Posted by B.L.Renfrow on July 02, 2003 at 15:15:06:
As in, call your lawyer TODAY and get the ball rolling, since it will take time to do it properly, and time is money…YOUR money, which you’re not getting.
If the wife was responsible, you could always have her fill out an application and evaluate her as you would any other tenant applicant, but obviously this is not the case, as she clearly has no intention of paying and is apparently running a boarding house for her friends in YOUR property.
Recorded deed is NOT required by law in most states… - Posted by David Krulac
Posted by David Krulac on June 18, 2000 at 17:04:21:
…the recording can protect your interest, particularily if you are the buyer.
However, I know one very sucessful investor who never has the deed transferred into his name. First of all it preserves his privacy, no recorded record of his purchase. Secondly he saves transfer taxes which in most parts of this state are 2% of price. Thirdly he can transfer the property to a new buyer, where the old seller transfers directly to his buyer. His name does not appear in the chain of title.
He accomplishes much of the benefits of a trust or corporation without either!
David Krulac
So far as I know there is no law requiring you to record anything. However you would be a fool not to record a deed, mortgage, lease, and anything else you can. It is your legal protection.
Here is a case that came to my attention about a week ago. It was told to me by a neighbor.
It seems his uncle, a man about 70, had a cottage which he had owned for years and owned free and clear. It is a valuable property, about $150,000. He sold it to a nephew (a different one)for a small down payment, or perhaps no down payment at all, and held a mortgage for the balance. The nephew then went to the bank and put on the biggest mortgage he could get, over $100,000 plus home improvement loans and whatever else he could get. The latest development is that he has taken the money and skipped out to Australia.
Now the old man has lost his free and clear property, because it is pledged for so many loans that it would cost more than it is worth to get it back. This never would have happened if he had recorded his mortgage in the first place. Then he would be the first mortgage holder and would be first in line to get his money. And all the other lenders would never have made the loans if they had known there was such a big mortgage on the property already.And they certainly would have known this as they would have done a title search and recorded their own loans.
If you do not record a deed or mortgage it might as well not exist from the standpoint of public record or legal recognition. If for any reason you need to prove ownership at a later day you will be in a hell of a legal snarl.
This wouldn’t be my first (or my second) choice as a way to keep things private or save on transfer fees. Certainly there are better ways that actually make sense.
Posted by David Krulac on June 19, 2000 at 06:31:51:
I’ve never done this but know some people who have. By keeping the deed in the seller’s name you risk that they get additional liens or judgements. If they should pass on their could be estate claims against the property. And if the state figures out that you’re trying to get out of your transfer tax they’ll come after you. I have had probably a half dozen considerations challenged by the state as inadequate compared to market value. Sometimes these audit are a couple years after the property transfer. In each case I had reported the correct amount of consideration, but it was substantially below assessed value. They should get a clue there, but they don’t!
David Krulac