JR Sr Rights question.

Idaho would be determined by the superior instrument number (first recorded). Not true in all States...

which parcel was created first? You may have to trace the title back a few generations, but the creation date is what determines junior/senior rights.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/recording-acts.html

See your state's statutes. In Colorado it would be the first-recorded.

The term "contract for deed" is a bit confusing to me.

In MI people would enter into a "land contract" wherein they agreed to terms for a future conveyance, with monthly payments, interest, etc. In AZ they call it "owner will carry", which essentially is the same thing - agreeing to a future transaction under specified terms. Ownership is not transferred, just intent and some limited rights as specified in the contract. Similarly, a car title loan operation or a pawn shop enters into such transactions but on a smaller level.

I'd say the date of recording the transfer of actual title would prevail. Recording a document of intent merely clouds the title, but protects the potential purchaser. They can always pay off early to clear things up.

Wayne
The document says "Contract for deed" across the top. And, yes, it essentially does what you said above.

Same deal.

75.00 down, and 75.00 a month, for 240 payments (Or some Gawdawful number of payments). Get 3 payments behind, and all payments are now considered "Rent" and you start over, with 240 payments ahead of you....."

75.00 down, and 75.00 a month, for 240 payments

That sounds very familiar.

Would this property be a part of an unrecorded subdivision?

> 75.00 down, and 75.00 a month, for 240 payments
>
> That sounds very familiar.
>
> Would this property be a part of an unrecorded subdivision?

BINGO!

DDSM:good:

BINGO is right.
That kind of crap would be, like, a felony in California and it wouldn't work when all was said and done.
Someone would have a bunch of illegal parcels on their hands that would need to be brought into compliance before they could be developed.
But, hey, Arkansas is not California.
Do they even require building permits there?
🙂
Don

Yepper:

Race-Notice statute

A later buyer who pays fair value, does not have notice of any other earlier conflicting interests, and records first, wins and will have priority over any later recordings.

?States that follow the Race-Notice statute: Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio (regarding mortgages, OH follows the Race statute), Oregon, Pennsylvania (regarding mortgages, PN follows Race), South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

It is not solely based on first recording, it can be a little more complicated than that. There are many types of "notice".

Yeah, building permits. Go get permission from your momma, and build it!!
N

:good: 😛

Don

Contracts for deed were quite common in the past and were not necessarily an indication of an unrecorded subdivision. Think of them simply as an "owner financed" sale that avoided having to go through the local bank for a loan.

As far as the Jr/Sr rights go, yes, it depends upon whether you are in a race, notice or race-notice state. Typically, the rights are conferred as of the date of the contract providing that the terms of the contract were fulfilled. In other words, the date of transfer would "relate back" to the date of the contract as long as all of the payments were made and the deed ultimately delivered. The contract was considered a promise to deliver the deed held in escrow once the payments were made.

If the parcel was being newly cut out under the contract, the boundaries were created at the date of the contract provided it was fulfilled. If a default occurred, then no boundaries were created. If fulfilled, then the boundary creation would relate back to the contract date.

There's a pretty strong likelihood that the purchasers were aware of one another (thus having actual notice) when the seller was offering several parcels in accordance with a given plan (as in an unrecorded subdivision).

JBS

JB, we are in the 3rd Category (Thank you, James Fleming, for the link) We are in a Race Notice State. Arkansas.

I understood the concept of "Race to the courthouse".

Notice... well, I don't quite have my mind wrapped around that one.

In this case, there are original subdivision corners. But, nobody knew where they were, until I found some of them, recently.

Nobody knew that there was a problem, until recently.

>
> Notice... well, I don't quite have my mind wrapped around that one.
>

Gee Nate,
Mr. Jim Dorsey, PS covered that in his "Title Problems" presentation at the ASPS Conference, April 24, 2014. I'll look through my notes and hand-outs and email you.

(Did you notice that ASPS hands out nice notebooks during registration...but to keep us 'honest' you have to attend the actual class to get the contents?)

DDSM;-)

No Robison, I never even looked. I have the pretty book.

I am not claiming any PDH's for the conference. I did not attend Friday for that. I went for exhibits.

This is the same project we discussed.

N

Nate,
I know why you came to the meeting...I was just pointing out that the Notice/Race subject was discussed.

I recognized this project from our e-mail discussion. Are you going to share a link to the 'plaks' with the rest of BeerLeg?

DDSM

Not until I have thoroughly and professionally dealt with all the issues between me, and with the other surveyor.

I am simply trying to do an honest survey.

That comes first. Then, professionalism.

Nate

Kind of on topic and in line with many of the above comments regarding dividing land and building permits, as it relates to contracts to purchase said land, I've been involved with many a contract transaction gone South.

Did a survey years back on 10 acres that somebody bought under contract. They built with their own money, but eventually needed a mortgage to actually obtain fee title. The seller had 40 acres he split up. Ok fine, all legal. These people built on the wrong parcel though. I suspect it was misrepresented, but I just did my job. I think they eventually just swapped for the one they built on.

Here in AZ we can do a record of survey all day long and create parcels. When the people buy one (typically under contract), and then go to build - opps, needs to be rezoned from 36 ac to the 5 or 10 ac they bought. Bad surveyor IMO that provided that service, but they still are out there. They needed a proper parcel plat that is approved by the county/city involved. Add a grand or so in fees, but it gets done correctly. Add a bit more for the surveyor too, for all the paperwork and maybe a meeting.

I'm sure we all have more horror stories to reflect upon. It's just kind of maddening that we seem to be involved on the back end of these cluster messes so it becomes a fire drill to help them out.