Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California
Based on activities recorded on a property, I have a question as to who is considered the owner of the home from a legal or title perspective. The scenario is the following.
In 1999, the home was originally purchased with 3 people on the grant deed as joint tenancy. The three individuals consist of the mother, first son (son "A") and second son (son "B"). A quit claim was signed and notarized by son "A" in 2002 however was only officially recorded in April 22, 2011 (due to being misplaced). In January 2011, a second quit claim was signed and notarized by son "B" and was recorded on April 27, 2011 (5 days after the first quit claim by son "B" was recorded). On the second quit claim, son "B" relinquished his interest in the property to the mother and son "A".
Based on the title transfers officially recorded and on file for the said property, who is considered the legal owner of the property and which individuals no longer have interest in the property? Is there still considered joint tenancy amongst any of the individuals listed or has this been severed through the quit claims recorded. (It should be noted that there was a first mortage (recently paid off) and currently second mortgage on the home. Both mortgages are under son "A" name.)
Your input in this matter is much appreciated. Thank you.
2 Answers from Attorneys
Although you give a pretty detailed presentation of the facts, there are a few essentials left out. For example, you don't say to whom Son A deeded his share of the property in 2002, nor whether the deed was delivered to and accepted by the grantee(s).
California's Civil Code provides that an unrecorded deed is sufficient to transfer title and is effective between the parties thereto and others with notice thereof. However, there is an additional concept that a deed that is not delivered to, and accepted by, the grantee, is ineffective. I understand that deeds, when delivered and accepted, transfer title as of the execution date specified in the deed. (Note that property tax assessors in some counties use the recording date for reassessment purposes, but I believe this is technically incorrect).
In order to proceed with the analysis, I am going to assume that both the 2002 quitclaim deed and the January, 2011 quitclaim deed were delivered to the grantees and accepted by them. (Acceptance requires little more than not rejecting the deed). I will further have to assume that the 2002 deed was to Mother and Son B equally.
These assumptions accepted, the 2002 deed took Son A out of ownership and made Mother and Son B equal 50% owners.
Then, in January 2011, Son B divides his 50% ownership equally between Mother and Son A. Mother now has 75%, Son A is restored to partial ownership, with 25%.
All of this assumes there have been no good-faith purchasers for value without notice of the unrecorded deeds, and no other instruments recorded against title in the interim, except possibly the reconveyance of the paid-off loan.
The joint tenancies are terminated. Mother and Son A are tenants in common.
Other results are possible by changing the assumptions.
Note that the changes of ownership probably violate the due-on-sale clause of the second mortgage, which, by the way, would become the "first" when the previous first mortgage was paid off. The lender presumably could accelerate the loan, but probably won't as long as it is kept current.
I agree with Mr. Whipple. It appears that the joint tenancy was severed, but I cannot tell you who is on title and for what share, because it is not clear who son "A" deeded his interest in the property to.
Related Questions & Answers
Looking for something else?
10,200 active attorneys ready to answer your legal questions today.
Featured Attorneys
Earn additional revenue and grow your business.
