mpallamary wrote: Wed Jul 27, 2022 12:20 pm
A deed/conveyance requires an acceptance (Cal.R.E.4th, §8:49).
Acceptance of a deed may be shown by acts, words or conduct of the grantee showing an intent to accept. A deed to a governmental entity must ordinarily contain (either on the face of the deed itself or on a separate sheet attached to the deed) a certificate of acceptance.
Mr Pallamary I'm willing to bet that neither you or your attorney friend can provide an example of a document of acceptance for a private party grant deed
Hi, I cannot on my end. Merely sharing information from an attorney. I asked him for more information. Thanks for the comments. They are always appreciated.
Grantee's intent. As a general rule, acceptance by the grantee requires that the grantee have an
intention to take legal title to the property, manifested by his or her conduct or declaration.
Whether the grantee has accepted the deed is a question of fact.
Acceptance usually is presumed. In most cases, acceptance is not a serious issue because the
court generally presumes an acceptance by the grantee. If, for example, the grantee is a minor or
the deed is delivered to a third person for the benefit of a minor, or the grantee is an incompetent
person, the court presumes that the grantee has accepted the deed. In addition, acceptance is
presumed whenever the conveyance is beneficial to the grantee. Acceptance is also presumed
when the deed is physically delivered to the grantee, recorded, or in the grantee's possession.
The fact of recordation, alone, however, is not conclusive; recordation without consent of the
grantee, express or implied, does not effect a valid delivery, and thus cannot effect an acceptance.
mpallamary wrote: Wed Jul 27, 2022 1:40 pm
If anyone is interested, please see attached.
Thank you Mike! The examples are very helpful.
CBarrett wrote: Wed Jul 20, 2022 10:21 pm
Interesting. In this case it hinges on whether the correction deed (for a legal description error) from 1950's actually passed title. I was reading about correction deeds, and they have to have all elements that a regular grant deed has. This one is missing grantee acceptance.
This is a defect larger than a scrivener error, or an obvious legal description blunder and trying to determine whether this deed passed title is outside of Land Surveying sphere of expertise. We know just enough to signal that there might be a problem.
Now, what would we send to the map review person in order to prove grantee acceptance?
I would have to study it more. I am involved in an easement dispute in Sonoma and one of the parties proposed to grant an easement, to avoid litigation. The other side objected because they did not want what was proposed.
Edward M Reading wrote: Sat Jul 23, 2022 2:03 pm
The fact that a title company will insure something doesn't mean anything. They are just playing the odds; never forget that it is only insurance. I had a recent case in which the surveyor showed a new subdivision boundary over land to which his client did not have title. When they could not provide evidence that their client owned the portion in question, I told them I wouldn't sign the map as it was not technically correct. They found a title company that said they would insure it. I said that isn't evidence. They finally went through a quiet title action.
+1. 100% Truth. Superb call Ed Reading. I have seen some poor decisions rationalized by a title company's willingness to insure the property. No title, no subdivision over the land not included in title. Period.
I am not a fan of recommending a quiet title action. Time and expense is prohibitive. Also, I believe there is a statute of repose that burdens the property for 7 years - in some instances 20 years if it involves a deed of trust. There are several solutions that do not require litigation i.e. a LLA or CofC, Merger that reforms the deeds and clears title or a quit claim of interest "if any" and deed reformation or a quit claim from the original grantor (heir or assign). There are more fixes.
DWoolley
Last edited by DWoolley on Wed Jul 27, 2022 8:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
mpallamary wrote: Wed Jul 27, 2022 3:28 pm
I would have to study it more. I am involved in an easement dispute in Sonoma and one of the parties proposed to grant an easement, to avoid litigation. The other side objected because they did not want what was proposed.
I try to pass on information whenever possible.
Side note, land surveyors should not recommend to clients or facilitate an easement as a remedy for an encroachment.
How is an easement a remedy? Oftentimes the easement burdens/devalues the property and folks do not get modified deeds of trust - making the, er, "remedy" subject to rescission.
Unrelated, in the last few months I have encountered a few particularly egregious practice issues. Unconscionable practice issues that extend well beyond the usual two monument tango, RTN GPS for short boundary distances or failure to file. A bad run of luck for me or the new norm? Hopefully the coming recession will drive these folks to becoming Amazon drivers or any place they can do less damage.
Edward M Reading wrote: Sat Jul 23, 2022 2:03 pm
The fact that a title company will insure something doesn't mean anything. They are just playing the odds; never forget that it is only insurance. I had a recent case in which the surveyor showed a new subdivision boundary over land to which his client did not have title. When they could not provide evidence that their client owned the portion in question, I told them I wouldn't sign the map as it was not technically correct. They found a title company that said they would insure it. I said that isn't evidence. They finally went through a quiet title action.
+1. 100% Truth. Superb call Ed Reading. I have seen some poor decisions rationalized by a title company's willingness to insure the property. No title, no subdivision over the land not included in title. Period.
I am not a fan of recommending a quiet title action. Time and expense is prohibitive. Also, I believe there is a statute of repose that burdens the property for 7 years - in some instances 20 years if it involves a deed of trust. There are several solutions that do not require litigation i.e. a LLA or CofC, Merger that reforms the deeds and clears title or a quit claim of interest "if any" and deed reformation or a quit claim from the original grantor (heir or assign). There are more fixes.
DWoolley
Right now, the recommendation is to consult someone more knowledgeable than a surveyor on matters of title, to see what needs to be done. It will likely not necessitate the actual legal proceeding.
Sometimes people who don't do frequent litigation tend to mix up the terminology.
In specific case I mentioned a set of perfecting deeds may suffice, it is to be determined. The subdivider in question is not a small private party to whom access to legal counsel specializing in boundaries is cost prohibitive.
I keep googling this on and off, regarding what makes a grant deed valid...
Here is a link which leads to case law citations. I have not had the time to read it, I'm posting the link here for continuity and later use. Scanning through it it talks about deed delivery and acceptance. One of these days I'll find time to dig through statute of frauds, and find explanations - today is not it - back to work.
