Posted by David Krulac on December 03, 2002 at 10:54:30:
some places are 30 days some places are 1 year. Once I looked at a property that had SIX unrecorded deeds in a row. What a nightmire.
David Krulac
Central Pennsylvania
Time Limit for Recording a Deed - Posted by J. Christopher
Posted by J. Christopher on December 02, 2002 at 22:02:40:
I spoke with a Seller this morning who bought a house last year (creatively he says). He still has the deed and has not recorded it yet.
Is there a time limit as to when you can record a deed OR can you record it anytime (even if its been a year)? By the way, the property is located in Illinois.
Thank you,
J. Christopher
Re: Time Limit for Recording a Deed - Posted by Rob FL
Posted by Rob FL on December 03, 2002 at 19:54:19:
In all likelihood if he hasn’t recorded it their is a reason. Probably a due-on-sale violation. Because if he had taken out a mortgage of his own, his lender would have required recording the deed along with title insurance.
Another thing to look out for is a forgery. It could be possible that the deed is a forgery and the true owner is dead, in jail, or something else. Before you close on the property, I would probably try and make a phone call to the previous seller just to make sure there isn’t any funny business going on.
No Time Limit - Posted by Sean(CA)
Posted by Sean(CA) on December 03, 2002 at 10:41:30:
I can assure you that in California there’s no time limit for recording the deed. I can’t speak for Illinois.
It’s dangerous to a buyer to not record a deed, but California law says that if a person buys a property from the recorded owner, only to find out that another owner is LIVING in the property and has an unrecorded deed, the person who is living there has every right to remain and the person who bought should’ve checked with the inhabitents.
All told it’s kind of unusual for the transfer not to be recorded. Did he violate the due-on-sale clause and worry that recording would trigger foreclosure?
call the courthouse… - Posted by David Krulac
Posted by David Krulac on December 03, 2002 at 10:34:09:
in some areas they have been refusing to record “stale” deeds. One courthouse won’t accept any document over 30 days old. In other places they’ll record any deed that is properly signed and notarized.
David Krulac
Central Pennsylvania
Re: Time Limit for Recording a Deed - Posted by Ronald * Starr(in No CA)
Posted by Ronald * Starr(in No CA) on December 02, 2002 at 22:49:29:
J. Christopher–(IL)---------
You are asking, in my opinion, a legal question, not a real estate investing question. If you have not already done so, you might want to post this question on the legal forum here on the CREONLINE.COM website.
I am not an attorney. But I have never heard of any time limit in recording deeds.
However, there are practical considerations which suggest that one should record soon. The former owner might deed the property away again to some other buyer. In some states, and I do not know whether IL is one of them, there is a doctine of “race recording.” The first person with a recorded deed from the previously indicated owner becomes the new owner, no matter who got a deed first from the prior owner. There are some exceptions to this, I believe, such as the person recording the deed must not have personal knowledge that another deed from the prior owner to a differnt buyer exists.
Also, people reading the public record are relying on it. If somebody has a judgment or other lien against the former property owner, the lienholder could record the lien in the county land records office and the lien would then be against the property. The new owner, with the unrecorded deed, would be obligated to make some deal with the lien-holder to get the lien removed–such as paying off the lien.
Similarly, somebody reconding a lien against the property after the deed was handed over to the new owner but before that deed was recorded in the county records would have the right to initiate foreclosure proceedings against the property. There might be a foreclosure sale against the property and somebody else get a deed, such as the lienholder or some bidder at the auction. The unrecorded deed would probably be worthless at that point, I would think. Unless there were some right of redemption, I suppose. Then things could be confusing as to whether the holder of the unrecorded deed has the right to redeem the property or not. Typically, the redemption rights only can be exercised by people with a recorded interest in the property, such as the titled owner and lienholders. It could be a mess for the person holding the unrecorded deed.
Good Investing**Ron Starr