RE: Root of Title and Patents | ||
|
----- Message from "Mike Vance" <mikevance_@excite.com>
on Sat, 16 Dec 2006 08:51:34 -0600 -----
To:
| <tbkfkg@lisco.com>, <jcassady@doughertylawfirm.com>, <realestate@iabar.org> |
Subject:
| RE: Root of Title and Patents |
In Henry County we waive that
requirement per TS 1.1. After all, there really is no liklihood of litigation,
and if there is, there should be other evidence or knowledge that exists
concerning a claim. Mike Vance Office: ph. 319-385-3736 fax 319-385-2323 --- On Fri 12/15, Tim Kuiken < tbkfkg@lisco.com > wrote: From: Tim Kuiken [mailto: tbkfkg@lisco.com] To: jcassady@doughertylawfirm.com, realestate@iabar.org Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:16:20 -0600 Subject: RE: Root of Title and Patents In Jefferson County, we always show the patent and the attorneys expect it. Some adjoining counties' bar associations have passed resolutions that they are not required. Technically, I agree with you that they are required under the standards to show the patents, but I have accepted abstracts in those counties where there is a resolution to that effect, due to TS 1.1. Tim B. Kuiken, Fairfield, Iowa. -----Original Message----- From: Jason R.S. Cassady [mailto:jcassady@doughertylawfirm.com] Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 1:57 PM To: Real Estate Listserve Subject: Root of Title and Patents We recently reviewed a new root of title abstract in a rural county which did not include a Patent. Based upon Title Standard 11.7 and Iowa Code Section 614.36, we called the abstracter and asked for the patent to be included. We received a fax from the abstracter stating that they did not find a patent and "sometimes patents were not recorded in this county so for this reason we do not include patents in our abstracts." In our title opinion, we required the seller to file a copy of the patent, or provide us with a copy prior to closing. We have since received a letter from the seller's attorney (whose office is also an abstract company in a neighboring county), asking us to waive our requirement pursuant to Title Standard 1.1. While we acknowledge that the likelihood of litigation is remote from the government, we are not certain that this is something that is a title objection so much as it is a defect in the abstract for not meeting the definition of a root of title. We read Section 614.36 to mean that any "right, title or interest of the United States" is still in full force and effect. So, failure to convey would leave the government the true owner, or any restrictions placed on the original conveyance would still be in full force and effect. By the last sentence in the comment of Title Standard 11.7, states that an abstract which is a root of title abstract "will show the patent". The question we want answered is how other attorneys feel about the lack of a Patent in relation to Title Standard 1.1. Is this something that can be overlooked as a remote issue not likely to cause litigation, or is the abstract defective in that it does not represent a true root of title abstract? I've included Section 614.36 and Title Standard 11.7 below for anyone who doesn't want to look them up. Thank you in advance! Jason Jason R.S. Cassady, Attorney at Law Dougherty Law Firm 801 North Avenue Norwalk, IA 50211 Phone: 515-981-5401 Fax: 515-981-5517 Notice: This e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2510-2521, is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please reply to sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it. Thank you. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 614.36 Lessors, reversioners, and easements. This chapter shall not be applied to bar any lessor or lessor's successor as a reversioner of the lessor's right to possession on the expiration of any lease; or to bar or extinguish any easement or interest in the nature of an easement, the existence of which is apparent from or can be proved by physical evidence of its use; or to bar any right, title or interest of the United States, by reason of failure to file the notice herein required. Title Standard 11.7 Does the Marketable Title Act affect the length of the record title chain for which all matters affecting the title must be shown by the abstract? STANDARD: Except as to matters which are excepted from the operation of the Act under Iowa Code § 614.36, the abstract need extend no further beyond forty years from the present time than is necessary to show the “root of title.” Beyond this point search should be confined to those interests excepted from coverage by the Act (i.e., rights of reversioners under leases, claims of the United States and easements which are apparent from or can be proved by physical evidence of their use). It is the purpose of the Marketable Title Act to make the use of “forty-year abstracts” standard throughout the state. COMMENT: A major purpose of the Marketable Title Act is to limit the examination of the record title to a relatively modern period, as reflected in the forty-year chain requirement. Consistent with this shortening of the period of title examinations is the intent to reduce the record search and shorten abstracts. In all cases, the abstract must go back to the conveyance or other title transaction which is the “root of title”. It will rarely occur that this instrument was recorded precisely forty years prior to the present time. In nearly every case the period from the recording of the “root of title” to the present will be somewhat more than forty years. For example, E wishes to have an abstract of title showing the forty-year title required to make title marketable under the Act. The only instruments of record are the following: (1) A patent from the United States to A recorded in 1900; (2) a deed from A to B recorded in 1910; (3) a deed from C to D recorded in 1962; and (4) a deed from D to E recorded in 1990. In 2003 the deed from C to D is the root of title since it is the last instrument recorded forty years or more prior to the present time. Thus, the abstract will show the patent, to extinguish the original claim of the United States, and then start with the deed from C to D. _____________________________ To unsubscribe from this list, send a mail message to "mailto:listserve@iowabar.org" with the following in the subject and body of the message: unsubscribe realestate _____________________________ To unsubscribe from this list, send a mail message to "mailto:listserve@iowabar.org" with the following in the subject and body of the message: unsubscribe realestate |
To:
| "Jason R.S. Cassady" <jcassady@doughertylawfirm.com>, "Real Estate Listserve" <realestate@iabar.org> |
Subject:
| RE: Root of Title and Patents |
-----Original Message-----
From: Jason R.S. Cassady mailto:jcassady@doughertylawfirm.com
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 1:57 PM
To: Real Estate Listserve
Subject: Root of Title and Patents
We recently reviewed a new root of title abstract in a
rural county
which did not include a Patent. Based upon Title Standard 11.7 and
Iowa
Code Section 614.36, we called the abstracter and asked for the patent
to be included. We received a fax from the abstracter stating that
they
did not find a patent and "sometimes patents were not recorded in
this
county so for this reason we do not include patents in our abstracts."
In our title opinion, we required the seller to file a
copy of the
patent, or provide us with a copy prior to closing. We have since
received a letter from the seller's attorney (whose office is also an
abstract company in a neighboring county), asking us to waive our
requirement pursuant to Title Standard 1.1.
While we acknowledge that the likelihood of litigation
is remote from
the government, we are not certain that this is something that is a
title objection so much as it is a defect in the abstract for not
meeting the definition of a root of title.
We read Section 614.36 to mean that any "right, title
or interest of the
United States" is still in full force and effect. So, failure
to convey
would leave the government the true owner, or any restrictions placed on
the original conveyance would still be in full force and effect.
By the last sentence in the comment of Title Standard 11.7,
states that
an abstract which is a root of title abstract "will show the patent".
The question we want answered is how other attorneys feel
about the lack
of a Patent in relation to Title Standard 1.1. Is this something
that
can be overlooked as a remote issue not likely to cause litigation, or
is the abstract defective in that it does not represent a true root of
title abstract?
I've included Section 614.36 and Title Standard 11.7 below
for anyone
who doesn't want to look them up.
Thank you in advance!
Jason
Jason R.S. Cassady, Attorney at Law
Dougherty Law Firm
801 North Avenue
Norwalk, IA 50211
Phone: 515-981-5401
Fax: 515-981-5517
Notice: This e-mail (including attachments) is covered
by the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2510-2521,
is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention,
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is
strictly prohibited. Please reply to sender that you have
received the message in error, then delete it. Thank you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 614.36 Lessors, reversioners, and easements.
This chapter
shall not be applied to bar any lessor or lessor's
successor as a reversioner of the lessor's right to possession on the
expiration of any lease; or to bar or extinguish any easement or
interest in the nature of an easement, the existence of which is
apparent from or can be proved by physical evidence of its use; or to
bar any right, title or interest of the United States, by reason of
failure to file the notice herein required.
Title Standard 11.7
Does the
Marketable Title Act affect the length of the record title
chain for which all matters affecting the title must be shown by the
abstract?
STANDARD:
Except
as to matters which are excepted from the operation of the Act
under Iowa Code § 614.36, the abstract need extend no further beyond
forty years from the present time than is necessary to show the “root
of
title.” Beyond this point search should be confined to those interests
excepted from coverage by the Act (i.e., rights of reversioners under
leases, claims of the United States and easements which are apparent
from or can be proved by physical evidence of their use). It is the
purpose of the Marketable Title Act to make the use of “forty-year
abstracts” standard throughout the state.
COMMENT:
A major
purpose of the Marketable Title Act is to limit the examination
of the record title to a relatively modern period, as reflected in the
forty-year chain requirement. Consistent with this shortening of
the
period of title examinations is the intent to reduce the record search
and shorten abstracts. In all cases, the abstract must go back to
the
conveyance or other title transaction which is the “root of title”. It
will rarely occur that this instrument was recorded precisely forty
years prior to the present time. In nearly every case the period
from
the recording of the “root of title” to the present will be somewhat
more than forty years. For example, E wishes to have an abstract
of
title showing the forty-year title required to make title marketable
under the Act. The only instruments of record are the following:
(1) A
patent from the United States to A recorded in 1900; (2) a deed from A
to B recorded in 1910; (3) a deed from C to D recorded in 1962; and (4)
a deed from D to E recorded in 1990. In 2003 the deed from C to D
is
the root of title since it is the last instrument recorded forty years
or more prior to the present time. Thus, the abstract will show the
patent, to extinguish the original claim of the United States, and then
start with the deed from C to D.
_____________________________
To unsubscribe from this list, send a mail message to "mailto:listserve@iowabar.org"
with the following in the subject and body of the message:
unsubscribe realestate
_____________________________
To unsubscribe from this list, send a mail message to "mailto:listserve@iowabar.org"
with the following in the subject and body of the message:
unsubscribe realestate