Re: What would u suggest? - Posted by Brad (CA)
Posted by Brad (CA) on September 24, 2005 at 02:25:12:
If you have a notarized Grant Deed, all done legally and signed by the Seller (i.e. transferor), then it would seem YOU own the house.
If you also have a lien on the house, then it sounds like you basically have put a lien on a house that YOU now own. I suppose you could go after her for the lien, but it is secured by the house, which you already own anyway. It kinda makes no sense.
Essentially, it sounds like you bought the house for $10,000, subject to any existing liens and encumbrances, since she signed over the Grant Deed to you. SO, as to your question, holding the Grant Deed, gives you ownership of the house. Although you are not personally responsible for the loans against the house which the “Seller” originally signed, they are encumbered against the house.
Because, you have a lien on the property, you have an interest in the house and can contact the lender who should provide you with all the information and allow you to bring the loan current with all penalties, etc. I forgot the actual terminolgy, but you are an interested party in the house, since you have a recorded lien. Legally, I believe they need to offer you the opportunity to bring the loan current.
But, if you tell them you hold the Grant Deed, and now own the house, they could evoke the “Due on Sale clause” and immediately call the loan due, therefore, you would have to come up with the entire outstanding loan balance, either in cash or another loan, before that lender forecloses.
I would first talk to an attorney to see if what you did was legally binding, then call the lender and tell them you are a lien holder on the property, and you want to know what you need to do to bring the loan current and protect your interest. Then, if it is worth it, bring the loan current, and either foreclose on the house, if your recorded lien allows it, or sell the house, and have fun kicking them out.