pay for a local attorney for a proper solution He will need to see all paperwork to figure out best options
or simply hope your seller doesn't come back laterKen, I believe an unnotarized deed can still pass title. Notarization does two things; first it provides prima facia evidence the Grantor acknowledged signing the deed and appeared to understand the nature of the act, second, it's generally a prerequisite for recording in the public records. However, if one is the Grantee of the deed, I think a declaratory judgment action could be filed and upon sufficient evidence the court could find the deed valid and order the Clerk to record it. An unwieldy way to go about it, but possible, I think.
Re
In Arizona for instance, in statute, a deed must be properly notarized in order to be recorded.
An un-notarized deed can be litigated pretty easily.
But, an unrecorded deed does pass on title to the new owner, at time of signature for the reasons you stated. However, I'm unwilling to go into the implications by stating that. We'll, I just did. But there are exceptions. There needs to be someone, who can look at the paperwork and the facts, that he can work with to untangle this. By his lack of responding to if it was notarized, if it went through escrow etc I surmise it was a table top closing and he said there were other deals he has done. I don't think this is a "one off" occurrence. Either way, in my opinion, it can't be properly resolved on an exposed forum with people not willing to represent him. If he has a history of doing Subject To or foreclosures this way, it's a bigger issue. But yes, I believe if he has an unrecorded deed, it still transfers title with all the hair attached, legal and tax issues included.
Yes, an unrecorded deed does pass title — but only as to me the seller, and you, the buyer. The rest of the world is entitled to rely on the recorded chain of title, with a quick look/see at the property to see if there’s anything about the place that would cause a reasonable person to believe that the recorded chain of title might not reflect all interests in the property and therefore further investigation is needed.
Innocent third parties taking without notice and for consideration usually win.
So don’t just say “title passes without recording.” It passes to some people under some circumstances. The original poster needs to record his deed. Full stop. Recording is how he gets a seat at the table. If he’s not at the table, then he’s on the menu.In my opinion, fee title passes to the Grantee via a validly executed deed recorded or not. I agree that the interest may be subject to divestment by a subsequent deed, but the first grantee has fee title and not an equitable interest. In addition, occupancy may act as notice of the first grantee's interest, which may defeat a claim of a BFP status even if the deed has not been recorded. A buyer may have an obligation to conduct reasonable due diligence and explore any indicia that his seller may not have title to the property, including exclusive possession. However, in race states such as NC, notice doesn't matter. Whoever gets to the courthouse first wins, irrelevant of notice, constructive or actual.
Here we get into the weeds of recording systems and whether the state is a race, notice, or race-notice state vis-a-vis recording. At a minimum the original poster has an equitable interest. That we can all agree on.
My point was, and is, that recording does not harm the interests of the original poster. His interest will need to be accounted for in any legal proceedings, and apparently he's already known to the bank, since he said that he's waiting for a reinstatement/pay-off letter from the bank.
All in all, the original poster will be involved in any legal proceedings concerning this property. Any defects in his instrument of title will come out. He might as well record and make sure he's protected by prompt notice. It cannot harm his interests.
I have no idea what interest if any the OP has since I haven't seen any of the documents nor do I know whether he should or should not record. That's why I recommended he speak with a CO attorney. I'm also not trying to split hairs, but I try to use correct terminology and generally speak up when my understanding varies from what's posted. In my opinion an equitable interest may arise when you partner with someone to buy property, and he uses your money to buy but puts title in his name only. He has record/fee interest, you probably have an equitable interest. You have a deed where you're the grantee, you have the fee not an equitable interest.
It could, depending on the facts and evidence.
Let's say that his Grantor didn't actually own the property, would clouding the title with a forged deed be in his best interest? What if his Grantor only had a life estate and there was a mutual mistake or misunderstanding in what was intended to be conveyed? Would recording be the best thing to do? What if the Grantor only held a remainderman interest that will only ripen into a fee on the death of the life estate holder. Again, is recording the best thing to do? As I previously wrote, I haven't seen any docs, so I don't have an opinion on what to do, other than talk to an attorney.
.
His comment "Let there be a suit,"
yes, yes, there's "no harm in that."(sarcasm)Lurkers: be very careful who you listen to, there are a lot of "wanna be" advisors who lack wisdom.
"Let there be a suit," is the worst advice I've heard in a long time.
.
The solution is to AVOID being sued and AVOID being investigated by concerned parties - this goes way beyond what you understand, but I get that. I believe @peter walther: has the experience of investigations and lawsuits that he hasn't mentioned, that make him someone to pay attention to if you can't follow what I have cautioned."The solution is to AVOID being sued and AVOID being investigated by concerned parties . . . "
----------------------------------------------
And as I have told you, that ship for the OP has almost certainly sailed. That's what my 39 years of legal practice says anyway. You can have your conclusions, I'll have mine.Nope. Did you?
.
Mine were not in Colorado, which is why I recommended he receive local advice.
My First was a "table top" closing with a Quit claim deed on a foreclosure using Subject To. That was about 1998. Which I won.
Then in 2001 another table top closing using a Warranty Deed this time. Eventual adversary was billion dollar company Fidelity Title and their army of attorneys and Special witnesses" Seller was in foreclosure at time ofPurchase using Warranty Deed using Subject To. Case was filed nearly 6 years after sale. Court would not dismiss based on Statute of limitations. But, Did dismiss on "credibility " of seller who claimed he didn't sell the property. They Refiled on appeal and a new judge accepted new complaint, different issue.
A second property I had bought in foreclosure the same way, using a Warranty Deed, table top closing joined.! It was forced into bankruptcy court. Judge dismissed the allegations as not credible.
Mine were in Washington, very, very liberal but won't turn down a good lawsuit.They Appealed on a different issue to District court. Remanded back (judge didn't agree with appeal and remanded. When remanded, a few more contortions and finally won. I think the order was in 2016. More than 10 years after the first filing. Each new attorney along the way had to be taught, by me, what was going on.
During that period of time, the seller pulled a gun and threatened me which resulted in a concurrent criminal case.
plenty more involved but you get the idea
I've been there, through the entire process every court level and prevailed each time
After you answer that question for each of your cases, tell us whether recording or not recording saved you any trouble -- either way. Did recording make your life/issues simpler, or avoided issues? Did not recording (if you didn't record) make your life/issues simpler, or avoided issues?
I think it telling that you went on and on in this thread about my telling someone he should record, but when you give us your bona fides, you neglect to mention the entire point of the thread.
After you inform us of the recording status of each of the above cases you mentioned about yourself, I'll ask you how you were found out on those cases that you didn't record.
And as I said before: telling someone not to record is as much legal advice as telling someone to record.
I was making the payments, lender admitted I had, I won.
It changed the way Fidelity has dealt with that issue since, me in my "little" way, made it easier for people doing Subject To.
Sure, you won on the issue (good for you) but recording never would have harmed you, and recording doesn’t alter the analysis of “subject to.”
The question of recording was the focus of the entire thread. Your own experience supports my statement to the original poster.
Conversely The OP, under my hypothetical scenario that he simply burn the unrecorded deed, has an argument that he doesn't own the property and no one would have evidence to the contrary. It would save him a great deal of litigation. No paper trail. The court would have a tough time believing a simple accusation from the seller who couldn't prove he sold it.
Sorry that you can't tell the difference, but you are so intent on being right that you missed what the OP argument was about and that just caused you to lose in court. But it really doesn't matter because you think billing your client is justified anyway and your client doesn't understand why he lost Nor do you understand.
After all, you said you hadn't recorded. So according to you there was no paper trail. Notwithstanding the lack of a paper trail, you got roped into these lawsuits. So how did you come to the attention of the bank?
How about the fact that all it takes is the seller telling the bank "I sold it to Mr. X"? How about you, like the original poster, went to the bank and asked for a pay off/reinstatement letter? How about somebody new started paying property taxes?
Having a meeting of the minds can be evidenced by checks, payoffs, ATTEMPTED assumptions of payments, etc. It all becomes evidence of an equitable interest in the property, and therefore gets you joined to the suit, recording or not.
Hate to bust your bubble, Ken, but the paper trail is not limited to what is recorded.
So tell us what you've tried to avoid telling us. In each of these cases where you did not record your deed; How did you come to the attention of the bank/title company/whoever? After all, according to you, there was no paper trail.
And no, you can't tell us that you were selected at random because of your roguish good looks.
Here's another question: Are you watching your martini consumption? - Investor · Get yourself trained before doing something inadvisable. · Member since 2024 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes1y
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @John Clark:
Your Comment:
Wrong, and in fact your failure to explain to us how you came to the notice of the banks in all of those cases where you didn't record your deed -- which I had asked for, remember? -- shows the point.
After all, you said you hadn't recorded. So according to you there was no paper trail. Notwithstanding the lack of a paper trail, you got roped into these lawsuits. So how did you come to the attention of the bank?
How about the fact that all it takes is the seller telling the bank "I sold it to Mr. X"? How about you, like the original poster, went to the bank and asked for a pay off/reinstatement letter? How about somebody new started paying property taxes?
Having a meeting of the minds can be evidenced by checks, payoffs, ATTEMPTED assumptions of payments, etc. It all becomes evidence of an equitable interest in the property, and therefore gets you joined to the suit, recording or not.
Hate to bust your bubble, Ken, but the paper trail is not limited to what is recorded.
So tell us what you've tried to avoid telling us. In each of these cases where you did not record your deed; How did you come to the attention of the bank/title company/whoever? After all, according to you, there was no paper trail.
And no, you can't tell us that you were selected at random because of your roguish good looks.
Here's another question: Are you watching your martini consumption?My Comment:
I'm not sure which, but either you are misunderstanding (possibly intentionally, I don't know.) or I am not explaining correctly.
For the sake of those poor souls who are wasting their time on trying to follow this:
In my cases, the seller went to an attorney (the house had gone up in appreciation, and he wanted that equity). The seller claimed he didn't sign the unrecorded deed. He couldn't get around the fact he made no payments. I had been making payments for about two years, the bank had a record of those payments. I was claiming I was the owner!
In the OPs case, it is unlikely he has made ANY payments. The seller, as far as we know, is not disputing that he sold the house. It is unlikely the seller is going to go to an attorney and claim he sold the house to the OP. The buyer has an unrecorded deed, that he controls. There are no payments, there is no recorded deed, there is nothing showing that the buyer actually bought the house, other than the unrecorded deed. If the buyer were to somehow lose that document, he would have to hire an attorney to prove ownership, the very thing I suggest he avoid. But, if the OP lost that document, it would be difficult to prove he did buy it and in my opinion, in this situation, that would be favorable to the OP. It would keep him out of trouble.
However, if he follows your advice and records, he could wind up like this: Very bad
Which I am suggesting he avoid at all costs. So, yes, recording the deed puts him on the radar with an arrow pointed directly at him. He doesn't seem to be the type that wants to invite that kind of scrutiny.
There is of course, a way to do this the right way, for him to stay out of trouble, and to get the property, but the OP doesn't seem to want to spend the money, so in my opinion, his best option is to get out before it blows up.
In at Least California, Washington, Arizona, Oregon, and many, many other states - you need to watch out for the following:
Click on each image to expand
- Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes1y--------------------------------------------------
Quote from @Ken M.:
My Comment:
I'm not sure which, but either you are misunderstanding (possibly intentionally, I don't know.) or I am not explaining correctly.
For the sake of those poor souls who are wasting their time on trying to follow this:
In my cases, the seller went to an attorney (the house had gone up in appreciation, and he wanted that equity). The seller claimed he didn't sign the unrecorded deed. He couldn't get around the fact he made no payments. I had been making payments for about two years, the bank had a record of those payments. I was claiming I was the owner!
In the OPs case, it is unlikely he has made ANY payments. The seller, as far as we know, is not disputing that he sold the house. It is unlikely the seller is going to go to an attorney and claim he sold the house to the OP. The buyer has an unrecorded deed, that he controls. There are no payments, there is no recorded deed, there is nothing showing that the buyer actually bought the house, other than the unrecorded deed. If the buyer were to somehow lose that document, he would have to hire an attorney to prove ownership, the very thing I suggest he avoid. But, if the OP lost that document, it would be difficult to prove he did buy it and in my opinion, in this situation, that would be favorable to the OP. It would keep him out of trouble.
However, if he follows your advice and records, he could wind up like this: Very bad
Which I am suggesting he avoid at all costs. So, yes, recording the deed puts him on the radar with an arrow pointed directly at him. He doesn't seem to be the type that wants to invite that kind of scrutiny.
There is of course, a way to do this the right way, for him to stay out of trouble, and to get the property, but the OP doesn't seem to want to spend the money, so in my opinion, his best option is to get out before it blows up.
In at Least California, Washington, Arizona, Oregon, and many, many other states - you need to watch out for the following:
Click on each image to expand
"In my cases, the seller went to an attorney (the house had gone up in appreciation, and he wanted that equity). The seller claimed he didn't sign the unrecorded deed. He couldn't get
around the fact he made no payments. I had been making payments for about two years, the bank had a record of those payments. I was claiming I was the owner!"
==============================
You dance around the issues, Ken. How did YOU wind up on the Bank's radar? Did you intervene in the foreclosure suit? Did the Seller tell the Bank about you? Did the bank look at your checks and think "this guy's involved"? I understand why the Seller lost and you won, but you have run right away from the issue underlying the advice you gave -- you didn't record so how did you get on the bank's radar?
--------------------------------------------
"It is unlikely the seller is going to go to an attorney and claim he sold the house to the OP."
---------------------------------
The OP's seller wouldn't go to an attorney. He'd go to the bank and say that he sold to the OP. Why wouldn't he do that? He could slow down the foreclosure suit, even if he's ultimately unsuccessful. Then there's the small matter of having a check deposited somewhere, a check that came from the OP. Your statement that there's nothing showing that the OP bought the house is simply false. The seller has a check he deposited. The seller has a closing statement. The seller probably has a copy of the deed.
AND the original poster said he was waiting for a reinstatement/pay off letter from the bank, remember?
Sing and dance all you want, but recording does not harm the original poster, and gives him a seat at the table where he might be able to settle with the bank. At a minimum he might be able to get any appreciation on the value of the house after foreclosure (if any) on the grounds that he was the new owner.
How's your martini intake been this evening? - Investor · Get yourself trained before doing something inadvisable. · Member since 2024 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes1y
Quote from @John Clark:
--------------------------------------------------Quote from @Ken M.:
My Comment:
I'm not sure which, but either you are misunderstanding (possibly intentionally, I don't know.) or I am not explaining correctly.
For the sake of those poor souls who are wasting their time on trying to follow this:
In my cases, the seller went to an attorney (the house had gone up in appreciation, and he wanted that equity). The seller claimed he didn't sign the unrecorded deed. He couldn't get around the fact he made no payments. I had been making payments for about two years, the bank had a record of those payments. I was claiming I was the owner!
In the OPs case, it is unlikely he has made ANY payments. The seller, as far as we know, is not disputing that he sold the house. It is unlikely the seller is going to go to an attorney and claim he sold the house to the OP. The buyer has an unrecorded deed, that he controls. There are no payments, there is no recorded deed, there is nothing showing that the buyer actually bought the house, other than the unrecorded deed. If the buyer were to somehow lose that document, he would have to hire an attorney to prove ownership, the very thing I suggest he avoid. But, if the OP lost that document, it would be difficult to prove he did buy it and in my opinion, in this situation, that would be favorable to the OP. It would keep him out of trouble.
However, if he follows your advice and records, he could wind up like this: Very bad
Which I am suggesting he avoid at all costs. So, yes, recording the deed puts him on the radar with an arrow pointed directly at him. He doesn't seem to be the type that wants to invite that kind of scrutiny.
There is of course, a way to do this the right way, for him to stay out of trouble, and to get the property, but the OP doesn't seem to want to spend the money, so in my opinion, his best option is to get out before it blows up.
In at Least California, Washington, Arizona, Oregon, and many, many other states - you need to watch out for the following:
Click on each image to expand
"In my cases, the seller went to an attorney (the house had gone up in appreciation, and he wanted that equity). The seller claimed he didn't sign the unrecorded deed. He couldn't get
around the fact he made no payments. I had been making payments for about two years, the bank had a record of those payments. I was claiming I was the owner!"
==============================
You dance around the issues, Ken. How did YOU wind up on the Bank's radar? Did you intervene in the foreclosure suit? Did the Seller tell the Bank about you? Did the bank look at your checks and think "this guy's involved"? I understand why the Seller lost and you won, but you have run right away from the issue underlying the advice you gave -- you didn't record so how did you get on the bank's radar?
--------------------------------------------
"It is unlikely the seller is going to go to an attorney and claim he sold the house to the OP."
---------------------------------
The OP's seller wouldn't go to an attorney. He'd go to the bank and say that he sold to the OP. Why wouldn't he do that? He could slow down the foreclosure suit, even if he's ultimately unsuccessful. Then there's the small matter of having a check deposited somewhere, a check that came from the OP. Your statement that there's nothing showing that the OP bought the house is simply false. The seller has a check he deposited. The seller has a closing statement. The seller probably has a copy of the deed.
AND the original poster said he was waiting for a reinstatement/pay off letter from the bank, remember?
Sing and dance all you want, but recording does not harm the original poster, and gives him a seat at the table where he might be able to settle with the bank. At a minimum he might be able to get any appreciation on the value of the house after foreclosure (if any) on the grounds that he was the new owner.
How's your martini intake been this evening?Your comment: "you didn't record so how did you get on the bank's radar?"
I'm not sure what I'm dealing with here. Are you a BOT? Do you actually read what has been posted? Or, are you not making the connection in your head? The seller contacted an attorney, (pro bono) who filed a suit and that gave them the right to request documents. They contacted the bank, of course. I would have thought you'd known that as an "attorney of 39 years". But, then maybe you did financial planning and never litigated, I don't know. But this is not adding up that you don't understand real estate lawsuits, though you purport to.Your comment "AND the original poster said he was waiting for a reinstatement/pay off letter from the bank, remember?" You should be made aware that 1. the reinstatement can't be released without the borrower's involvement, 2. the loss mitigation department doesn't notify/confer with the compliance department 3. we don't know if the OP is waiting to receive the reinstatement through the seller's efforts or what and 4. that item was answered by another poster previously. The OP doesn't control getting the reinstatement and may be waiting a very long time.
Your comment "The seller has a check he deposited." Actually, No. Most people in foreclosure have lost their banking account, can't cash a check and when money changes hands, it's usually cash.
SubTo Is At It Again - Ooops Being Sued - Wholesalers are Next - Be Careful & Follow The Law
I've had fun talking with you though and playing your 20 questions. Hope I've educated you on foreclosures enough. However, there is a lot more to this type of investing than I have time for.
You may like my most recent post though:https://www.biggerpockets.com/forums/311/topics/1259586-subt...
- Real Estate Broker · Northeast PA · Member since 2017 · 2k+ posts · 2k+ votes1y
Oh well, he closed the account. Hope he found what he was looking for.
- Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes1y
Your reply, Ken, illustrated what I have been saying: getting on the bank’s radar is beyond the OP’s control.
And the bank will find out about the buyer in the discovery process anyway, as you learned. Again, beyond the sub2 buyer’s control.
There is nothing to be lost by the OP recording his deed. There is possibly something to be gained.- Investor · Get yourself trained before doing something inadvisable. · Member since 2024 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes1yDo you believe a guy in foreclosure is going to sue a prospective buyer? In what world? The guy in foreclosure is already in a world of hurt, has no money, no lawyer will touch him (how are they to get paid?) .
Quote from @John Clark:
Your reply, Ken, illustrated what I have been saying: getting on the bank’s radar is beyond the OP’s control.
And the bank will find out about the buyer in the discovery process anyway, as you learned. Again, beyond the sub2 buyer’s control.
There is nothing to be lost by the OP recording his deed. There is possibly something to be gained.
Not recording, no lawsuit.
Recording and interfere with a foreclosure (clouding title at a minimum) bad law suit.
That one is a no-brainer.
Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.