thebionicman, post: 327023, member: 8136 wrote: A lot depends on the site. Some are tied directly to the Assessors and Recorders database. It's the same as sitting in the Courthouse. Others are simply overlays of several public domain datasets and yes, they are dangerous. Know which one you are looking at..
Yeah...after a quarter century or so of local knowledge how land records are indexed and maintained you pretty much know what you can and can't depend on.
But thanks to the internet someone a thousand miles away can look at a couple of screen shots and decide whether or not you're performing your professional due diligence or not - Al Gore's gift just keeps on giving.
Onsite inspection is the only way I will do it. I've caught so many things over the years that would not be found correctly, if at all, that I can't get myself to do it any other way, when possible.
Norman Oklahoma, post: 326486, member: 9981 wrote: With a few local exceptions, such as in MA, there is no Land Registration system in the United States, bad or otherwise.
I worked in British Columbia, during the early part of my career, which does have a Land Registration System. I bought and sold 2 homes there. The system has it's advantages, it has it's disadvantages. IN terms of work load for lawyers & surveyors, and costs to real estate transactions, I think it is about a wash. Title Companies are unknown there, their place in the process replaced by a government agency - which has to be fed.
"...there is no Land Registration system in the United States, bad or otherwise." Please elaborate... perhaps I don't understand "Land Registration System." There certainly seems to be one where I work.
Doesn't every Registry of Deeds function as a Land Registration System?
Jim in AZ, post: 327032, member: 249 wrote: "...there is no Land Registration system in the United States, bad or otherwise." Please elaborate... perhaps I don't understand "Land Registration System." There certainly seems to be one where I work.
The difference lies in the distinction between recording and registering. Anyone can record a document in the public record which purports to transfer title, without actually doing so. I could record a deed today which names you the owner of the Statue of Liberty in fee simple. Of course, it would have no actual effect. In our system a recorded deed is evidence, but not proof, of ownership.
In a Land Registration System (eg/ Torrens) once a deed is registered title passes to the grantee. Of course, that implies that somebody - a registrar - has to be doing some serious checking before allowing a transaction to be registered. Naturally in such a system you don't just run down to the recorders office and pay your $10 and get rubber stamped. There is no quitclaiming in a Land Registration System. The registrant (or registrants) hold title and there is no maybe about it. There is no "chain of title" in a Land Registration System, anything that happened before the last registration is irrelevant. And if you bought a piece of property and didn't get what you thought you bargained for you seek compensation from the registrar, not the previous owner.
I work almost daily with the Torrens System in MA, so I am aware of it's history, purpose and use. Probably more so than 95% of the posters here. Thadd, and a handful of others know what it's like.
When I looked up "register" in the dictionary it did not sound like anything different than recording.
"Register: 1. an official list or record, for example of births, marriages, and deaths, of shipping, or of historic places"
"Record: 1. a thing constituting a piece of evidence about the past, especially an account of an act or occurrence kept in writing or some other permanent form"
I do understand the difference since I work in a state with both systems. The major difference in the Land Court is that the title and location are guaranteed by the Commonwealth when the land is registered in the Land Court, but not when it's recorded it the Registry.
I still maintain that the Registry of Deeds is a "Registration system." Shoot, it's right there in the Name "REGISTRY of Deeds!"
foggyidea, post: 327058, member: 155 wrote: I still maintain that the Registry of Deeds is a "Registration system."
Sure. But the system in use in the Commonwealth is not the system in common use in the other 49.
Norman Oklahoma, post: 327060, member: 9981 wrote: Sure. But the system in use in the Commonwealth is not the system in common use in the other 49.
Like I said, we use both in MA. The Land Court is optional, we still have Registry's of Deeds in each County.
foggyidea, post: 327069, member: 155 wrote: Like I said, we use both in MA. The Land Court is optional, we still have Registry's of Deeds in each County.
A Registry of Deeds as opposed to a Registry of Titles, perhaps . I'm not sure how or if a "Registry of Deeds" differs from any common County Recorders Office elsewhere.
BTW, at one time a Torrens registry was available to Oregonians but it went virtually unused, and therefore unfunded, and has been long repealed.
Norman Oklahoma, post: 327049, member: 9981 wrote: The difference lies in the distinction between recording and registering. Anyone can record a document in the public record which purports to transfer title, without actually doing so. I could record a deed today which names you the owner of the Statue of Liberty in fee simple. Of course, it would have no actual effect. In our system a recorded deed is evidence, but not proof, of ownership.
In a Land Registration System (eg/ Torrens) once a deed is registered title passes to the grantee. Of course, that implies that somebody - a registrar - has to be doing some serious checking before allowing a transaction to be registered. Naturally in such a system you don't just run down to the recorders office and pay your $10 and get rubber stamped. There is no quitclaiming in a Land Registration System. The registrant (or registrants) hold title and there is no maybe about it. There is no "chain of title" in a Land Registration System, anything that happened before the last registration is irrelevant. And if you bought a piece of property and didn't get what you thought you bargained for you seek compensation from the registrar, not the previous owner.
So the Registrar is a Government entity?
Jim in AZ, post: 327081, member: 249 wrote: So the Registrar is a Government entity?
In British Columbia the registry is a provincial government agency, and the registrar is the person at the head of it. I believe it is so everywhere the Torrens System is operative.
http://www.ltsa.ca/cms/land-title-registration-process&apos ;">Registration Process
Norman Oklahoma, post: 327087, member: 9981 wrote: In British Columbia the registry is a provincial government agency, and the registrar is the person at the head of it. I believe it is so everywhere the Torrens System is operative.
http://www.ltsa.ca/cms/land-title-registration-process&apos ;">Registration Process
Close; it's not a Government agency; it's a private, non-profit organization, created in 2005. I interviewed Mike Thompson in 2012 for a POB article...
RADAR, post: 327093, member: 413 wrote: Close; it's not a Government agency; it's a private, non-profit organization, created in 2005. I interviewed Mike Thompson in 2012 for a POB article...
Well, it was a government agency for 100 years prior to that.