In one county where I have investment property, the property records are online. Title history for the current and three previous owners is available if you know the address of the property you are searching.
Seems to me that an easy search on your residence address will show that you were once in the chain of title. Even more telling if you transfer title to the trust for no consideration (sale price $0).
I would think the trust would not provide enough camouflage for your personal residence if the attorney had this information resource at his fingertips.
Useless putting existing home into trust? - Posted by able learner
Posted by able learner on August 04, 2004 at 18:09:19:
I am interested in protecting my home from any judgements that might ever incur. Now that the house has already been in my name, would it make any difference at all to put it into a trust with some obscure name?
Opinions? Thanks in advance for your knowlege as to “where to hit the hammer.” Once again, this board has been WONDERFUL.
Posted by John Merchant on August 04, 2004 at 19:03:36:
Yes, it might work for camouflage but only if you were to deed it to the new trust, and the grantee therein was in the name of the trust & nowhere bore your name.
I’d use a trustee other than yourself, and have the tax bills sent to another address…maybe even a UPS store that is used only by the trust.
When doing asset searches, as attornies usually do before deciding to take a case on contingency, do most only check for properties currently titled in the soon-to-be defendant’s name, and end the search right there without more thorough investigation?
Basically, to what extent do land trusts discourage litigation by playing into any tendency of the plaintiff’s bar to indulge in laziness and desire for a quick, easy buck?
In the instant case, the current resident was once on title, a clear red flag if you’re looking for it. Of course, if you never took title personally, the attorney now has to spend more money up front to investgate, though I don’t know much that has to be before they’re going to demand a retainer, which will serve to weed out many frivolous or suspect suits.
Even if the trustee acted as mortgagor and the beneficiary signed an unrecorded guarantee, keeping the beneficiary out of the recorder’s records, I imagine that the same sources that sell information about your bank accounts to a PI would have no trouble finding out who guaranteed the loan, and at little additional cost.