Re: Deed record information - Tony and Julie Howell
Subject: Re: Deed record information
From: Tony and Julie Howell
Date: March 20, 2001

hi ed -   yeah, most likely.  or, in possibly rare cases someone was contesting,
or threatening to contest, legal ownership of the property.

julie
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Edgar Taylor
  To: Tony and Julie Howell
  Cc: [email protected]
  Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 9:32 AM
  Subject: Re: Deed record information


  Julia - thanks for your detailed explanation of the importance of thr
  recording date for deeds. From a genealogical standpoint then, would you
  venture a guees that - when the date of the recording of the deed is long
  after the previous date - the property is about to be sold or transfered to
  someone else even though no other recorded deed of sale exists?

  Ed T of PGH
  ----------
  >From: "Tony and Julie Howell" 
  >To: [email protected]
  >Subject: Re: Deed record information
  >Date: Tue, Mar 20, 2001, 1:10 PM
  >

  >lee -   please allow me to offer what i know about recording documents; i
  >worked for several years for a title company, and a number of years
  >following that for a real estate lawyer.  there is a great significance to
  >the "latter" date, the recording date.  in some cases it is even important
  >to know the "clerk's number" on a recorded document.  recording a document
  >makes it a matter of public record and establishes priority.  the making it
  >public record isn't the more important thing; establishing priority is.
  >should another person claim ownership to, say a piece of land that you own,
  >you can prove that you owned it first by showing, not the date of the deed
  >(as deeds can be forged), but the date the deed was recorded.  if your
  >recording date is earlier than the other person's then your ownership has
  >priority over his.  that is not to say that the other person can't try to
  >sue to get ownership, and it could tie the property up if you tried to sell
  >it with another person clai!
  >ming ownership, but by recording the deed you have established yourself
  >legally as the "owner of record."  so the "second date", the recording
  >date, is actually more important in most cases than the date of the actual
  >deed.  i mentioned the "clerk's number" earlier.  i don't know if recording
  >a document works the same everywhere (currently), and i doubt that, in the
  >early records a clerk's number was assigned to documents.  but, for example
  >(in duval county, fl)  if two people had a deed dated the same day for the
  >same piece of property (i have seen this happen when an unscrupoulous child
  >sold his parents' home out from under them - he forged the deeds - to two
  >separate people) and they took the deeds into the clerk's office to be
  >recorded, the clerk (at least in duval county) gives each document a
  >clerk's number before the document is actually recorded.  that number
  >indicates the order that documents are brought into the clerk's office for
  >recording.  in this particular cas!
  >e both deeds were fraudulent and neither deed held up (the case went to
  >court and the owners' son was convicted).  if the first "owner", for
  >example, defaulted on some terms of ownership, the person holding the other
  >deed might record his and he might have priority of ownership over the
  >other deed.  when a title company performs a search of title records prior
  >to the sale of property, and issues a title policy, they are saying (and
  >accepting liability in case they are wrong) that they have searched the
  >records on that piece of property and have found no claims against the
  >property that have not been satisfied or discharged.
  >
  >title companies, banks and lawyers used to issue Satisfactions of Mortgage
  >when a debt was paid, and would send the signed, witnessed and notarized
  >(but unrecorded) document to the mortgagor.  it was up to the mortgagor to
  >have the document recorded.  frequently no one explained this to the person
  >and, though the debt had been paid off and discharged by the lender, the
  >actual document had never been recorded.  most people thought that just
  >having the signed document was all they needed to have and weren't even
  >aware that a document needed to be recorded.  part of my job at the
  >lawyer's office was to "clear clouds on titles" when a piece of property
  >was being sold and the title search showed various documents that had never
  >been recorded.  99% of those were satisfactions of mortgage.  not recording
  >the document didn't mean that the debt hadn't been paid and discharged.
  >but, while the public records showed the recorded mortgage, they did not
  >show the recorded satisfaction of !
  >that mortgage.  and property cannot be sold until all claims against it can
  >be proved to be paid or otherwise satisfied (marketable title).
  >
  >the subject can get very detailed and involved, and i've probably told you
  >more than you ever wanted to know.  i only hope that my explanation hasn't
  >confused you.
  >
  >have a nice day,
  >julie thames howell
  >jax, fla
  >  ----- Original Message -----
  >  From: Lee Adair
  >  To: [email protected]
  >  Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 6:29 AM
  >  Subject:  Deed record information
  >
  >
  >  Deed book records usually indicate the date the deed was signed
  >  and the date it was recorded. Is there any significance to the latter
  >  date? In SC in the late 1700's and early 1800's, there was
  >  occasionally a large time interval (sometimes years) between the
  >  two dates.
  >  *************************************************
  >   W. Lee Adair, Jr, Ph.D.
  >   Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology
  >   University of South Florida
  >   MDC 7
  >   Tampa, FL  33612
  >   TEL: (813)974-9599
  >   FAX: (813)974-5798
  >  *************************************************


==== SCROOTS Mailing List ====



Go To:  #,  A,  B,  C,  D,  E,  F,  G,  H,  I,  J,  K,  L,  M,  N,  O,  P,  Q,  R,  S,  T,  U,  V,  W,  X,  Y,  Z,  Main