USAC Banner 728x90



No announcement yet.


  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Deeds

    Our contract says: that if Sellers, immediately preceding this contract hold title to real estate as joint tenants with full right to surviviorship and the joint tenancy is not later destroyed by operation of law or acts of sellers, then the proceeds of this sale, and any continuing or recaptured rights of sellers in the real estate shall belong to sellers as joint tenants with full right of survivorship and not as tenants in common; buyers in the event of the death of either seller agree to pay any balance of the price due sellers under this contract to the surviving seller and to accept deed from surviving seller consistant with paragraph 10. Paragraph 10 says: Deed. Upon payment of purchase price, sellers shall convey the real estate to buyers or their assignees, by WARRANTY deed, free and clear of all liens, restrictions, and encumbrances except as provided herein. Any general warranties of title shall extend only to the date of this contract, with special warranties as to acts of sellers continuing up to time of delivery of deed. (nothing is listed in the "interests of others" area of the contract- it's been left blank on our contract- so nothing else "herein" is provided as to this statement in paragraph 10 of contract this provision would be referring to, or anywhere else for that matter).
    The abstract's previous entry before our contract says that it's a quit claim deed to vest title in grantee (our seller- wife only, not husband) to correct previous entry___, dated___ (dates and entry#'s in legal description are noted here)... in which title was mistakedly placed in the husband and wife and daughter as tenants in common. (the previous entry referenced is where the person who conveyed unto them a warranty deed, and lists the sellers, both husband and wife, and their daughter, as tenants in common) by some other woman they'd been conveyed the property from- as the seller. And, this is the exact deed information and referenced --that's entered into record in our litigation we spent a year in court over, one of the things he filed as "undisputed facts of the case" prepared {ie} the "Discovery Record" for my atty, as evidence supporting their claims in our forfeiture notice - (so he could effectuate this as having no break in the chain to allow them to file the forfeiture legally, where there actually was one -when he didn't assign the property correctly with affidavits- and our knowledge, consent or any other document making this a legal assignment (hence, enforceable forfeiture, too) The record title immediately before our contract is where the warranty deed conveyed to them along with the daughter -as a tenants in common- it's the same record and deed filed that's entered before the quit claim vesting in the wife only to correct the title... so where did the joint tenancy fee simple status of this title he now had claimed in our case- exsisting or formed- as such? It's a tenants in common- conveyance, so I don't understand how this would have changed anywhere- especially since the quit claim says it's entered to correct it to vest title in the grantee- which is just the wife- can his name and her name be on this contract with us be all thats needed to own this in fee simple absolute for the heirs and trust to get their interests assigned to the trust for the wives estate, even though they filed this info & documentation after our contract? He essentially left out this important detail of the assignment. Can anyone clarify this for me if this is how a joint tenancy would be created somehow, if it is correct?

  • #2
    Re: Deeds

    I would have a title company give you a title report and verify what is the status legally; cost is minimal. Had a a similar situation with my grandparents property.


    • #3
      Re: Deeds

      Thanks for your response. See, this is the thing- 3 different abstract companies- including the one that the atty for the trustee had hired to do a title search- (for the trustee, a daughter, whom now has control of the estate)- have all come back with US as the titleholders... but for some reason this was not an issue for our attys- which we later have discovered did not know what the heck they were doing here, and ultimately played a part in the overtaking of this property by not filing objections to the title issue they should have that would have brought it to the attention of the courts when we litigated the matter (see my post under attorney ethics titled Obligations to not mislead court by ommitting important facts- for explaination of where we are with this matter) -- but for some reason my atty's didn't think this issue was worth pursuing- until a year later when they had to painfully concede to me having told this to them- and them doing nothing about the issue- cause at the time they refused to believe me that this was even a problem- and after they billed me 750.00 to go to Des Moines to Drake Law Library and review the Real Estate Laws... Anyways, they refused to believe me that this was an important issue- so nothing was ever, nor would they LET me bring it up again after a couple of times of me trying to do so... and now we're screwed- all because of a handfull of atty's and either the deceit and lies and documents they tried to hide or doctor up by ommitting facts, such as the title coming back as US being the legal titleholder- just as these 3 different abstract companies had come back with said, or the out and out denial and letting us have this addressed in court- that was done by our very own attys.

      The worst part- the estate atty deliberately left page 2 of the report that sunk it, by the notations from the abstract company, stating that the only way for the heirs to have title again was to take it SUBJECT to our contract which had been filed before the assignment had been filed. That page was left out of the copy that was sent to my attorneys- conveniently. But, the page had been left IN the court file- and the estate atty banked on the judge not reading and seeing this- or that my atty would have filed an objection if this was a concern of ours... or something- cause it has come back 3 times, 3 companies- as US being titleholder-- and this abstract record was held from my atty's until 5 days before our trial on the matter- again, hoping that no one would notice and he would, and did- get away with it. Again, thanks for your response.


      • #4
        Re: Deeds

        You could hire counsel to examine malpractice and/or fraud claims...the entire issue looks to be a mess.


        Previously entered content was automatically saved. Restore or Discard.
        Smile :) Stick Out Tongue :p Wink ;) Mad :mad: Big Grin :D Frown :( Embarrassment :o Confused :confused: Roll Eyes (Sarcastic) :rolleyes: Cool :cool: EEK! :eek:

        the color of a red dog is... (write the answer twice with an "@" between the words)

        widgetinstance 213 (Related Topics) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.