Posted by John Merchant on August 05, 2004 at 08:20:44:
No, because you’re just selling what you own, which is a set of rights to the property-recorded or not-and which does not involve you’re representing anyone else as an agent.
A license is only required wherein one is acting as an agent for another person…so just make sure your paperwork is very clear that it’s YOUR rights you’re selling, nobody else’s.
And one more thing…the Memo doesn’t always work, and I’ve seen title co. “bond around” it, as in their opinion, it was insignificant! (Don’t ask me why they so decide, as I sure don’t know).
And, in some states, such as CA, one canNOT record a Memo as it’s not one of the docs they allow to be recorded…they have a very tight little list of recordable docs.
I just completed a spirited debate with my partner about the subject to process. Without tipping our hands I would like to get some feedback. We have gotten warranty deeds from sellers, recorded them and went about selling the property through a lease option. We have also taken control of houses by getting the deed and purchase and sale agreement, without recording the deed but just recording a memorandum of understanding. We have a power of attorney so at close with our buyer the sale actually takes place between the original seller and our buyer. This works well and avoids seasoning issues. Any thoughts on pro’s and cons of either method as everyone seems to teach get the deed and record it.
To record the deed or not - Posted by John Merchant
Posted by John Merchant on August 18, 2004 at 09:18:09:
I once sold a lot to a guy, who for whatever reasons, known only to himself, just wouldn’t record !
I suspected it was for “benefit” of withholding the knowlege of his assets from his ex-W…don’t know why, but H&W disputes often don’t exactly bring out the best in people
Drove me nuts wondering if someday I’d wake up with a lawsuit served on me, arising out of his operation of that RE, but fortunately didn’t happen.
This is the main reason that an escrow co. is normally very quick to record, so the S knows it’s been done…which you, as do-it-yourself S, don’t necessarily know if you don’t record for the buyer.
This act seems to have more risk than reward. What your motivation behind such a strategy? Most states prioritize claims of ownership based on the chronological order of filings. I.E. if you do not file a deed to state your claim, some sue-happy person in a attempt to sue the former owner might lay claim on your property. If the former owner is pushing up daisys (dead), you might find yourself in a fix.
I assume you are paying cash The next problem i see is your seller is going to have to pay taxes on the sale of a property at a higher sale price than he really received and i believe that will be a problem
Re: To record the deed or not - Posted by John Merchant
Posted by John Merchant on August 04, 2004 at 19:00:28:
I fully understand your ambiguity on the issue, and I have to admit I’ve done it both ways.
Guess that we’d find a lot of mucho experienced REIs on both sides of this one.
I think my trepidation on keeping it in the old S’s name would be twofold: First, that he might “forget” and re-deed to somebody else; Second, that then we’re really involving him in our new transaction and that could lead to some legal problems if our new B were to make any claims against the S…who would then be listed as the original owner/S!
If you don’t record the deed you put yourself at risk of other liens and judgements that could end up recorded against the property. Since most states are a race state you would end up having to cure any other liens or judgements that get recorded before your deed is recorded.
The one thing we have been doing to protect ourselves is to record a memorandum of understanding in case they try to sell to someone else the title will have a cloud. The one question that is uncertain is if we do not record the deed are we acting as brokers? and is there a penalty for doing so?
