All Forum Posts by: Tom Gimer

Yes, there are situations where nobody can sign a release. There are ways around that. The lien will eventually expire... when that will occur is a big factor in the analysis. Most states now have laws which permit title company/attorney/borrower to record an affidavit along with proof of payment as substitution for a release. Or it becomes clear that the lien was paid off by reviewing prior settlement statements, refinance affidavits, etc. and the insurer agrees to insure without exception to the unreleased item, often with an indemnity from the seller.

The only time there is no work-around is when there is actual doubt as to whether the lien was paid. If the seller did not get owners title insurance this is when they find out that was a bad decision.

Of course you can transfer your property into an LLC. The question, however, is whether doing so could affect coverage under an existing title insurance policy. As the title agent or lender rep, giving an answer to that question could be considered providing legal advice... especially if the answer was "sure, go ahead you'll be fine" and the insured relies upon the advice, makes a title change, and coverage under the policy is affected.

Notice I didn't agree with what he said, Russell... nor did I say you were wrong. That language obviously isn't in the document. Could it be interpreted that way, arguably yes.

But if you're going to challenge a law's constitutionality, the reference I provided is perhaps the most common method. That and the equal protection clause that follows it.

Unfortunately no, there is no exemption. The only change to the existing law was to expand the definition of "Provide real estate brokerage services" to include the following:

Regardless of whether the activity is engaged in for another person, engaging in the buyer or selling, offering to buy or sell, or marketing of real estate or otherwise dealing in contracts, including assignable contracts, for real estate or options on real estate, on two or more occasions in any 12-month period.

Principals buying and selling on their own account clearly fall within this expanded definition.

@Jack Seiden Did you read the law? It requires anybody who sells, assigns, whatever 2 parcels in a 12 month period to get licensed and associate with a broker. In other words if you want to invest in real estate on your own account in Maryland they just required you to share your revenue with a broker, pay a license fee and more.

I'm not talking about a constitutional right to assign a contract... that issue is governed by the contract itself. I'm talking about a state overreaching and depriving a citizen of income / the right to earn a living.

There is no reason for multiple loans. The legal description in the mortgage will include the 2 parcels. This is actually quite common. Perhaps your attorney was counting on 2 files and 2 sets of closing fees.

When you sell 1 property you get a payoff (or depending on the numbers a paydown) statement and a partial release release gets recorded. No issues.

Every bank has a successor. For CitiFinancial it's CitiMortgage and they have a department that works solely on lien releases. 

https://online.citi.com/JRS/po...

They will need to research internally whether they were the holder of the note at the time it was paid in full. If they confirm that, they'll record a release.

This happens all the time. There is no instant fix. If it were my deal I would be sure to extend the contract before it expires (if it doesn't have an automatic extension provision for clearing title issues).

I said arguably… in response to someone claiming a constitutional claim was absurd. Let’s see what challenges arise to this legislation and what the arguments are based upon.

The commerce clause concerns interstate commerce so that’s not relevant to this state law. By your logic any law regulating commerce would be valid… that’s not how it works.

Arguably this legislation violates the 14th amendment... 

... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

The answer to your last question really depends on the court schedule and whether you could get an emergency hearing. In some states you can conduct a transaction involving a minor without going through full guardianship proceedings... the court upon petition would authorize a signatory for a specific transaction and the funds could be held by a trustee under the uniform transfers to minors act.