I read thousands (yes, what can I say, it was compelled by the intrigue...) Of quit claim deeds drawn up to transfer to new corporate officers, lien holders, new members of an LLC and then see them loop through every officer of that corporation or members of the LLCs to obfuscate the true ownership and possession of and liability due to their shady dealings, usually and highly suspicious Loan for deed scams.
If I understand the situation there is a fence at the alternate location which should put the encroached upon owner on notice. But, sure. Written documents are always good to have in court.
In Oregon, a QCD such as this would (probably) defeat a claimants statutory AP case because he could no longer claim an honest belief that the property was included in his deed description - the QCD to himself being a non-starter for that purpose. A situation which I believe is unique to Oregon now that common-law AP is fading into the past.?ÿ
@john-putnam That's an interesting question, whether "nobody knows about" the document. In US jurisdictions that have registries of deeds, the whole world is considered to have constructive notice of all the recorded documents. Maybe my habit of checking the registry a few times a year for any new documents for my neighborhood is more important than just an exercise in curiosity.
@jph mentioned that in his working area, which includes Massachusetts, quitclaim deeds are common. They certainly are ?? I'll say they're by far the most common ?? but I'll point out that "quitclaim" means something different in MA than I think it does in at least some other states.
In MA, there are warranty deeds, quitclaim deeds, and release deeds. MA warranty deeds are, I believe, the same as in other states: the grantor provides a warranty against problems that could have originated at any time in history, including prior to the grantor's ownership.
MA quitclaim deeds actually do provide some warranty, and I think are equivalent to what are called limited warranty deeds or special warranty deeds in some other states. They provide protection against problems that originated during the grantor's ownership, but not prior to that.
MA release deeds are equivalent to what I think some other states call quitclaim deeds. The grantor is saying nothing more than "I'm relinquishing my claims to this property."
Common wording of MA quitclaim deeds is: "Fred Smith grants to John Doe with quitclaim covenants a certain parcel..." The Massachusetts General Laws define the full meaning of "quitclaim covenants." Chapter 183 Section 17 (also Section 11) says:
In a conveyance of real estate the words ''quitclaim covenants'' or the words ''limited covenants'' shall have the full force, meaning and effect of the following words: ''The grantor, for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators and successors, covenants with the grantee, his heirs, successors and assigns, that the granted premises are free from all encumbrances made by the grantor, and that he will, and his heirs, executors, administrators and successors shall, warrant and defend the same to the grantee and his heirs, successors and assigns forever against the lawful claims and demands of all persons claiming by, through or under the grantor, but against none other''.
It might give you ??color or claim of title? which in some states is one of the requirements for adverse possession.?ÿ
I suspect that is their reasoning.?ÿ But I'd think that would fall apart fairly quickly.?ÿ
It probably would make more sense if they found a distant heir, or at least someone with the same last name to grant a quitclaim.?ÿ Then it would at least have some appearance of being a somewhat claim to the land.
In days of old the alleged owner would deed the property to a friend who would then immediately deed it back.
I've seen straws before, but thought that was for some other title reason.
I've never seen a case where someone claimed land this way.?ÿ It seems so easy to research back a few deeds to find something so blatantly obviously fraudulent, that I can't imagine anyone doing it.?ÿ But I probably haven't seen everything yet
Lol
lolololol
Only a lawyer would accuse a nonlawyer of practicing law without being barred, and frankly, if I want to talk about the law it's a publicly available resource and unless I'm filing motions in court or appearing before a judge magistrate or grand jury fear no such ridonkulous and even petty pusillanimous attack.
I even encourage them.
Weak lawyers like to lower the bar( yes double entendre) and get engaged with non lawyers far too often. Wise attorneys and judges know better, and leave those battles to the lower echelons.
?ÿ
My $0.02 anyway
I've owned some valuable real estate on Wilshire Boulevard in Los Angeles for about three seconds each.?ÿ This was the result of being a 'straw man' for Grant Deed transfers.?ÿ The time it took for the Recorder's clerk to stamp the next Grant Deed from me back to a corporation for this purpose.
You can write a deed for anything and transfer it from yourself to yourself. But it would only be valid if you had the legal right to transfer that land .
@jph?ÿ
This is stupid, but I wouldn't?ÿ call it fraud. They are not going to use the deed to claim they have written tittle to it. They are going to use it as either a record of their occupation and/or as a method to pay taxes on it. The whole point of the deed is to bring it out into the open to meet the open and notorious part of adverse possession.?ÿ
This gives any other person who thinks they have title to this parcel a chance to stop the clock, either by granting permission or attempting to eject the trespassers.?ÿ
I suppose this could be fraud if they were attpting to secretly record this deed for land they had not been occupying and spring a surprise adverse possession claim after the statute of limitations has passed,.but I don't think that would work in most states.?ÿ
@aliquot?ÿ
Eh, I think it's pretty much the definition of fraud:
?ÿ
fraud fr??d
-
n.A deception practiced in order to induce another to give up possession of property or surrender a right.
@jph?ÿ
With AP it's a fine line.
You occupy land that isn't yours (steal it) longer than the statutory limits and it becomes yours.
You need to be open and up front about it so filing a QC deed for the land would be open.
I would argue theft before fraud for this one.
If the land has been occupied for more length than the Statutory limits then it's satisfies AP and even if the 8 years isn't enough time there could have been time prior to the QC that applies.?ÿ
By having a QC they may be able to argue that taxes have been paid if it shows up in the record. I find it an interesting case and would like to find what the outcome is.?ÿ
?ÿ
@jph?ÿ
But there is no deception. The QC deed makes sure of that. They are not going to try to claim title by virtue of the deed from themselves. I suppose they could try to trick an unsophisticated cash buyer, but it is a huge jump to assume that they are going to try this. QC deeds to yourself are very common and only a vanishingly small percentage of them are done to try to trick people. Most are completely above board.?ÿ ?ÿ
As MightyMoe said, the accusation of (legal)?ÿ theft would be easier to argue.?ÿ
Yes, I understand occupying land in order to gain title.?ÿ That's part of the law, in most states.
Writing a deed for land you don't yet have title to, and is part of someone else's deeded property, is definitely deceptive, and sounds like fraud to me.
@aliquot?ÿ
The deception in my mind is that they're attempting to manufacture their own evidence to support their AP claim.
@jph?ÿ
But in this case they're claiming they do have title, which is probably the point of the QC deed. This land may have been occupied for many years, we don't really know the details of the story from the OP. It's not courts that grant AP, it's the actions of the landowners, courts only affirm it.?ÿ
I've never been a proponent of AP but as a surveyor it's something to keep in mind. Many in the legal profession aren't happy with it either, yet they still have to deal with it and this QC may be one element of a claim.?ÿ
Fraud I don't think applies here, but I'm not attorney and you may be right, although I don't see it.?ÿ