Jump to content

ThatTenant

Members
  • Content Count

    123
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ThatTenant

  • Rank
    Contributor

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. ThatTenant

    Title Company Won't Remove Exception for Void Trust Deed

    It's just land so I think it would have to be a cash sale anyway.
  2. ThatTenant

    Title Company Won't Remove Exception for Void Trust Deed

    Thanks again. I think RetiredinVA hit the nail on the head when he said title companies only insure titles where there is no need for insurance. I found a provision that would authorize a title company to cancel a DOT after notice giving the trustee time to produce evidence the DOT was still justified. They refused to initiate such a process even though they could have bailed if the trustee returned such evidence. This is why maybe I'm better off to just do nothing and explain the exception in the title report to my broker and she can explain to any potential buyers. Along those lines, maybe I should just pay for a letter opinion from an attorney that the lien is not enforceable. I'll rely on the next attorney to plan the strategy. My biggest problem now is finding an attorney I can have confidence in is competent in all the issues and honest enough to follow the most economical path if it means litigation.
  3. ThatTenant

    Title Company Won't Remove Exception for Void Trust Deed

    To RetiredinVA: I thought that just addressing one lien would take much less of an attorney's time than addressing all possible liens. When I meet with the next attorney I plan to ask about all these possible approaches and see what he recommends. I'd like to pursue the penalties for the harassment. That would probably cost more to prosecute but that CCP then opens the possibility of an award of attorney fees to the victor. While I have confidence I should prevail, I know being correct does not guarantee a correct decision (especially in that jurisdiction). Plus one of the two persons that made the threats and started this is judgment proof. (The other, however, is a business.) The other fly in the ointment is there are no good attorneys locally so I have to hire one in the big city 150 miles away. Hopefully he can appear by phone. Thanks again.
  4. ThatTenant

    Title Company Won't Remove Exception for Void Trust Deed

    To PG1067: I agree with what I think you are pointing out (on a literal-only interpretation of the law) that the DOT did not become void unless and until the judgment in the action was actually issued, which it was. I also agree that the judgment priority in the chain of title would revert back to the date of recording of the notice of action. I used the word "void" because that's the word CC 1214 used. I'd be interested to know if you (and/or RetiredinVA if he's listening) think either or both of the below code sections would be effective yet less costly than a quiet title action? All I really need is to nix the DOT, not clear the entire title from scratch: Civil Code 3412: Cancellation of Instruments Code of Civil Procedure 765.010 - 765.060: harassment liens ($5000 penalty) "Really" dumb is a relative term. Not all human wants have a price. I was threatened, after my attorney filed the partition action, that they would cost me as much time and money as possible and prevent me from ever owning the place. Thanks again
  5. ThatTenant

    Title Company Won't Remove Exception for Void Trust Deed

    To PG1067. I do not understand how you can say the DOT is not void given the language of CC1214. Assuming the final order confirming sale that concluded the partition action is a "judgment" for the purposes of CC1214, the DOT was not recorded before the notice of that action was recorded and, therefore, does not meet the exception stated in that law: "...unless the conveyance shall have been duly recorded prior to the record of the notice of action." It wasn't. My original attorney (now deceased) and even the trustor's own attorney both argued in court during post- final order motions that the DOT was not a valid lien and it appears the judge agreed based on his decision, which unfortunately was not written. So I may be utterly unqualified to say the DOT is invalid but those attorneys were both very experienced and held that view. I have spent thousands on other attorneys looking into this. The advice has not been consistent. I've learned in employing attorneys that one should study the subject as best as one can and watch them like a hawk or pay a heavy price. Attorneys have a financial incentive to take a path that is more in their interest than the client's. I may yet hire another attorney but I'm considering the option of just ignoring the DOT. I think I'd remain on solid legal ground to void any deed resulting from a trustee's sale and maybe I can sell the place despite the exception in the title report. A quiet title action might cost more than the unencumbered value of the property, especially now that it went up in a recent wildfire, so the only reason to fight is principle. Thanks for your thoughts on the matter.
  6. ThatTenant

    Title Company Won't Remove Exception for Void Trust Deed

    Thanks RetiredinVA. My attorney died. Could I have another attorney represent me to intervene in the partition action and ask the court to simply revise or amend his final order (2014) to declare the trust deed void? The notice of action was never ended so I'm hoping that makes it still not too late. I was not a party (directly) but I think I should have standing to appear in the action because I was the purchaser named in the final order. It seems so unnecessary to have to create a whole new lawsuit and argue over all the same facts just to deal with this one oversight by my attorney. I would expect the court would prefer to minimize its workload. Thanks
  7. I purchased a California property from a court appointed referee that had a trust deed recorded against it during a court proceeding for partition by a party to that action. The trust deed was recorded after a notice of action for that proceeding had already been recorded and was still in force. I believe the final order of the court confirming sale automatically voided the trust deed for being recorded after the notice of action per Civil Code 1214. However, the lender will not voluntarily remove the lien and two title companies I asked (subsequent to the sale due to an oversight by my now-deceased attorney) to provide policies of title insurance will not now provide a policy that does not include an exception for the trust deed I believe to be void. One told me they do not exclude liens on the bases of theories of law, such as Civil Code 1214, but on recorded documents. (My argument, to no avail, was Civil Code 1214 is not a theory of law, it is law.) I think the final court order confirming my purchase was such a recorded document but they disagree saying the document has to explicitly name the lien and say it is off so I have declined those offered title policies. Are the title companies wrong and, if so, how do I convince them to remove the exception for the void trust deed? Could I, as the buyer confirmed by the court, ask the court to revise its final order confirming sale (of 2014) to explicitly say the trust deed, which predated the original court order, is void so I can avoid a whole new lawsuit to clear my title? Thanks
  8. ThatTenant

    Can One Co-owner Place Trust Deed on Property?

    In conclusion, thanks very much to all for your comments. Very helpful as I now look for a new attorney.
  9. ThatTenant

    Can One Co-owner Place Trust Deed on Property?

    In that case I would have expected the referee would have prepared deeds to be signed by Mr. X and Mr. Y to to convey the property to the high bidder at the court-ordered sale once the court confirmed the sale rather than provide the buyer a quitclaim deed from the referee to the buyer, which is what happened in actual fact. I don't understand how the referee had any interest he could quitclaim to the buyer if title was always in the hands of X and Y up to the sale. That reminds me, we just ordered a PTR and it came back as title is still vested with the referee. Assuming the title never left the hands of Messrs. X and Y I'm worried this might mean the referee did not prepare the correct deeds. However, they were prepared under the supervision of my then attorney. I'm looking for another attorney now.
  10. ThatTenant

    Can One Co-owner Place Trust Deed on Property?

    Many thanks for that clear answer. Any thoughts on the other question above of whether Mr. X still had any title left to pledge by trust deed when he recorded it given the partition action was filed and the notice of action recorded some 4 years before he recorded the trust deed? As I mentioned, it is unclear to me how the referee acquired title to the property to eventually quitclaim that interest to me. I'm traveling but my recollection of all court orders is there is no order stating title was ever transferred to the court or the referee. Does the court automatically acquire title merely on the filing of the complaint?
  11. ThatTenant

    Can One Co-owner Place Trust Deed on Property?

    To RetiredinVA: Thank you for your response. Yes, Mr. X was a party to the partition action. X did execute the deed of trust prior to the sale but long after the notice of action was recorded. The order confirming sale did not explicitly mention X's interest, it just instructed the referee to collect the balance due from me (Mr. Y) and then convey title to me, which the referee did by way of quitclaim deed from the referee to me. No money went to the lender despite a motion to that purpose by my attorney (now deceased). He made that motion after the final order confirming sale after my title company discovered the trust deed had been recorded by Mr. X (with no separate notice to me), I understand, to try to show Mr. X's interest in the property was extinguished (by paying the lender, whose claim exceeded the market value of the property) so as to yield an amended order that could be recorded that title companies would find as a basis to omit the exception for the trust deed in the policy they were offering me. That motion was opposed by Mr. X's attorney, who argued that the trust deed on Paradise was not valid (despite the fact it was made by Mr. X) because it was recorded after the notice of action of the partition complaint. The judge denied my attorney's motion without written comment, suggesting the judge agreed the trust deed was not valid, which resulted in Mr. X receiving the proceeds of the sale and no resulting amended order so nothing I could record to show the lien extinguished. As I responded to AdjusterJack, I have consulted with several attorneys on this matter. The latest one said the trust deed is invalid because it was not signed by all owners. I'm questioning this advice because, as I think you have stated, Mr. X could encumber his own separate interest. (The property was not held as a single interest by multiple people.) However, you said "before the sale." What is not apparent to me is when did the court, or the referee, acquire title to the property to then subsequently quitclaim it to me. It seems to me that once the title was in the hands of the court, Mr. X would no longer have had any title to pledge by executing a trust deed. The partition procedure requires a notice of action to be recorded once the complaint is filed. As a nonlawyer, I'm only guessing but it seems to me that the whole point of recording a notice of action would be to put on record to the public the fact that the court was going to make a decision affecting title and that any efforts to convey title after that date would be subject to the court's decision. The notice would have given the lender the opportunity to appear in court to argue their own interests, which they did not do. Somewhere I read that the notice of action in partition was to prevent a party from undermining the court's decision making process by conveying their interest to another before the court could complete it's work. If I understand you correctly, your answer to my question in my first paragraph of the original post is that there is no requirement that all owners of separate interests in a property must sign a trust deed that is written against an interest in that property other than their own. I hope you can confirm one way or the other. Thanks very much.
  12. ThatTenant

    Can One Co-owner Place Trust Deed on Property?

    But the key question is not. I've consulted multiple attorneys. The answers are not the same. The purpose of the question is to help me decide which attorney to retain. So I'd still appreciate an answer from an attorney on this forum. Thank you.
  13. For a trust deed on California bare land, let's call that land "Paradise," to be valid, must all co-owners of fractional undivided interests in Paradise sign the trust deed or could a single co-owner, Mr. X, sign the trust deed, without telling the other co-owner, Mr. Y, and legally record that trust deed? (In the actual case, the trust deed on Paradise was to secure a note previously taken out by Mr. X not on Paradise but on a different property, his home, years before, which was at that time secured by a different trust deed, which was reconveyed soon after the trust deed on Paradise was recorded.) If the answer to the above is negative (i.e, all co-owners need not sign a deed of trust), how might Mr. Y prevent the trust deed on Mr. X's fractional undivided interest from encumbering Mr. Y's own interest? (The trust deed on Paradise shows up as an exception in preliminary title reports on Mr. Y's interest. The actual case is complicated by the fact that Mr. Y purchased the entire interest in the property when Paradise was sold by court order (partition) so Mr. X no longer owns any interest in the title to Paradise but Mr. X's trust deed on his former fractional undivided interest in Paradise remains on the record as encumbering the property in an amount far in excess of its market value were it unemcumbered.
  14. A California DA apparently refuses to charge on my allegations, as the victim, of multiple felonies by multiple persons. I say "apparently" because the DA is giving me the silent treatment: not responding to my requests as to whether he/she will charge or not and apparently telling his staff also to not answer my questions. (It's been over 3 months since the sheriff presented my charges to the DA.) For the purpose of my questions below, please assume my allegations of felonies are valid. Questions: 1) I understand a Calif DA cannot be compelled to prosecute. However, I've read that in some states, a local DA can authorize a private attorney to prosecute a crime that falls below the DA's priorities. Is California such a state? 2) I understand the California Attorney General can prosecute crimes that cross county boundaries where none of the DAs of any of the jurisdictions will act. I am considering asking a criminal defense attorney to approach the Board of Supervisors for a letter that would be addressed to the Attorney General asking the Attorney General to prosecute the matter because their own DA is "unable." Please assume the criminal defense attorney would validly assure the BOS that the facts and the law support a conviction. The request would be additionally supported by evidence to the BOS that the DA was acting with apparent bias against me or neglect of his duty to a crime victim but the BOS would not be requested to say more in their letter than that the DA was "unable" or similarly ambiguous wording to be chosen by the criminal defense attorney. The criminal defense attorney would present the BOS' letter to the Attorney General along with evidence the crimes occurred in multiple jurisdictions. Do you believe this to be an approach that might be worth the cost of discussing it with such a criminal defense attorney? My guess is that the county could not be sued for failure of their DA to prosecute a good case so their only incentive would be to avoid bad press. Any better ideas on how to persuade the California Attorney General to take the case? 3) I've read the most effective way to cause a DA to prosecute is public pressure. I obviously don't want to say anything that could either jeopardize the chances of a prosecution or result in a libel case against me. I was thinking I could send a letter to the local paper describing how the DA would not act and would not communicate with me without naming the accused or the allegations beyond the fact that they are felonies. Assuming everything I say in such a letter is the truth and given the DA holds political office, would I still risk a libel action by the DA against me if such a letter were published? (I'm assuming a public figure would have less ability to win a libel case for being publicly criticized of performance of his/her official duties.) If I succeeded in getting such a letter published, the up side is the public scrutiny on him to do his job correctly but the downside is he would have an even bigger grudge against me. However, I don't think I have much to lose by trying. Thanks
  15. ThatTenant

    California: "Timely" Intervention

    Have one looking into it now. Thanks.
×