Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California
Being on title vs being on mortgage
My mom bought a house in San Diego in 1993. in 1995 she quit claimed the title to me, but she remained on the mortgage note. She has been in poor health, and i have been making the payments for the house. With her permission, I am refinancing the house in my name, to get a better rate as well as pay off some bills. My mom has incurred some debts including some FTB liens she has been unable to pay due to her health, these all occured AFTER titling the house to me. The escrow company I am dealing with just informed me that I was approved for the re-finance, but I would have to pay off my mom's debts because even though my mom has not been on the title for many years, the fact that her name is on the mortgage makes the property liable. This makes no sense to me!
Thanks for your help.
3 Answers from Attorneys
Re: Being on title vs being on mortgage
Your assessment seems to be on target. Get a consultation with a knowledgeable real estate attorney in your area and see if the attorney can resolve the mess. Obviously, a lien should not generally attach if the property no longer is in a person's name, unless the lienholder brings an action to challenge the transfer as a fraudulent conveyance.
Re: Being on title vs being on mortgage
You are right, it doesn't make any sense. I would use a different title company or talk with a supervisor. At the very least, they should be able to tell upon what legal authority they are basing their position.
Re: Being on title vs being on mortgage
The only liability is if the FTB was to sue under fraud as to the transfer. The escrow company should not require payment unless there was an actual suit filed. Call me directly at 16192223504.
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.
