How can you grant title and rights to a trustee

[Pottapaug1938]

I absolutely agree with everything you said. About the bolded part, how did we get the title and rights if the bank is the one actually paying for the property? One would think the bank would own the title from the get go and hold it for us until the debt was paid.

When does the seller transfer his rights and title fully to me so that I can grant them to someone else? Is that at the closing table? Seems kind of a round about way don't you think?

PD, you seem unable to understand that the entity which gives me the money to buy my house is the LENDER. They let me use their money, as long as I give them security in the form of legal title to my house. Once I satisfy the conditions of the mortgage, they have to give it back.

As for #2 -- it happens at the closing. The seller couldn't care less what happens to the title after the conveyance is complete. In the case of my late mother's condo, Mom bought it for cash; so there was no lender involved and Mom kept full legal title as long as she lived. It would have made no difference to the seller had she then mortgaged the condo, so long as the purchase price was paid.

[Pottapaug1938]

Who split the title and on what document can you point to that backs up your theory of granting just legal title to the lender?

Look online for the Massachusetts standard forms for deeds and mortgages, and you will see all that you need for that state. other states have similar forms.

[Dr. Caligari]

So you granted them legal title before you paid off the note.

How did you gain legal title before the note was paid? You can grant titles you do not legally own?

Let's make this easy:

Step 1: The bank loans you the money. The money is now yours, but you sign a note agreeing to pay the money back to the bank with interest.

Step 2: You take the money the bank lent you (which is now yours, see step 1) and buy the house from the seller. The house is now yours.

Step 3: You sign a document (called a "mortgage" in some states and a "deed of trust" in others) which gives the bank certain rights to your house (it's yours by now, see step 2) until you pay off the note. (In some states, step 3 involves taking your legal title to the house and transferring it to the bank, but you keeping possession and equitable title; in other states, you continue to have legal title but you give the bank a "lien" which entitles the bank to take legal title and possession away from you if you don't pay the note).

Of course, in practice, the three steps are not separated in time, because the bank wouldn't be happy if you ran away after step 2 and before step 3. So everybody signs everything in advance and the documents get delivered at the closing. But legally, the 3 steps are as I outlined them.

Was that so hard?

[Pottapaug1938]

Who split the title and on what document can you point to that backs up your theory of granting just legal title to the lender?

Look at the Massachusetts standard conveyancing forms for deeds and mortgages. You'll find your answer there.

I'd suggest doing some elementary research on Massachusetts law regarding conveyances; but since your legal research abilities have been proven to be less than stellar, I wouldn't recommend going that route.

You also do not understand the word "theory". It is NOT a synonym for "hypothesis"; and it does NOT equate to a "guess". A "theory" is a compendium of facts which are beyond reasonable dispute.

[arayder]

Our new friend likes to go unto forums and explain how he questioned this or that expert, who he likes to claim, "didn't have clue".

In the sovcit cult, which practices a twisted version of the socratic method, simply hanging around on forums asking endless questions, many of which have already been answered, is seen as befuddling the powers that be with devastating logic.

One might suspect that PD's visits here are his notion of practice for legal debates in the real world, maybe during an attempt to clean up a "client's" credit.

But, I think our visitor simply wants to go back to his buds and tell them his questions couldn't be answered.

[Famspear]

....But, I think our visitor simply wants to go back to his buds and tell them his questions couldn't be answered.

If that's the case, one would think that because his questions are repeatedly answered and because he is repeatedly humiliated in the process here at Quatloos, he would realize that his time could be more efficiently spent simply by avoiding asking the questions in Quatloos at all -- and simply falsely asserting among his buds -- at the Wackadooster Websites -- that his marvelous questions just cannot be answered.

In other words, why go to the trouble of even coming to Quatloos and asking the questions? But, of course, asking a question like that would be too logical.

[Pottapaug1938]

....But, I think our visitor simply wants to go back to his buds and tell them his questions couldn't be answered.

If that's the case, one would think that because his questions are repeatedly answered and because he is repeatedly humiliated in the process here at Quatloos, he would realize that his time could be more efficiently spent simply by avoiding asking the questions in Quatloos at all -- and simply falsely asserting among his buds -- at the Wackadooster Websites -- that his marvelous questions just cannot be answered.

In other words, why go to the trouble of even coming to Quatloos and asking the questions? But, of course, asking a question like that would be too logical.

PD is a glutton for punishment. arayder has PD pegged perfectly -- he wants nothing more than to strut back onto Sooey and related sites, and brag about how he Posed Tough Questions To the Quatloosian Experts but could not get an answer. He conveniently will leave out his evasions, goalpost-moving, inexpert legal citation attempts, and more.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Folks, the appropriate answer to the posed question ("How can you grant title and rights to a trustee?") is:

"Via properly prepared, executed and recorded legal documents."

Why make this more difficult (and longer) than it needs to be?

[JamesVincent]

Lord, don't let anyone bring up a land contract.....

[Gregg]

Also, part of PD's problem might be that he cannot grasp the concept that a legal term has more than one meaning, just as ordinary every day words have more than one meaning.

The root problem is he's an asshole.

[arayder]

....But, I think our visitor simply wants to go back to his buds and tell them his questions couldn't be answered.

If that's the case, one would think that because his questions are repeatedly answered and because he is repeatedly humiliated in the process here at Quatloos, he would realize that his time could be more efficiently spent simply by avoiding asking the questions in Quatloos at all -- and simply falsely asserting among his buds -- at the Wackadooster Websites -- that his marvelous questions just cannot be answered.

In other words, why go to the trouble of even coming to Quatloos and asking the questions? But, of course, asking a question like that would be too logical.

It's the same reason freemen and sovcits in the U.S. and Canada go before the courts echoing the same old failed arguments. . .the same reason they goof on cops during traffic stops.

The reason is that it is psychology far easier for freemen/sovcits cult members to live in a fantasy world in which their pseudo-scholarship passes for wisdom and knowledge than to accept the reality that they are intellectual lightweights on the wrong side of law, history and 21st century western culture.

In light of the cult's pathological denial it's no wonder our new friend might think he can sashay back to his sovcit forum buddies with a they-couldn't-answer-my-questions story.

The root problem is he's an asshole.

There is something to be said for that point of view, too.

[LPC]

The root problem is he's an asshole.

I'm not sure why you made that singular.

Judging by the volume of crap he has posted here, and estimating the trajectory of the crap, it seems likely that there are multiple orifices spewing said crap.

[grixit]

So why hasn't pd been put on moderation and required to stick to the terms he sets at the beginning of one of his excursions?

[Lambkin]

So why hasn't pd been put on moderation and required to stick to the terms he sets at the beginning of one of his excursions?

Sounds good to me. What's the point of encouraging more of the same behavior? He's uninterested in answers which contradict his silly notions.

[wserra]

Because: (1) in this thread, he has stayed relatively on-topic; and (2) people keep answering him. No reason not to answer him, if you want to engage a troll. However, it's hard to censor - and that's what it is, even if warranted - someone to whom regulars believe it worth responding.

[arayder]

I agree. In past threads PD has called people names, told other posters they were stupid and consistently changed the topic so as to avoid any sort of closure on whatever point he is discussing.

Maybe all that doesn't happen until page 4 or 5 of the threads and since we are on page 2 we can only sit with our popcorn and wait.

[morrand]

At the closing table if you do not already own the title?

Remember me telling you that the house was paid for at the closing table with your promise to pay note(promissory note)?

How do I know this you ask? Look at your paperwork that gives the bank the right to take the house back...... Notice how it says your "lawfully seised" of the property?

Deeds usually contain covenants concerning seisin, good right to convey ... all of the usual covenants, only one of which, however, if any, was broken, that is, according to the allegations of the complaint, and that is the covenant of seisin. ... So, with no other covenant of possession, the term "lawfully seised," as used In the deed herein, ought to be construed to include it "Livery of seisin" at common law, from which term the word "seisin" In our deeds is unquestionably derived, meant delivery of actual possession ... .

Livery of seisin has been abolished over by here. 765 ILCS 5/1. Maybe in Florida, too (689.09 Florida Statutes), but I'm not actually entirely sure of what they're trying to say there.

So, PD, how does that affect things?

[Pottapaug1938]

I was just remembering the times, in the late 80s and early 90s, when I handled, among other things, foreclosures for a Boston lender. Just for the hell of it, whenever I was about to handle a foreclosure sale, I handed a twig to my boss and had him snap it in two, which as I recall was once a legal necessity to signify entry by the mortgage holder for the purpose of foreclosing the mortgage and exercising the power of sale. Of course, when I did this, the gesture was legally meaningless; but it was fun (to a small degree) to resurrect the old gesture.

[JennyD]

....But, I think our visitor simply wants to go back to his buds and tell them his questions couldn't be answered.

If that's the case, one would think that because his questions are repeatedly answered and because he is repeatedly humiliated in the process here at Quatloos, he would realize that his time could be more efficiently spent simply by avoiding asking the questions in Quatloos at all -- and simply falsely asserting among his buds -- at the Wackadooster Websites -- that his marvelous questions just cannot be answered.

In other words, why go to the trouble of even coming to Quatloos and asking the questions? But, of course, asking a question like that would be too logical.

Finally a post in one of PD's threads that actually gets to the heart of his questions.. even though you made my head hurt just then Famspear...

[Prof]

If PD wants an answer, he should ask GOOGLE, which would direct him to a number of sites that describe mortgages and deeds of trust.

See, e.g., http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/ ... trust.html Mortgages and deeds of trust are just devices to create a valid lien on real property to secure repayment of borrowed funds. The borrowed money may be used to purchase the property or improve the property or -- assuming the property is raw land or business property or that the state law allows borrowing against a homestead -- to take a trip around the world or pay for a face lift.

I presume that most of the readers of this forum understand that some states -- by statute -- permit loans (notes) secured by real estate to be secured by a "contract" known as a mortgage, in which the lender holds the lien and the lender acts directly to foreclose on the lien, usually by judicial foreclosure. In such states, there is usually a judicial proceeding at which the lender proves up the debt and balance due and the existence of a valid mortgage duly recorded. Then a judicially ordered sale takes place and the property is sold to the highest bidder with the proceeds applied to the balance due on the note.

Other states (Texas, for example) use the "Deed of Trust" in which legal title is held by a trustee for the benefit of a lender -- usually an officer of the lender, in Texas -- who, upon default, will conduct an non-judicial foreclosure sale on notice only (no court is involved) and will sell the collateral real estate to the highest bidder and apply the proceeds in satisfaction or partial satisfaction of the debt. If the loan is paid off, the trustee conveys legal title to the borrower.

The advantage is non-judicial foreclosure. This is easy to understand. If I want to borrow money secured by real property, I sign a note and agree to and sign a deed of trust. The deed of trust gives legal title to the trustee and equitable title to me. I have the right to occupy and use the property until I default. If I default, the trustee gives me notice and conducts a sale for the benefit of the lender, who is the beneficiary under the deed of trust.

In both cases, prior and priority liens ( particularly real estate ad valorem taxes) are not extinguished but subordinate liens (second liens, federal tax liens, judgment liens) are wiped out. Also, the usual buyer is the lender, who credit bids up to the amount due on the note. Rarely is there a third party with cash who purchases at foreclosure, but I have seen that happen.