Property Help Please! Forum

[Lizard]

Hi,
Does anyone have any recs on the best supplement to use for Property? I have checked out a bunch of them: E&E, Emanuel, crunch time Emanuel, but so far the material is not clicking.

If a person purchases a property and they don't record the deed, does their title to the property still show up in a title search if the lender that financed the purchase (by securing a mortgage on the entire property- owner's house and lot) recorded the mortgage?

I'm baffled by how exactly the recording system works--what shows up on a title search and constitutes notice, and what doesn't.
Sorry to take up space with this, but I am so confused and haven't had any luck in the substantive question forum. I would be so grateful for any feedback.

[Nova]

Understanding Property & Gilberts >>>>> everything else

imo

[Lizard]

Understanding Property & Gilberts >>>>> everything else

imo

Thanks! I actually don't have that one, which means there may be hope yet:)

[courtneylove]

If a person purchases a property and they don't record the deed, does their title to the property still show up in a title search if the lender that financed the purchase (by securing a mortgage on the entire property- owner's house and lot) recorded the mortgage?

The deed won't show up in the chain of title if it's not recorded. However, if the lender that financed the purchase records the mortgage it would probably constitute constructive notice that the purchaser bought the property. Think of the chain of title like a bulletin board in front of the property; if there's no deed up there but Bank of America has put a note up saying "we issued P a mortgage to purchase this property, we own interest in this house", anyone who looked at the board would be able to tell something was going on with the property regarding P's ownership, even if P never actually recorded his deed.

[Lizard]

If a person purchases a property and they don't record the deed, does their title to the property still show up in a title search if the lender that financed the purchase (by securing a mortgage on the entire property- owner's house and lot) recorded the mortgage?

The deed won't show up in the chain of title if it's not recorded. However, if the lender that financed the purchase records the mortgage it would probably constitute constructive notice that the purchaser bought the property. Think of the chain of title like a bulletin board in front of the property; if there's no deed up there but Bank of America has put a note up saying "we issued P a mortgage to purchase this property, we own interest in this house", anyone who looked at the board would be able to tell something was going on with the property regarding P's ownership, even if P never actually recorded his deed.

Interesting! So in any race-notice jurisdiction, the bank recording would constitute record notice to any future purchaser? Even if it wouldn't necessarily show up in say a normal title search? Sorry, I guess I'm a little confused as to whether you mean that the Bank's recording would show up in the place of the deed in the chain of title in an ordinary search about the property. ?

[PepperJack]

The standard would be if the reasonably prudent purchaser would have been aware there was another interest in the house. I'd imagine it's fact specific, and that checking for mortgages would normally be reasonable and would put the prudent buyer on notice. If it's 50-50 the courts normally err with the side who best could have prevented the harm. If the purchaser is a real estate investor, they likely should have known. If it was just a regular banker, my feeling is the mortgage company should have made sure the deed was recorded to have given the mortgage.

[Lizard]

The standard would be if the reasonably prudent purchaser would have been aware there was another interest in the house. I'd imagine it's fact specific, and that checking for mortgages would normally be reasonable and would put the prudent buyer on notice. If it's 50-50 the courts normally err with the side who best could have prevented the harm. If the purchaser is a real estate investor, they likely should have known. If it was just a regular banker, my feeling is the mortgage company should have made sure the deed was recorded to have given the mortgage.

Wow, very interesting. I would think that it may be jurisdiction specific as well? Some race-notice jurisdictions may require purchasers to have notice of all other claims existing in the world, whereas others may understand record notice to mean recorded interests that would appear in a thorough title search?

Also I'm wondering where mortgages are generally recorded? I was just thinking that someone could have several different lenders with varying claims on their house, ranging from an ordinary bank to some of the vulture lending companies. Do these different financial institutions record their claims in the same place? Is there a penalty to them for not recording publicly (e.g. like the risk of losing property bc you failed to record and there is no evidence of possession)?