Re: Good Call - Posted by michaela-ATL
Posted by michaela-ATL on September 20, 2003 at 13:57:33:
Kristine,
I didn’t make a copy of the will, but as far as I remember there was no unusual wording or it would have stuck out at me. It was something like: The property on XYC is being bequested to A, B and C.
A, who probate was done for, was the 2nd of the brothers to die (in 69’)
Michaela
Re: A quick question. - Posted by Jim V
Posted by Jim V on September 21, 2003 at 22:24:11:
If the chain of title did not indicate a clear tranfer of interest to the brothers in question, what would you think would be the first step in resolving the lack of clear title?
Re: Good Call - Posted by Kristine-CA
Posted by Kristine-CA on September 20, 2003 at 15:53:02:
OK. I’m a little confused about who the owner is. Who is the current owner of record now? Are the three brothers on the deed? Or the decedent who willed the properties to the brothers? Regardless of what the will says, the deed should indicate how the brothers are holding title (if they actually have title).
There may be some other solutions if the property has not yet transferred title to the brothers and the decedent is the owner of record.
Let me know so we can brainstorm some more. Sincerely, Kristine
Resolve this in Probate Court - Posted by JT-IN
Posted by JT-IN on September 21, 2003 at 22:40:16:
It seems that there is an answer as to who the heirs might be, it has simply not been determined by the parties to this RE dealing, as of yet. Since this property is likely held in Tenants in Common, it is incumbent upon the surviving owners best interest, absent any other heir figuring out who is entitled to what, to go ahead determine who the surviving heirs are of the decedents.
All this could possibly be handled by opening an estate, or even by receiving a waiver from doing so, based on the value of the assets owned. It is possible that filing of an Affidavit by survivoring heirs may clear this whole matter up… Of course the trick is to do the geneology work to determine who belongs to who, so that the chain of title can be established. All, easier said than done, in some cases, and this may be one of them.
JT-IN
Re: Good Call - Posted by michaela-ATL
Posted by michaela-ATL on September 20, 2003 at 23:04:54:
Kristine,
tax records say : H.A. Bennet (Which is brother A). If there’re are more than one owner, than the courthouse here usually just writes the 1st name. As to title I’ve tried to go back to the 40’s(before I knew, how H.A. Bennett acquird the property) and couldn’t find a title transfer into his name.
I had originally looked at this property a year ago and didn’t get any further. In between the courthouse clerks had scanned more documents in and I found this old will.
The administrator (son, who’s in his 70’s) said, that over the years several people have tried to do something with this properties, but noone ever was successful, so I don’t know, if I"m beating a dead horse. But then I’ve been pretty good at finding heirs where others have tried for years, unsuccessfully. Maybe the tax liens with interest are higher than I estimate and noone wants to have it in his/her name. I have to check with the tax guy on monday. It’s surprising, that it hasn’t been auctioned off.
I have a lot across the street under contract, so it would be really cool, if I got this one, because builders love to pick up more than 1 lot at a time.
I will take a closer look on monday and let you know and see, if you have any other suggestions.
michaela
ps: are you going to the lender’s workshop this year? It’s in Ontario, CA?
Re: Perhaps you didn’t understand the question. - Posted by Jim V
Posted by Jim V on September 22, 2003 at 01:03:51:
If title never vested in the brother’s names, deceased or not, there is a gap in the chain.
Until the gap is filled, you have a cloud.
So, partition or quiet title, what’s the best solution? My answer, I don’t know, there are still a lot of variables, and the true answer might be a combination of all the possibles.
Re: Good Call - Posted by Kristine-CA
Posted by Kristine-CA on September 21, 2003 at 10:12:45:
Michaela: it seems to me if all three brothers inherited, then all three brothers on are the deed. It also seems likely they they held title as joint tenants. If it were me, as soon as I’d actually seen the latest deed(s), I’d call the title companies and try to figure out what they need.
Where I am, the additional names may or may not appear in the tax records. Sometimes the tax records will show et al, sometimes not. Sometimes the tax records are just plain wrong. If someone gets a quit claim deed and the tax assessor transfers title to that person, that doesn’t mean the title company will accept it. The only way to know is to look at the deed(s) and then talk to the title people.
Some fun, huh? I just finished one two weeks ago that took over a year. But it was worth it.
The one year where the lender’s workshop is here in CA and I had already bought my tickets for my fall stay in NYC. So, maybe in June…
Keep us posted. Sincerely, Kristine
Re: Perhaps you didn’t understand the question. - Posted by JT-IN
Posted by JT-IN on September 22, 2003 at 08:58:13:
JimV:
I suppose that I am NOT seeing the same thing you are seeing, or referring to here, in this case. According to the original post, the 3 brothers inherited the property. There was a deed drawn to the 3 of them, (assumption here, but not yet verified), and now all 3 of them are deceased. Only one of the brothers (owners) heirs has been located, at this point.
Just because the other 2 brothers heirs have not yet been located, doesn’t mean that they do not exist. I think that it is incumbent upon whoever has an interest in straightening this ownership issue out, to do the geneology work and prove who should receive the deceadants interest in the property. The heir very well may be the deceased brother whose heirs are willing to Quitclaim the 1/3 interest now.
Short of doing so, two of the deceadents have died intestate, which doesn’t mean that anyone filing a quiet title action would be entitled to the balance and control of the property. What that would indicate is that the State of Ga. would be entitle to 2/3rds of the property, void proving who else is entitled to receive the equitable interest via kinship.
Again, I do think that a partition suit is applicable, but not for the reason that Michela indicated… to get control of the other 2/3rds interest of the property. This would not produce that end result, as the 2/3rds proceeds of the brothers whose heirs have not been identified would go into escrow with the Clerk of Courts, and eventually be transferred to the State of Ga.
The quiet title action doesn’t apply here since there really isn’t a dispute over a deed, or property boundaries, as I understand this matter. The fact that heirs can’t be located, (or haven’t been yet), doesn’t lend itself toward a quiet title action. The only application for this would be if by affidavit the only heir was family of the brother who is willing to deed the property over, then possibly there could be a use for quiet title action, but again there would be a need to notify any potential creditor of the deceadents, via a probate matter… IMHO.
Again, I still think that this is a matter that must be addressed by determining the heirs to the deceadents, then probate… The fact that you don;t know who they are doesn’t automatically move this to a quiet title or partition suit…
Just the way that I view things…
Your thoughts here…?
JT-IN
I’m doubtful about your saying … - Posted by Ronald * Starr(in No CA)
Posted by Ronald * Starr(in No CA) on September 21, 2003 at 12:42:40:
Kristine–(CA)----------------
I’m doubtful about what you say: “… all three brothers on are the deed. It also seems likely they they held title as joint tenants.” Here in CA, at least, if there is no indication of the manner of taking title–the vesting–the presumption is that the co-owners are tenants in common, not joint tenants. I don’t know the presumption in GA.
If this were CA and they were to be joint tenants, that would have to be stated on the deed to them or a subsequent deed whereby the redeeded to themeselves as joint tenants.
Good Investing********Ron Starr*************
Re: My thoughts. - Posted by Jim V
Posted by Jim V on September 22, 2003 at 22:54:46:
JT,
I think you originally posted that 33% of this deal might not be real lucrative based on the numbers and the amount of work necessary. I agree.
I don’t have a reference, but if you have a chance, search for “Georgia Quiet Title Act of 1966”. Might not be appropriate because you obviously need to have a claim to the property.
I’m also fascinated by the demo lien. If it’s purchasable and can be foreclosed, it might be an option. I believe Kristine mentioned that possibility.
Personally, I’d want to investigate possibilities of obtaining a full interest, rather than clearing title for a possible 33-50% interest. Maybe I’m just too lazy. 