The Quitclaim Deed and Title of Ownership in Texas: A Case Study

The State of California has a mixed approach in that it is a lien theory and title theory state. According to lien theory "execution of a mortgage or a deed of trust only creates a lien against the property, it does not transfer title. The borrower retains full title to the property throughout the term of the loan and the lender simply has the right to foreclose the lien if the borrower defaults. California is a lien theory state in regards to mortgages but is a title theory state in regards to deeds of trust. According to title theory, the property is transferred but only as collateral with no possessory rights and is referred to as "legal title, bare title, or naked title." (Haupt, 2009, p.206) In either case, should the borrower default, they will lose the property.

The main legal issue to examine regarding this case deals with encroachment, which is simply defined as: A possessory right to the property of another that may be acquired by the passage of time. Crockett has well documented existence of the woodlot property dating back over 20 years and was not met with objection on the part of the Smith, who is the true owner. Due to the fact that the plantiff left the defendant undisturbed for over 20 years, he lost his right to dispute to object the encroachment. Smith would have had to make his objections known regarding Crockett’s occupancy in the log cabin, constructed on his wood lot, many years earlier if he wanted to maintain his right to object.

The argument defending the ordinance says that since Ambler stills holds the title to the land that this does not constitute as a taking of their land even though their land value may depreciate or have restrictions placed on it since their land is still under their

Comstock v. Finn, 56 P.2d 957 (Cal. Ct. App. 1936). The period between 1955 and 1963, the plaintiffs paid rent to remain on the property. Tenants cannot argue a landlord’s title to said property while under his lease for the purpose of adverse possession. Swartzbaugh v. Sampson, 54 P.2d 73, 79 (Cal. Ct. App. 1936). Additionally taxes on the property were assessed to Berkley between 1961 and 1962 to which he paid. Plaintiffs could not produce proof that the monies given to Berkley were for tax payments and not rent payments. Lastly adverse possession as required by Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 325 must be continuous and uninterrupted for a minimum of a five year period. Plaintiff lost interest in the property in 1958 when interest in the property when Moheno received the trustee’s deed. Plaintiff was awarded Berkey’s grant deed in 1962. Thus the plaintiff fell short of the five year requirement as stated

The riparian buffer discussed in the fact pattern describe leaving a 50-foot buffer zone of natural land between both sides of all streams. The plaintiff, Roberta Smith, owns a 100-acre farm which has a stream flowing through it. Under the new riparian buffer regulation four of her 100 acres will be lost because the regulation will prevent her from growing any crops on this four-acre plot of land. The plaintiff argues that a regulatory taking has occurred and that she is entitled to compensation for her lost land. It is important to understand the distinction between eminent domain and a regulatory taking before going further. In Kelo and Village of Euclid eminent domain refers to situations where the government explicitly condemns private land for public use and justify the taking under the 5th

The first element of the statute requires Kelley giving written or oral permission for the use of his land. There are some options for him to consider: a sign indicating the nature and availability of the land for use; and/or a news release with media coverage informing the public that the land is available and all associated details. The contracts which Kelley was already planning on using can serve as release forms, which by its self is not sufficient to alert the whole of the public so one or both of the previous options must be utilized.

Allstate accurately contends that Muhammad never had an insurable enthusiasm for the property at issue here. Allstate introduced proof demonstrating the accompanying chain of title:  on October 28, 2005, Rick Muse, as grantor, issued a security deed to Long Beach Mortgage Company and on March 13, 2006, Rick Muse gave a quitclaim deed to CHMC, Inc. On May 5, 2009, the Lender dispossessed the property at issue and recorded a deed under force from Rick Muse on May 28,

The district court concluded, from the unchallenged findings, that plaintiffs' federal registration is prima facie evidence of the validity of the registration and ownership of the mark; that plaintiffs have both a common-law and a federal right in the mark superior to defendants' in the area of natural expansion of plaintiffs' enterprise which "logically included" all of Illinois, except where defendants had actually adopted and used the mark, innocently, i. e., without notice and in good faith; and that the defendants had adopted and continuously used the mark in the Mattoon area innocently and were entitled to protection in that

According to Ohio law, the person wanting to obtain title from adverse possession must have possessed the property for 21 years without the permission of the owner, but in clear knowledge of the owner ("Ohio Adverse Possession Laws"). There are four requirements listed to obtain a quiet title starting with using the land without permission of the owner. Then they must treat the land as their own, use the land in an obvious way and for a continuous period of time without sharing with others ("Ohio Adverse Possession Laws"). Matt Daman easily completes all four of these requirements. He never asked Brad for permission to clear the land and build a barn on Brad’s land, but did. Brad repeatedly visited and inspected the property in 1986, 1996, and 2002, seeing the barn but never saying anything to Matt. Matt appears to have also used the land for a continuous period totaling 21 years before requesting title to the one acre of land. Brad may have a defense if he had talked to Matt at any time about the property and can prove it, but it will be a hard case to win for him. Matt will win this case for a quiet title to the one acre of land with his barn on it because of the time that had passed with no objection or other claims of possession by Brad.

Thank you for coming to my office yesterday. Since we last met, I have researched your concern regarding whether your neighbors have taken title to your property through adverse possession. I reviewed the facts you gave me as well as the relevant law on the element of open and notorious possession. As we discussed yesterday, the Neros will most likely have title to the disputed property because they have established open and notorious possession of the land through various recreational activities like clearing the land for camping, building a treehouse and bird watching.

“The doctrine of adverse possession obligates the title holder of land to eject, within a statutorily prescribed period, a wrongful possessor of the land. Provided certain other elements are satisfied, a title holder who fails this obligation will lose title to the land in question to the adverse possessor.” (Adverse Possession of, n.d.). There are four elements that must be satisfied for property to be held adversely. First, the possession must be actual and exclusive. The possessor must take sole physical occupancy of the property. In this case, the possession of the gazebo was exclusively hers.

For instance, if two properties had agreed to provide access to a water source that existed on one property years ago, but the water source no longer exists. The purpose of the original easement was to provide access to water to the second property, but if the water is no longer an issue…the easement no longer applies and should be

1. Here is the latest update. According to the Buyer, someone from his closing attorney's firm has reviewed the Quite Claim Bill of Sale. Upon review, the closing attorney's firm is stating that the document does not meet the criteria of a Quit Claim Deed. FORTUNATELY, the closing attorney's firm (once the property is under contract) can email a copy of Quit Claim Deed directly to your ex-wife and she can sign it front of public notary (and likely front of non-related witnesses as well - the closing attorney's firm should later give further signing instruction) and she can simply overnight it back to the closing attorney's office. That being said, this concludes what needs to be done in regards to a Quit Claim Deed. Therefore,

The New London Development Corporation (NLDC) was authorized to cease the property of those refusing to sell their land. These homeowners, consequently, suffered from verbal & physical harassment from the City, thereby making is easier for the Institute of Justice (IJ) to present a case, arguing that the urban renewal project displayed elements of “eminent domain abuse” by forcibly evicting people from their homes. It was argued that “if it is not necessary to take particular property under the guise of accomplishing a public purpose, the taking in any sense cannot be for a public use.” Further, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor emphasized that are only three possible variations of takings that comply with public use requirements; (i) A transfer of private property to the public. (ii) A transfer of private property to common carriers, such as railroads & public utilities. (iii) A transfer of private property to private parties, but only in certain circumstances (Rutkow, 2006). Justice O’Connor, along with Justice Clarence Thomas, disagreed with the standpoint of Justice Anthony Kennedy

The overarching question which this essay will address is whether Stephanie has any legal right to Sunderlandland or Sunderland. The essay will analyse three subsidiary questions, the first being whether the Sunderland was a fixture or remained a chattel, if it was a fixture then the new owner of the land also acquired ownership rights to it. The second issue is whether there was a valid contract, ‘a binding agreement to sell and transfer land in return for the payment of an agreed price’ , between Stephanie and Wangle for Sunderlandland. In relation to this, the final question being whether Stephanie was able to use the defence of proprietary estoppel, which revolves around the idea that ‘if a verbal promise is made to someone who