Thu, Jul 24, 2008
|
TCI Shopping
|
|
Featured TCI Properties |
|
Golf course/ near ocean
Foley, AL
|
| Price: $249,900 | | FMV: $285,000 | |
|
|
Altered Documents
| | Tuesday, October 26, 2004 @ 12:00 PM EDT
|  Printer Friendly Page
 Send this Story to a Friend |
Contributed by: Inactive Account
Inactive Account Properties
Read more archived articles about Law and Legal Issues
A recent decision of a Utah Court of Appeals covers some ABC's of conveyancing. The case is Julian v. Petersen, 966 P.2d 878 (1998).
Back in the 1960s Lillian Julian and her brother, Joseph Corbridge, were owners as joint tenants of property south of Salt Lake City, near Provo.
In 1969, Ms. Julian quitclaimed her interest in the PIQ(property in question) to Mr. Corbridge, by a Quitclaim Deed which was delivered to Mr. Corbridge but not immediately recorded.
Some time later, the name of Mr. Corbridge's wife, LaRetta Corbridge, was added to the
 | |
| Advertisement |
Quitclaim Deed as an additional grantee via the handwriting of someone other than Ms. Julian. This alteration was done without Ms. Julian's knowledge or consent. Then, in 1980, the Quitclaim Deed was recorded.
LaRetta Corbridge died in 1988, leaving two sons from a prior marriage.
In September 1995 Mr. Corbridge executed and recorded an Affidavit declaring that the deceased Mrs. Corbridge was the same person named as a grantee in the 1969 Quitclaim Deed. The apparent motive for this recording was to re-vest title in Mr. Corbridge, solely. At the same time, Mr. Corbridge executed and recorded a Quitclaim Deed to Ms. Julian and himself, as joint tenants. Then Mr. Corbridge died--his affairs in dubious order.
A controversy soon arose between Ms. Julian and the sons of LaRetta Corbridge, Leonard and Arnold Petersen. The Petersen brothers claimed an interest in the PIQ as heirs of LaRetta, who died without a will.
Ms. Julian filed an action to quiet title--and she moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted her motion on grounds that alteration of the 1969 Quitclaim Deed rendered it void as a matter of law.
The Petersen brothers appealed, arguing that the alteration did not void the 1969 Quitclaim Deed, but instead the Quitclaim Deed effectively vested title in Mr. Corbridge--which he, in turn, was free to convey in whole or in part to whomever he chose without the consent of Ms. Julian. Second, the brothers argued that the alteration and Affidavit, whether viewed separately or together, were sufficient to convey a one-half interest in the property to LaRetta.
The Court of Appeals first agreed that the alteration did not render the Quitclaim Deed void. Making a distinction between an undelivered and a delivered deed, the Court said that alteration of an undelivered instrument would render it void. But this Quitclaim Deed was altered after delivery to Mr. Corbridge and, therefore, the alteration did not interfere with the conveyance as to him.
Next the Court considered sufficiency of the alteration to convey an interest to LaRetta, and held it did not. The Court said that the only way Mr. Corbridge could re-vest title in another was by complying with Utah conveyancing laws, which, while perhaps not crsytal-clear on this point, have been interpreted to require (1) a writing, (2) signed by the grantor, (3) supported by consideration, and (4) delivered to the grantee.
In this case, the Court found that irregardless of his intentions Mr. Corbridge's apparent attempt to re-vest the property was ineffective because (1) Mr. Corbridge never signed the altered instrument, and (2) there was no evidence Mr. Corbridge delivered the "deed" to LaRetta (even though it was recorded eight years before she died). And, said the Court, the Affidavit--made at a time when LaRetta was deceased and delivery was impossible--did not cure these defects.
Finally, the Court made short work of the brothers' argument that the Affidavit alone should be sufficient to accomplish a re-vesting into Mr. and Mrs. Corbridge, as co-owners. Said the Court, "(a) deed naming a deceased person or his or her estate as a grantee is void because neither the estate nor the decedent is a legal entity."
So the 1969 Quitclaim Deed vested title in Mr. Corbridge, solely, and his 1995 Quitclaim Deed re-vested title in himself and Ms. Julian as joint tenants--so that upon his subsequent death the title vests in Ms. Julian by right of survivorship.
By-Bert Rush---------------------------------
Word Cloud:
time deceased julian render property mrs. court, quitclaim corbridge, utah title void. interest recorded. estate deed, alteration />
the corbridge's signed re-vest undelivered corbridge void sufficient laretta, laretta appeals without julian. recorded affidavit were court because delivered altered documents brothers same 1969 grantee person delivery 1995 joint between deed executed apparent said petersen convey sons with and, vested />
in died this
|
|
| |
Average Score: 3.5
Votes: 2
|
|
| "" | Login/Create an Account | 0 Comments |
|
| These comments are owned by the posters. We aren't responsible for their content nor endorse them.TCI Comment section - where you are the moderator!If you see an offensive post or advertisement, please use the "As Is" drop down menu to choose a topic rank, then click Moderate at the bottom. This in turn will allow registered users to view only the topics that are most relevant to the article and get rid of the advertisement spam and junk. |
|
|
