3 Men Caught Stealing Houses Using A Quit Claim Deed Scam
Real Estate Broker · Cleveland Dayton Cincinnati Toledo Columbus & Akron, OH · Member since 2013 · 30k+ posts · 20k+ votes
3 Men Caught Stealing Houses Using A Quit Claim Deed Scam
Most Popular Reply
Specialist · Winter Springs, FL · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 747 votes
2yQuote from @Account Closed:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @Account Closed:
@Peter Walther: Understood and appreciated.
I reference an actual case (6 years long, hundred thousand or more in legal fees) that occurred with a buddy of mine years ago.
The seller came back later, after selling, when the equity had risen substantially in the property and claimed he never signed the deed.
It was closed on a kitchen table, not in escrow. (Big mistake) Eventually in court, the seller admitted he had signed. I know the details of the suit but suffice it to say, I see the same mistakes being played out with some of Mr. Morby's Subto" community" students and those who think Subto can be done without training.
My belief (I'm biased, of course) is that anyone who tries to do Subject To without coaching is playing pitch & putt in a mine field. (You of course were commenting on QCDs not Subto, but this was done with a QCD, so it complicated the case.)
I know this isn’t you, but those that ARE saying coaching is not necessary and is a waste of time and money in Subto, (as in, “you can learn it as you go along”) are doing the newbies a great disservice with a significant risk.
One doesn’t find out what they did incorrectly until it’s a major problem for them. They will then be trying to catch falling knives. IMHO
Agreed
13 Replies
- Specialist · Winter Springs, FL · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 747 votes2y
It continues to amuse me when even people in authority continue to describe this a theft because it's not. If you're not the owner of the property, you can sign a dozen deeds and the title is still with the actual owner. It's a fraud, but not on the owner, on the later grantee. Yes, title is clouded if the forged deed is recorded and yes, the owner will have the aggravation of clearing the cloud, but the owner is still the owner.
- Real Estate Broker · Cleveland Dayton Cincinnati Toledo Columbus & Akron, OH · Member since 2013 · 30k+ posts · 20k+ votes2y
Quote from @Peter Walther:
It continues to amuse me when even people in authority continue to describe this a theft because it's not. If you're not the owner of the property, you can sign a dozen deeds and the title is still with the actual owner. It's a fraud, but not on the owner, on the later grantee. Yes, title is clouded if the forged deed is recorded and yes, the owner will have the aggravation of clearing the cloud, but the owner is still the owner.
That's an interesting word salad you've made bro.
- Specialist · Winter Springs, FL · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 747 votes2y
Quote from @James Wise:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
It continues to amuse me when even people in authority continue to describe this a theft because it's not. If you're not the owner of the property, you can sign a dozen deeds and the title is still with the actual owner. It's a fraud, but not on the owner, on the later grantee. Yes, title is clouded if the forged deed is recorded and yes, the owner will have the aggravation of clearing the cloud, but the owner is still the owner.
That's an interesting word salad you've made bro.
I don't understand the meaning of your comment.
- Specialist · Winter Springs, FL · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 747 votes2y
Quote from @Account Closed:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @James Wise:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
It continues to amuse me when even people in authority continue to describe this a theft because it's not. If you're not the owner of the property, you can sign a dozen deeds and the title is still with the actual owner. It's a fraud, but not on the owner, on the later grantee. Yes, title is clouded if the forged deed is recorded and yes, the owner will have the aggravation of clearing the cloud, but the owner is still the owner.
That's an interesting word salad you've made bro.
I don't understand the meaning of your comment.
@Peter Walther: Correct me if I wrong, but a Quit Claim Deed doesn't transfer title, it simply removes doubt if the interest a signor may or may not have had any interest. I believe I can sign a Quit Claim Deed to you that I give you all of my interest in the Brooklyn Bridge.
I have seen QCDs be used to correct names on title, correct small errors like a typo, to note a change in marital status, and vesting changes.
At loan closings I've seen a QCD used to remove one owner for the purposes of securing the loan, with QCD adding back in the removed party, once the loan closed, which always puzzled me that the lender would require that.
But, I'm not aware of a QCD removing a valid owner from a property's title. It's a big red flag the next time a title report is pulled for sure. My experience, as you've stated is that it clouds title, but the only way someone could get away with that kind of scam is if the property is vacant/abandoned and nobody knows it was "sold" that way. There is a bunch of that going on in Arizona with "abandoned" land. Property that owners don't visit very often if at all.
A QCD conveys all the title the grantor has whether it's full fee simple, an easement right or nothing at all. The only difference between it and a WD is there are no warranties given. QCDs are used anytime the grantor does not want to warrant the conveyance.
If the owner signed the QCD then any interest is conveyed to the grantee unless the grantee has duped the grantor into signing the deed in which case the deed probably fails to convey any title. However, in that case, if the grantee scammer sells the property to a third party who is unaware of the scam, there is a good chance that purchaser has title and the victim who was duped is out of title.
A forged deed however does not convey title and the scam is really on the unsuspecting party who thinks they have purchased the property from the scammer, not on the actual owner.
I'm not an attorney and this is all just my opinion of how it works.
- 2yTom GimerBusiness MemberDMV · Member since 2017 · 3k+ posts · 3k+ votes
What @Peter Walther is saying in the "word salad" is that, when a fraudster forges and records a deed, that doesn't actually have the effect of transferring title... only the true owner can do that. A forged deed is generally void ab initio.
But a forged deed does create an issue that needs to be resolved... either by having the instrument stricken from the land records via court order or whatever the local custom is.
Gimer Law516 Reviews - Specialist · Winter Springs, FL · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 747 votes2y
In your first scenario I hope the 3rd party purchaser also purchased a title policy. If so, when contacted by the actual owner the purchaser would generally submit a claim. That's where I used to get involved having handled dozens of allegedly forged deed claims. Surprisingly, its' generally not too difficult to determine if a deed is likely or not to be a forgery.
I'd start out by talking with the title agent who closed the transaction and getting a copy of their file. Then I'd look in the public records for exemplars of the "grantor's" signature i.e. other deeds that aren't being questioned, mortgages or any other docs with a signature. Then, if there was a real estate agent involved, I'd talk with them. Then I'd track down the grantee, witnesses and notary and talk with them if they can be found. I'd also verify the notary's certificate of authority. If they can't be found and depending on what the people above told me, I'd start to get a sense of the situation. If they can be and their story of how the transaction occurred makes sense, I'd call the Grantor and get their story. Finally, I occasionally retained a questioned document expert and get an opinion of how likely it is the signature is genuine.
If I concluded the signature is probably a forgery I'd talk to the insured and explain the company's position and offer to pay policy limits. Then it's up to the insured whether they want to force the owner to file suit to expunge the questioned deed even though I've explained why the company isn't willing to fund the fight or give, wait for it, a QCD to clear the cloud caused by the questioned deed.
If I concluded the deed probably isn't a forgery, I'd tell the former owner why I think it's a valid conveyance and to file suit if they want.
Your 2nd scenario is what I described above where an owner may have been defrauded into signing a deed. While it's probably not a valid conveyance between that grantor and grantee, if the grantor gave the deed to the grantee who records it and then sells the property to an innocent purchaser, the original owner is probably out of luck. If the original owner contacted the innocent party and if the innocent party was an insured, I'd explain to the original owner why I think his recourse is against his buyer and not the innocent and he should go talk to a good real estate attorney for advice.
In both cases, 9 times out of 10 the problem is resolved without the need for litigation.
- Specialist · Winter Springs, FL · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 747 votes2y
Quote from @Account Closed:
Good explanation, but what you may have missed is in scenario 2, there was no title insurance. The transaction occured on a kitchen table. No escrow agent was involved. It was done using a QCD and a traveling notary. Transfer was directly to buyer. There was no third party.Quote from @Peter Walther:
In your first scenario I hope the 3rd party purchaser also purchased a title policy. If so, when contacted by the actual owner the purchaser would generally submit a claim. That's where I used to get involved having handled dozens of allegedly forged deed claims. Surprisingly, its' generally not too difficult to determine if a deed is likely or not to be a forgery.
I'd start out by talking with the title agent who closed the transaction and getting a copy of their file. Then I'd look in the public records for exemplars of the "grantor's" signature i.e. other deeds that aren't being questioned, mortgages or any other docs with a signature. Then, if there was a real estate agent involved, I'd talk with them. Then I'd track down the grantee, witnesses and notary and talk with them if they can be found. I'd also verify the notary's certificate of authority. If they can't be found and depending on what the people above told me, I'd start to get a sense of the situation. If they can be and their story of how the transaction occurred makes sense, I'd call the Grantor and get their story. Finally, I occasionally retained a questioned document expert and get an opinion of how likely it is the signature is genuine.
If I concluded the signature is probably a forgery I'd talk to the insured and explain the company's position and offer to pay policy limits. Then it's up to the insured whether they want to force the owner to file suit to expunge the questioned deed even though I've explained why the company isn't willing to fund the fight or give, wait for it, a QCD to clear the cloud caused by the questioned deed.
If I concluded the deed probably isn't a forgery, I'd tell the former owner why I think it's a valid conveyance and to file suit if they want.
Your 2nd scenario is what I described above where an owner may have been defrauded into signing a deed. While it's probably not a valid conveyance between that grantor and grantee, if the grantor gave the deed to the grantee who records it and then sells the property to an innocent purchaser, the original owner is probably out of luck. If the original owner contacted the innocent party and if the innocent party was an insured, I'd explain to the original owner why I think his recourse is against his buyer and not the innocent and he should go talk to a good real estate attorney for advice.
In both cases, 9 times out of 10 the problem is resolved without the need for litigation.
It's that 10th problem I am referencing, but thanks for your input.My apologies for not being as clear as I could have been. I was extending the scenario out to its logical conclusion since the buyer was doing a subj to transaction.
- Specialist · Winter Springs, FL · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 747 votes2y
Quote from @Account Closed:
Good explanation, but what you may have missed is in scenario 2, there was no title insurance. The transaction occured on a kitchen table. No escrow agent was involved. It was done using a QCD and a traveling notary. Transfer was directly to buyer. There was no third party.Quote from @Peter Walther:
In your first scenario I hope the 3rd party purchaser also purchased a title policy. If so, when contacted by the actual owner the purchaser would generally submit a claim. That's where I used to get involved having handled dozens of allegedly forged deed claims. Surprisingly, its' generally not too difficult to determine if a deed is likely or not to be a forgery.
I'd start out by talking with the title agent who closed the transaction and getting a copy of their file. Then I'd look in the public records for exemplars of the "grantor's" signature i.e. other deeds that aren't being questioned, mortgages or any other docs with a signature. Then, if there was a real estate agent involved, I'd talk with them. Then I'd track down the grantee, witnesses and notary and talk with them if they can be found. I'd also verify the notary's certificate of authority. If they can't be found and depending on what the people above told me, I'd start to get a sense of the situation. If they can be and their story of how the transaction occurred makes sense, I'd call the Grantor and get their story. Finally, I occasionally retained a questioned document expert and get an opinion of how likely it is the signature is genuine.
If I concluded the signature is probably a forgery I'd talk to the insured and explain the company's position and offer to pay policy limits. Then it's up to the insured whether they want to force the owner to file suit to expunge the questioned deed even though I've explained why the company isn't willing to fund the fight or give, wait for it, a QCD to clear the cloud caused by the questioned deed.
If I concluded the deed probably isn't a forgery, I'd tell the former owner why I think it's a valid conveyance and to file suit if they want.
Your 2nd scenario is what I described above where an owner may have been defrauded into signing a deed. While it's probably not a valid conveyance between that grantor and grantee, if the grantor gave the deed to the grantee who records it and then sells the property to an innocent purchaser, the original owner is probably out of luck. If the original owner contacted the innocent party and if the innocent party was an insured, I'd explain to the original owner why I think his recourse is against his buyer and not the innocent and he should go talk to a good real estate attorney for advice.
In both cases, 9 times out of 10 the problem is resolved without the need for litigation.
It's that 10th problem I am referencing, but thanks for your input.Or possible logical conclusion.
- Specialist · Winter Springs, FL · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 747 votes2y
Quote from @Account Closed:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @Account Closed:
@Peter Walther: Understood and appreciated.
I reference an actual case (6 years long, hundred thousand or more in legal fees) that occurred with a buddy of mine years ago.
The seller came back later, after selling, when the equity had risen substantially in the property and claimed he never signed the deed.
It was closed on a kitchen table, not in escrow. (Big mistake) Eventually in court, the seller admitted he had signed. I know the details of the suit but suffice it to say, I see the same mistakes being played out with some of Mr. Morby's Subto" community" students and those who think Subto can be done without training.
My belief (I'm biased, of course) is that anyone who tries to do Subject To without coaching is playing pitch & putt in a mine field. (You of course were commenting on QCDs not Subto, but this was done with a QCD, so it complicated the case.)
I know this isn’t you, but those that ARE saying coaching is not necessary and is a waste of time and money in Subto, (as in, “you can learn it as you go along”) are doing the newbies a great disservice with a significant risk.
One doesn’t find out what they did incorrectly until it’s a major problem for them. They will then be trying to catch falling knives. IMHO
Agreed
Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.