I recall as a youngster how important the distinction between a quit claim and a warranty deed was, until a few years ago when on the stand the opposing attorney started off on a rant about the warranty deed that his clients title was vested in.
"It's a warranty deed, and the sellers were willing to defend their title..."" blah blah blah he went on until the judge said, "Well we will never know what they were willing to defend now will we?" The deed was in excess of 100 years old.
At that point I realized that the distinction is virtually none 🙂
Here's an article written by Knud on the subject.
Should be a good place to start your research
Warranty Deeds
I meant that for us land surveyors, the distinction doesn't mean squat, and when a dispute hits the courtroom the judge isn't going to care what that 100 year deed warranted...
I always figure that the current deed is the place to start your research and then run it back until you can't get any further. My problem is that our courthouse burnt down in 1827 so the deeds prior to that are ones that were voluntarily brought back to the courthouse and re-entered. Those are held in special "Town" Books and are not indexed or available online.
Warranty Deeds
We have a similar problem in my county. Yam Dankees burned the deed books during the war.
Warranty Deeds
> I meant that for us land surveyors, the distinction doesn't mean squat, and when a dispute hits the courtroom the judge isn't going to care what that 100 year deed warranted...
That would not be true in Texas. A quitclaim deed does not purport to convey title. It merely conveys such interest, if any, that the grantor had. A chain of title that relies upon a quitclaim deed is seriously flawed in that the remote grantee cannot avail himself of the statutes of limitation that require he or she hold color of title.
So, in a typical boundary dispute, where titles of the adjoining owners from common source are compared, a quitclaim in the chain your client would rely upon is not what you want to see. To bypass this objection, deeds without warranty are routinely used instead of quitclaim deeds.
Warranty Deeds
>deeds without warranty are routinely used instead of quitclaim deeds
I fail to see the distinction.
Warranty Deeds
> >deeds without warranty are routinely used instead of quitclaim deeds
>
> I fail to see the distinction.
The important difference is that a deed without warranty purports to convey some specific title to land whereas a quitclaim deed does not. Functionally, in the event of failure of title they are both similar in effect since neither offers the grantee any recourse upon the grantor.
Warranty Deeds
Same for Prince William and Fairfax. Less of a problem for Loudoun, because the then clerk crated up the books and put them on a wagon, and spent much of the duration of the war keeping them safer in places like Nelson County.
Cheers,
Henry
Warranty Deeds
> I recall as a youngster how important the distinction between a quit claim and a warranty deed was...
Quitclaim deeds are the exception in Oregon and Washington. I saw very few of them. I mean rare to the point where you would show a quitclaim deed around the office so the other guys could see what one looked like.
In Oklahoma almost the reverse is true. Probably half of all property transactions are by quitclaim.
Warranty Deeds
and therein lies the rub Kent, the Warrantors are dead these past 100 years, so to us, as location people, that warranty means squat.
Warranty Deeds
> and therein lies the rub Kent, the Warrantors are dead these past 100 years, so to us, as location people, that warranty means squat.
Well, even two days after the sale was consummated more than a century ago, what was the practical utility of the warranty of title other than providing a means to void the sale and recover the money paid for the tract unless the sale was by quantity?
Warranty Deeds
I think that just about covers it, Kent. Although, frequently, the Warranty deed will also bind the "heirs and assigns".
Our pal Peter Farber found some quote about the distinction:
The Warranty clause is a distinct legal contract that neither strengthens nor weakens the quality of the title of the deed.
The ability for an attorney in one breath to claim that his client's warranty deed without back title is valid and that another warranty deed without back title is invalid is one of the main reasons I believe that attorneys should not be the ones certifying titles.
Kind of funny that he was the one the judge dismissed.
