Question About Deed Legality
My sister claims to have recently been given an acre of land with a mobile home on it by a member of her church. (She currently lives there now) She says that they signed the title over to her and it is in "her name" Just out of curiosity I went to lookup the property at the recorders office for the county the property is in and there is no deed on file. From what I have gathered, the transfer of property isnt legal until the deed is notarized and recorded. Is this correct? Let me know because something smells fishy about this deal to me. Of course, it may just be that they hadnt gotten around to filing the paperwork etc, but I dont think thats the case here. Thanks.
The Deed needs to be notarized and recorded at the respective courthouse, in order to pass title.
"The Deed needs to be notarized and recorded at the respective courthouse, in order to pass title."
I thought this was worth commenting on, as the above statement isn't quite true.
If A gives a completed Deed to B, that is in basic compliance with that state's laws, B has immediate title...even if he/she NEVER records that deed in deed records.
So it's possible your sister does have a deed but just hasn't gone to the trouble of recording it in deed records. She's certainly not required to.
It's foolish not to do so, as recording it would then protect her against the seller/giver deeding it to somebody else who might then record and jump ahead of your sister.
However I've been involved in various aspects of a number of property sales over the years where, for a variety of reasons, the deed delivered was NOT immediately recorded.
Sometimes this is to prevent any record snoop from discovering that asset. If it's not recorded the public sure can't see it, can they?
And sometimes the first deed given is just "insurance" that something else will happen regarding the property, that's been promised but not yet delivered.
For instance, I've known cases where a Deed was given to securitize a LOAN, with the understandig that if the loan is repaid as per agreement, the deed won't be recorded and will be given back, "unused".
Not my favorite strategy, as it's risky for both lender and borrower, but it does happen.
Thanks for the info. Im going to recommend she record it.
With a MH on land, there are actually 2 possibilities:
1. She could have been givn title to the MH, which might have been kept separate from the land, and she has this title to the personal property only.
2. If the title to the MH has been surrendered, and is now legally part of the RE, she may have been given the Deed. This procedure is now followed in many states to convert a MH from "personalty" into RE, if the land is owned too.
YUP! That last one was it. I talked to my sister today, and she only has the title to the trailer. She is renting the land, maybe with a option to buy.
John Merchant makes a great point and it is one worth repeating. The recording of the deed has NO effect as to its validity as a conveyance of title as between the grantor (seller) and grantee (buyer). As between those two parties, there is no question that there is a valid transfer of an interest in real estate. The issue of recording is essentially one of notice and one of placing the grantee in the chain of title.