You forgot … - Posted by Redline
Posted by Redline on May 07, 2007 at 21:01:38:
Reed will also state emphatically that purple pens are illegal and recorders will refuse to accept your documents if they are signed in purple.
Then he will go on to examine the I-Formation double widout 3 receiver set and its impact on Division 1 Junior Varsity football in Wisconsin during the 1965 dairy strike.
RL
Re: The purple pen burp buster program - Posted by Joe Kaiser
Posted by Joe Kaiser on May 04, 2007 at 22:43:37:
. . . and then they’ll come looking for me!
Grrrrrrr.
hmmm … - Posted by Redline
Posted by Redline on May 07, 2007 at 20:56:31:
Hey Ben is this someone I know? 
RL
Re: anyone heard of a “title buster”? - Posted by Kristine-CA
Posted by Kristine-CA on May 03, 2007 at 22:46:28:
Luke: I think the example of “title busting” that you are using is
creating a negative response. I doubt that anyone here thinks that
buying a lien is “creating a problem” rather than solving a problem. So
I’m finding the responses to your post interesting
In the situation you posted, the attorney paid 15K for this problem to
go away. But specifically, what interest did your title buster friend have
in the property in order to get invvolved? What did he tell the attorney
he was going to do? I have a feeling we are missing important parts of
the deal.
I do agree with JT though in that you either get it or you don’t. I see
lots of stuff where I understand the problem but I don’t see how to
profit. Kristine
Re: anyone heard of a “title buster”? - Posted by lukeNC
Posted by lukeNC on May 03, 2007 at 22:33:17:
“pre-foreclosure” defendants? please clarify…
I’m sorry, but it appears that have missed the point completely.
'tis alright though. Hope you have a better day tomorrow. 
Re: anyone heard of a “title buster”? - Posted by Rich-CA
Posted by Rich-CA on May 03, 2007 at 20:43:50:
That has been said for the pre-foreclosure defendants. But they are being prosecuted.
Re: anyone heard of a “title buster”? - Posted by Kristine-CA
Posted by Kristine-CA on May 04, 2007 at 13:42:44:
I look at pretty much everything, but court docs are pretty much the best
leads, probate stuff being the easiest to figure out. But, as has been
pointed out before here, the vast majority of probate situations do not
require a fast cash closing and do not have motivated sellers. Kristine
Re: You forgot … - Posted by Joe Kaiser
Posted by Joe Kaiser on May 07, 2007 at 23:43:53:
Actually, it was the '64 dairy strike to which you refer. The '65 stike was
over amount of white space in milk.
Joe
Re: anyone heard of a “title buster”? - Posted by lukeNC
Posted by lukeNC on May 04, 2007 at 06:44:05:
They property in question went into foreclosure but had the wrong “legal description” in all of the foreclosure notices. And, it was not a small error. It was like lot 45 of ABC Meadows, when it was supposed to be lot 33 of DEF Meadows, it also referenced the wrong map books.
In NC, we have a 30 year SOL on attacking foreclosing sales. Because of the legal desc / address errors it is just like the property was never foreclosed on. It was a big enough error to make a mess of. You see what I mean?
The investor located the owners who were foreclosed and offered them $100 bucks each for a signed quit claim deed. He then notified the foreclosing attorney and the current owners of his plans to file suit and quiet title. He actually did not have to file a lawsuit, the attorney paid him $15k to drop his claims and quit claim everything to the current owners.
I’ll be tagging along today with him. We’re supposed to be going with a surveyor to a neighborhood to find out the extent of some land or something, I dont understand everything yet. Apparently a builder built a neighborhood but didnt convey a number of easements, right of ways, etc. They eventually closed up shop over 20 years ago. He bought up the original shareholder’s heirs’ interests for a few thousand dollars and is going to do the same thing, quiet title. Because these items were not conveyed, the old company still owns them. He’s expecting quite a bit of a payoff on this one.
buster"? - Posted by Nike
Posted by Nike on May 04, 2007 at 18:42:36:
The only way to challenge a new owner(s)claim is if you can demonstrate that he was not a bona fide purchaser at the time of the sale, otherwise you can only seek money damages as a remedy. You need to know the facts of each case including whether the former owners, despite the error, have notice of the foreclosure? Did the subesequent buyer/owner have knowledge (or should’ve had knowledge) such that it would prevent him from being a bona fide purchaser? etc
Re: anyone heard of a “title buster”? - Posted by Kristine-CA
Posted by Kristine-CA on May 04, 2007 at 13:26:13:
Luke: thank you for your reply. That’s exactly what I wanted to
know–that he had a deed when he approached the attorney. Was
about the lot that was foreclosed on? Was that an actual lot or was it
just typos?
I’m curious about what you’ll learn or see today. I’m thinking that the
payoff on this one is going to be from some pretty unhappy
homeowners. 20 years is a long time. Keep us posted. Kristine
Re: anyone heard of a “title buster”? - Posted by Bob Smith
Posted by Bob Smith on May 04, 2007 at 10:18:10:
How does he find these? Trolling through the hundreds of thousands of deeds, easements, etc that have been filed over the last 20 years in any sizeable metro area in order to look for errors can’t be an efficient or effective means of finding this sort of opportunity. Then there’s the problem of a judge slapping down your QT suit, not because it has no merit, but because he thinks you’re a shark.
Re: buster"? - Posted by lukeNC
Posted by lukeNC on May 05, 2007 at 06:19:47:
it is a technicality…
Its like if you know you’re behind on your payments at your home on 123 main st. but you are getting notices for a house at 200 1st st, which does not exist and you do not own. Therefore, its like your house was not foreclosed on. So, technically the home was NOT foreclosed on. So title was still in the previous owner’s name.
Apparently this attorney had made a number of mistakes in his foreclosures some years ago, thats why he was targeted.
Re: buster"? - Posted by Adidas
Posted by Adidas on May 05, 2007 at 01:37:46:
You’re still on that “bona fide purchaser” thing?
Buy some more courses, and diversify your nonsensical rants.
effect on title insurance - Posted by Ben (NJ)
Posted by Ben (NJ) on May 05, 2007 at 06:17:46:
another reason the judge may slap it down, schemes like this disrupt the title insurance industry. Many carriers are already skittish to begin with in certain areas like tax foreclosure. If judges tolerate this, it will become difficult to impossible to get title insurance.
buster"? - Posted by Nike
Posted by Nike on May 05, 2007 at 07:08:39:
ok, Luke but if the previous owner was still the record owner then I’m not sure it was a technicality.
Are you going to get business cards printed- Luke–Title Buster?
Re: buster"? - Posted by Marc Donovan
Posted by Marc Donovan on May 05, 2007 at 07:15:54:
Nike is correct.
http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/prop/prop24.htm
buster"? - Posted by Nike
Posted by Nike on May 05, 2007 at 06:32:23:
C’mon dopey—what nonsense? How can you discuss this issue without discussing whether the current owner is a BFP? You can’t.
Re: buster"? - Posted by Bob Smith
Posted by Bob Smith on May 05, 2007 at 09:30:30:
I’m not so sure. Because the foreclosing bank never had good title, how can a subsequent purchaser be a BFP (really: BFP without notice)? Remember, the purchaser does have notice that the bank is fraudulently conveying title. Specifically, the court order or deed to the foreclosing trustee conveys property “X” (bad legal description) to the bank. Then the bank tries to convey property “Y” to the purchaser. Since the fact that there was no deed conveying “Y” to the bank is a matter of public record, the purchaser knew or should have known, whether or not they did a title search, that the bank doesn’t have good title, therefore they cannot be a BFP.