Mark, More Info, Please - Bronchick? Gatten? - Posted by TRandle
Posted by TRandle on March 18, 2001 at 23:11:22:
I have some questions, please. I currently place title in the name of the land trust itself without mentioning the trustee. The title company I typically use is and has been a stickler for doing things the “right” way. I have been able to get title policies on these transactions.
“Under a land trust you don’t need a corporation or a tax number, but if your deed names only the trust but not the trustee, it can be legal only if the trust is a business trust.”
So, I can interpret this comment several ways. Are you saying the conveyance itself is illegal, the land trust is illegal, or is this perhaps a poor choice of words by an attorney?
“While some title companies may have insured deeds without the trustee’s name, this does not mean that they will hold up in court or that when you sell the property you will not have a problem getting title insurance. The trust might need to be recorded at that time to clear up the title. While a valid land trust never needs to be recorded, a defective one often must be.”
Does this comment mean the title insurance will be voided? I doubt this is true. The title company performed the underwriting, accepted the premium, and closed the transaction. Of course, the pursuit of the claim may or may not be worthwhile, but that is dependent on the situation. I’d hate to be in their shoes making that argument.
Who cares if the trust agreement needs to be recorded at the sale of the property? What downside is there to that? Granted, that’s not preferred, but what am I missing? I’m out of the deal, my original owners are out of the deal, and new parties are in place.
What possible reason could a title company provide for not insuring title? Even if one company had an issue with it, the idea that I couldn’t get title insurance is ridiculous in my (layman’s) opinion. Of course I could find a title company willing to insure the title, assuming there were no other issues. Please explain.
“You can’t expect to get all the legal benefits of a device if you cut corners.”
What “legal benefits” are we missing by invalidating the land trust? I’m not “cutting corners”; the omission of the trustee’s name is intentional. My main purpose in using a trust agreement is privacy in the public records. Using a land trust is not part of an elaborate asset protection scheme, ignoring the privacy advantage. I’d like to hear more.
Thanks in advance for all responses.