Your post contains some legal assumptions and conclusions that may/may not be warranted and supportable: (evidence rules would prohibit such conclusions from being submitted as evidence and proof would be demanded on specifics of these items)
1.The land was inherited from the father.
2. Since it has not gone through probate the children are not the legal owners.
First, how was it inherited? By will? Not valid unless it was probated.
Second, have you checked the probate records in the county of deceased's death to make certain of "No Probate"?
FYI, anybody can legally Quit Claim any property...an example that's frequently used is my giving you a QCD of all my interest in the Eifel Tower, which I have every right to give you, although I have no interest in either the tower (or its anti-American owners either at the moment).
So yes, the bro could legally and validly give the QCD to his sisters.
And if you have a deed from the sisters, I'd record it to show your interest in the property.
Beyond this, you're unlikely to be getting any really meaningful legal advise free.
You'll need to eventually hire a lawyer to help straighten it out for you..
In some states I found out recently a will does not have to be probated. If the property is listed to all 3 siblings and one quitclaimed then the other 2 shares the interest (if the qc was registered). if there is no will, then the sisters will have to duke it out. If there is a will that did not name the childred then it is iffy.
Well not being up on Texas probate law I guess I'd go about this the other way around. What was the nature of your "private contract"? How big a piece of land/how much value are we talking here? How much time has passed since you entered into the contract and was there a plan/representation regarding how long this was going to take?
If the original deal was that you were going to share in the profit why did you need to give a quit claim? And have their been any profits?
Well, ultimately you are going to need a California attorney to sort this out but let me take another shot at this.
So your father passed away owning a piece of land in California.
Sister numer one (lets call her Anna) wanted to develop the property and so came to you and offered you a fixed price to purchase your interest to be paid when she arranged financing for her development project. You accepted that offer, signed a contract to that effect and a quit claim deeding your interest in the property to Anna.
Sister number two (lets call her Betty) says that Anna is trying to steal the property and that it is worth much more than Anna is offering and refuses to co-operate. She will not quit claim and without her interest Anna says she cannot go forward to get financing and pay you what is owed.
Some period of time passes and you decide that Betty is right-- the property is worth more than Anna was supposed to pay you and Anna has not followed through at even the lower price. So you'd like to unwind your previous agreement and go back to square one.
Is that correct?
What was the form of the agreement you signed with Anna? It says you are going to quit-claim now and get paid later. When, later? Does it specify that you have a security interest in the property until such time as you get paid?
Well without looking at the documents I gotta tell you I think the odds of you having the quit claim declared invalid are slim to none. Especially since you have no evidence of what the agreement regarding the later payment was.
The issue of whether the propety needs a California probate is moot-- either way you have quit -claimed away your interest in the property. Given that you have no document to the contrary my guess is that California's parol evidence rule is going to prevent you from even testifying that sister Anna made an agreement for later payment.
I see only two possible routes here: one is to claim that the quit claim is invalid because Anna convinced you to sign it fraudulently. I.e. that she never intended to compensate you for your interest and that her representations to you were false from the start. It is, quite frankly, a very tough case to make.
The other possibility is to claim that the quit claim was conveyed without consideration and that therefore the conveyance should be rescinded.
All the other stuff (probate, the other sister, the presence or absence of a trust) is just muddying the waters and in your situation muddying the waters is a bad thing. More than anything else judges like clarity. Right now the situation is clear-- you deeded your interest to your sister. To get any hearing at all you are going to have to have a very clear case-- you did so because of a representation which was not true. All that other stuff makes it sound like you entered into an agreement and simply changed your mind and want to undo the agreement.
You quit claimed whatever interest you might have, including that interest vested in the estate. This is the nature of a quit claim.
Clearly this was the intent of the parties, the fact that the estate had not yet been probated is irrelevant. It is not uncommon for quit claims to be used to clear up possible conflicting interests of properties that have not yet been probated precisely to make the probate process easier.
You are welcome to retain counsel and attempt to make the case but I gotta tell you I think you are going nowhere with that one.
Don't know why you're fooling around on this site re a CA legal question, when what you of course need is a CA lawyer who knows what he's talking about.
While it's fun to read what a bunch of laymen think and believe, it's of no real value to you on the realities of CA law.
And, FYI, the CCC (CA Civil Code) is very restrictive as to what can, cannot be recorded...and unless it just exactly fits their recording statute, the recorder is legally obliged to reject it.
Your post contains some legal assumptions and conclusions that may/may not be warranted and supportable: (evidence rules would prohibit such conclusions from being submitted as evidence and proof would be demanded on specifics of these items)
1.The land was inherited from the father.
2. Since it has not gone through probate the children are not the legal owners.
First, how was it inherited? By will? Not valid unless it was probated.
Second, have you checked the probate records in the county of deceased's death to make certain of "No Probate"?
FYI, anybody can legally Quit Claim any property...an example that's frequently used is my giving you a QCD of all my interest in the Eifel Tower, which I have every right to give you, although I have no interest in either the tower (or its anti-American owners either at the moment).
So yes, the bro could legally and validly give the QCD to his sisters.
And if you have a deed from the sisters, I'd record it to show your interest in the property.
Beyond this, you're unlikely to be getting any really meaningful legal advise free.
You'll need to eventually hire a lawyer to help straighten it out for you..
In some states I found out recently a will does not have to be probated. If the property is listed to all 3 siblings and one quitclaimed then the other 2 shares the interest (if the qc was registered). if there is no will, then the sisters will have to duke it out. If there is a will that did not name the childred then it is iffy.
Well not being up on Texas probate law I guess I'd go about this the other way around. What was the nature of your "private contract"? How big a piece of land/how much value are we talking here? How much time has passed since you entered into the contract and was there a plan/representation regarding how long this was going to take?
If the original deal was that you were going to share in the profit why did you need to give a quit claim? And have their been any profits?
[ Edited by stormee on Date 12/07/2004 ]
Well, ultimately you are going to need a California attorney to sort this out but let me take another shot at this.
So your father passed away owning a piece of land in California.
Sister numer one (lets call her Anna) wanted to develop the property and so came to you and offered you a fixed price to purchase your interest to be paid when she arranged financing for her development project. You accepted that offer, signed a contract to that effect and a quit claim deeding your interest in the property to Anna.
Sister number two (lets call her Betty) says that Anna is trying to steal the property and that it is worth much more than Anna is offering and refuses to co-operate. She will not quit claim and without her interest Anna says she cannot go forward to get financing and pay you what is owed.
Some period of time passes and you decide that Betty is right-- the property is worth more than Anna was supposed to pay you and Anna has not followed through at even the lower price. So you'd like to unwind your previous agreement and go back to square one.
Is that correct?
What was the form of the agreement you signed with Anna? It says you are going to quit-claim now and get paid later. When, later? Does it specify that you have a security interest in the property until such time as you get paid?
[ Edited by stormee on Date 12/07/2004 ]
Well without looking at the documents I gotta tell you I think the odds of you having the quit claim declared invalid are slim to none. Especially since you have no evidence of what the agreement regarding the later payment was.
The issue of whether the propety needs a California probate is moot-- either way you have quit -claimed away your interest in the property. Given that you have no document to the contrary my guess is that California's parol evidence rule is going to prevent you from even testifying that sister Anna made an agreement for later payment.
I see only two possible routes here: one is to claim that the quit claim is invalid because Anna convinced you to sign it fraudulently. I.e. that she never intended to compensate you for your interest and that her representations to you were false from the start. It is, quite frankly, a very tough case to make.
The other possibility is to claim that the quit claim was conveyed without consideration and that therefore the conveyance should be rescinded.
All the other stuff (probate, the other sister, the presence or absence of a trust) is just muddying the waters and in your situation muddying the waters is a bad thing. More than anything else judges like clarity. Right now the situation is clear-- you deeded your interest to your sister. To get any hearing at all you are going to have to have a very clear case-- you did so because of a representation which was not true. All that other stuff makes it sound like you entered into an agreement and simply changed your mind and want to undo the agreement.
[ Edited by stormee on Date 12/07/2004 ]
You quit claimed whatever interest you might have, including that interest vested in the estate. This is the nature of a quit claim.
Clearly this was the intent of the parties, the fact that the estate had not yet been probated is irrelevant. It is not uncommon for quit claims to be used to clear up possible conflicting interests of properties that have not yet been probated precisely to make the probate process easier.
You are welcome to retain counsel and attempt to make the case but I gotta tell you I think you are going nowhere with that one.
[ Edited by stormee on Date 12/07/2004 ]
Don't know why you're fooling around on this site re a CA legal question, when what you of course need is a CA lawyer who knows what he's talking about.
While it's fun to read what a bunch of laymen think and believe, it's of no real value to you on the realities of CA law.
And, FYI, the CCC (CA Civil Code) is very restrictive as to what can, cannot be recorded...and unless it just exactly fits their recording statute, the recorder is legally obliged to reject it.
[ Edited by stormee on Date 12/07/2004 ]
Stormee.....
Would you please explain what the procedure of "null' is and how it works?
Thank you
Our friend Stormee has indeed come up with some novel legal terms:
Null.
Quit Claim Override.
Affidavit of Truth. (since the definition of Affidavit is statement under oath, how can any affidavit be other than true?)
I believe Stormee is in a "storm".