The court described three categories of claimants:Ī.Ěs to a person who had a “claim to the property” at the point in time at which quiet title was determined and who was “a part to the action,” a quiet title judgment under the Act is “binding and conclusive.”ī.Ěs to a person who had a “claim to the property” at the point in time at which quiet title was determined and who was not a party to the action, a quiet title judgment under the Act is “binding and conclusive” unless, “at the time the lis pendens was filed or, if none was filed, at the time the judgment was recorded,” (1) the nonparty’s claim was “of record” (§§ 764.030, subd. Under the Quiet Title Act, if the plaintiff satisfies the Act’s requirements, the resulting judgment stands up against later attack. As a general rule, whichever deed of trust is recorded first in time is entitled to priority. The court first noted that whether Tsasu is entitled to the relief it seeks turns entirely on what effect, if any, the trial court’s orders setting aside and expunging the 2015 Quiet Title Judgment have on Tsasu’s Deed of Trust, which was recorded after the 2015 Quiet Title Judgment was recorded but before it was set aside as void.
The title search results accurately reflected the above described recorded documents-namely, a “Judgment, Quiet Title” on Jagainst “The CIT Group” as well as two “Deed of Trust/Assignment”Ĭelestine defaulted, and apparently, Tsasu investigated the situation and sued US Bank to declare Tsus’ deed of trust had priority over US bank. In deciding whether to loan Celestine money, Tsasu’s CEO relied upon a preliminary report prepared by a title insurance company, and that report was based upon “the results of the title search” obtained by that company. At that time the recorded documents in the record of title for the property included (1) the 2015 Quiet Title Judgment against CIT Group that invalidated the CIT Deed of Trust, and (2) the 20 assignments of the CIT Deed of Trust reflecting that the CIT Group had not owned the CIT Deed of Trust since 2012. – In September 2016 Celestine borrowed from TSASU that deed of trust was recorded in September 2016. – In August 2016 CIT’s successor appeared in the action and got the Quiet Title Judgment set aside and expunged. –Ĝelestine got a default judgment, and in August 2015 the court expunged the Deed of Trust! –Ĝelestine sued and recorded a lis pendens, but do not name and serve the assignees- only the original lender CIT, who no longer had an interest.
–Ĝelestine borrowed money from CIT, who assigned the deed of trust to US Bank. Bank Trust, N.A the court had a complicated series of facts. This decision is interesting because the buyer would have had to do some digging (and actually did obtain title insurance) to realize there was a defect. In a recent decision out of Inglewood, CA, the court decided that they must have neither actual notice or constructive notice.
The buyer may not have seen it, but the law treats them as if they had.
Does it mean actual knowledge, or include “constructive” knowledge? is a legal concept that, in real estate, generally applies when the document must be recorded as prescribed by law. The third party must do so without knowledge of any defects in the judgment. In California, a third party who acts in reliance on a quiet title judgment retains its property rights even if the judgment is later invalidated as void, as long as the third party qualifies as a bona fide purchaser for value.
0 kommentar(er)
