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
With those transfers you need to be very careful.?ÿ
I got into a case that was quite a mess. Much like your ownership the intention was to grant from Jones to Smith a tract. Then Smith to Johnson so then Johnson ended up being the owner. Deeds were drawn up and taken to the Clerk.?ÿ
They were given to the Clerk just as they should have been Jones to Smith then Smith to Johnson.?ÿ
They were taken to the pile of filings and were later put into the books of deeds.?ÿ
But in Book 500 of Deeds, Page 745 they filed Smith to Johnson, then a few days later in Book 501 of Deeds, Page 20 they recorded Jones to Smith.?ÿ
Smith didn't own the land for the first recording so at the end of the day the Jones to Smith deed was valid and Smith became the owner. This mistake was discovered years later. By then Smith was the only living person left. He was good enough to grant a QC to Johnson's heirs, but he could well have made a stink if he had wanted to.
I advise my clients to take the first deed to the clerk, wait a few days and then take the second deed and be sure the first one got recorded.?ÿ
You can explain to the person at the desk what you are doing but the recorder was always the person in the vault with really nice handwriting that recorded the deeds and wasn't there when you dropped off the deeds.?ÿ?ÿ
?ÿ
Doesn't doctrine of after-acquired title fix that??ÿ Unless they were QCD.
Quit claims are always made by one party, the party quitting their claim. The defacto second party is typically the neighbor where the dispute (or overlap occurs).
Maybe I am missing something here, but if the southern party (or even the northern party) quit their claim to the land between the fences, why is this going to court? It should already be resolved.
@bill93?ÿ
I left it up to the title people, even after all those years it was big enough of a deal the title company spent money to fix it. Doesn't happen often.?ÿ
Here's a good one involving the after-acquired title doctrine: https://www.williamsmullen.com/news/bank-learns-hard-way-about-after-acquired-title-and-priority
