Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @Account Closed:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
Quote from @Account Closed:
Quote from @Peter Walther:
I think part of the confusion is that ID is a title theory state and relies on a Deed of Trust rather than a mtg which is used in lien theory states. As such, when a property owner borrows money, and the debt is secured by real property, the Borrower conveys title to a Trustee, who holds it for the benefit of both the Borrower and Lender. If the Borrower makes all payments and on notification by the Lender the debt has been paid in full, the Trustee conveys title to the property back to the Borrower via a Reconveyance and the Deed of Trust is deemed released. On the other hand, if the Borrower fails to make payment and after demand has been made by the lender, the Lender may instruct the Trustee to notice the property for sale and sell it according to the terms of the Deed of Trust and state law. Therefore, I think what the attorney is saying is the Seller/Borrower does not currently hold title to convey to the Buyer.
Your Comment: "
Therefore, I think what the attorney is saying is the Seller/Borrower does not currently hold title to convey to the Buyer."That's a good attempt, but it isn't accurate.
Maybe this will help:
Deed Of Trust: What It Is And How It Works – Forbes Advisor Note the explanation of the definition of Trustor:
- Trustor. This is the person whose assets are being held in the trust, also known as the borrower (i.e., you). The title to your home is held by the trust until the loan is paid off. Even so, you remain the equitable owner as long as you keep paying the loan according to the terms outlined in the deed of trust. That means you enjoy all the benefits of being the homeowner, such as the right to live there and gain equity, even though you aren’t the legal title holder. (emphasis added)
Tell you what, if you can tell me what the following court docket entry says, I'll assume you have the actual litigation experience and comprehension to understand what you are talking about.
AZ Case Number: CV2022-001353 - 5/25/2022
NOTE: DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SPECIAL MOTION TO DISMISS
Otherwise, you are playing with fire believing what you are quoting. But, it is your's to learn. ;-)
My experience on this type of matter goes all the way to the 9th Circuit Court of appeals, does yours? I applaud you if it does.
I assume you're referring to the case of Greenberg v. Wray filed in Maricopa County, AZ. Unfortunately, the Clerk there doesn't provide online access to filings so I can't read why the Defendants were objecting to the Plaintiff being allowed to file a Supplemental Reply to the Defendants' Special Motion to Dismiss filed 3/14/2022.
I also assume you're referring to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit since AZ doesn't have a 9th Circuit and no, I have not been involved in any litigation that wound up there. I have however crafted arguments that wound up in front of state appeal courts in NY, FL, TX, CA and NC.
I also handled litigation filed by U.S. Attorneys representing the FDIC as Receiver for various banks. Those didn't go to trial because I was able to resolve them in mediation. Several other underwriters chose to take the same type of claims to trial because they disagreed with my strategy and lost. They also lost the appeals and set a precedent that I was hoping to avoid. Those were in Federal Cout of course.
If we're now done slapping our johnson's on the table, please tell me what was incorrect about my initial post or admit you spoke out of turn.
Congratulation, you are a learned man worthy of the conversation, I say that with respect and welcome you. There are a lot of wannabes on BP. And a lot of ink is wasted on speculation and wrong advice. ;-) and, you do good research, that is simply a case I am following on a different matter.
Our comments: Your Comment: "Therefore, I think what the attorney is saying is the Seller/Borrower does not currently hold title to convey to the Buyer."
My Comment: That's a good attempt, but it isn't accurate.
*****************************************************************
Short Version:
When I do a “Subject To” purchase, not the bank, nor the trustee, are involved. As we go through escrow a new Warranty Deed is created and filed giving me every right of ownership to the property. I can resell the property. Title has transferred without the Trustee’s involvement. No release needed. The seller has transferred ownership to me. I start making the underlying payments. I even get to pay the property taxes. In fact, even if it wasn’t filed, I still own the property, but I file the WD for further legal protection. It saves on litigation. If I stop making the payments, the lender can foreclose but it goes against the borrower, not me.
I was involved in a case where I bought the property in Aug 2001. In 2006, (yes, five years later) and long after the Statute of Limitations of 3 years, I was sued. Property was now worth far more than I had paid for it in 2001. (lots of detail omitted here for brevity) It went through several courts and remanded. I won in each instance.
Eventually, The lender Ocwen, and the Title Company Fidelity National (I’m sure you are familiar with both) sent several legal experts and lawyers to court for tiny, little, me. The seller said he had never signed the Warranty Deed. The notary said he did sign it. I was making the payments.
The bank and trustee claimed they weren’t informed of the transfer and it was illegal. In court I pointed out (I’m not sure why my attorney didn’t) that the Due on Sale Clause stated they “May” but didn’t have to call the Note due. That was a big deal to the Judge. The deed had been filed. That also was a big deal to the Judge. The borrower continued to claim he never signed the Warranty Deed.
It eventually had to be determined by a trier of fact and it went my direction. Opposing side appealed.
Court determined that since it was filed, they had access to the information and I had no obligation to inform them of the transfer. In 2012 when the Court of Appeals rejected their appeal it went back to the referring court and the judge ruled in my favor. I owned the property.
What I learned: If someone says they didn’t sign the Deed, in some states that has to be determined at trial. Having a notary, only makes you think you have proof of the transaction.
Your Comment: "Therefore, I think what the attorney is saying is the Seller/Borrower does not currently hold title to convey to the Buyer."
I did not say you were wrong. It is only because people believe what you point out and are afraid of court, that it is effective. However, it doesn’t hold up in court. I simply think your answer is incomplete.
I would rephrase it as “the attorney is concerned a transfer without the trustee’s involvement can cause problems for you, if not done correctly."
I enjoy your ability to understand the underlying issues, maybe 5 or 6 people on BP have that background
Here's a post I did on Subject To that may help
Using Subject To, to Get "Free" Properties
https://www.biggerpockets.com/forums/311/topics/1060320-using-subject-to-to-get-free-properties-a-quick-guideline