InnoVest Resource Management's Foreclosure Forum

Discussion Board Foreclosure Training Title Holding Trust Speaking Schedule Foreclosure Codes 50 State Foreclosure Basics Foreclosure Glossary 60+ Yrs Interest Rates News & Trends FAQ Dingbat Retirement Plan Links Contact / Map Home

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Forum Board ] [ FAQ ] Re: Somehow, I'm not surprised. Posted by Ward-CA- on September 19, 2001 at 7:02 AM In Reply to: bail bonds posted by alfred on September 18, 2001 at 10:59 PM : Hey Ward, : Interesting thing came up in title research today. 3 parties are on title to this property. They've used the property before as security for bail bonds and always paid them back. (One of them must be a real jail bird.) The existing 1st (164K, 1993) came about in all of their names. Then in 1994 Party A of the threesome quitclaimed his interest over to the other two. Then in 1998, Party A used the property for security again with the same bail bond company (35K, and this is the 2nd). It wasn't showing up in my title search -- I had to check each individual's name in the grantee/grantor index to finally find it. There is just his signature on the TD, neither of the other two. He is not even on title anymore due to the QC right? Does that bail bond TD have the property as security or not? Did he pull a fast one on the bail bond company? : (I called the bail bond company to see what they thought and knew about this but the person in charge won't be back in town until the end of the week.) What about this, is this something to pursue or is this a dead horse? : =•=•=•=•=•=•=•=•=•=•==•=• Alfred, are you chasing a junior bene that’s subject to a 1st trust deed that’s in foreclosure on this deal? That would really be weird because that would make the 1st quite old for a secured bail bond. My guess is that the 1993 “existing 1st of 164K” has been paid and that the bail bond company has typically not recorded the reconveyance they’re supposed to. Yes, when someone voluntarily deeds away their interest in real property, regardless of the type of deed used, they no longer have any interest in the property and so can’t subsequently put any voluntary liens against it since they no longer own it. Thus given the facts you’re reciting, the 2nd for 35K would not be a valid lien against the property. What I’d ask the guy in charge at the bail bondsman’s business when he gets back is what kind of title check did they do? Did they get a lender’s title policy? In the meantime, look on the face of the 35K trust deed and see if you can find a title order number around its periphery and see if it recorded exactly at 8:00 AM. I’m going to guess you don’t find any title order reference and that it was recorded later than 8:00 AM—both indications that no title report was done. I suspect exactly what you suspect, and that is that Party A snookered the bondsman and gave them a phony trust deed that has no value at all. Somehow, I’m not surprised. Follow Ups: more data Alfred B 8:19 AM, 09/19/01 (1) Re: more data Ward-CA- 12:29 AM, 09/19/01 (0) Post a Followup: Name : E-Mail : Subject : Comments: : : Hey Ward, : : Interesting thing came up in title research today. 3 parties are on title to this property. They've used the property before as security for bail bonds and always paid them back. (One of them must be a real jail bird.) The existing 1st (164K, 1993) came about in all of their names. Then in 1994 Party A of the threesome quitclaimed his interest over to the other two. Then in 1998, Party A used the property for security again with the same bail bond company (35K, and this is the 2nd). It wasn't showing up in my title search -- I had to check each individual's name in the grantee/grantor index to finally find it. There is just his signature on the TD, neither of the other two. He is not even on title anymore due to the QC right? Does that bail bond TD have the property as security or not? Did he pull a fast one on the bail bond company? : : (I called the bail bond company to see what they thought and knew about this but the person in charge won't be back in town until the end of the week.) What about this, is this something to pursue or is this a dead horse? : : : =•=•=•=•=•=•=•=•=•=•==•=• : Alfred, are you chasing a junior bene that’s subject to a 1st trust deed that’s in foreclosure on this deal? That would really be weird because that would make the 1st quite old for a secured bail bond. My guess is that the 1993 “existing 1st of 164K” has been paid and that the bail bond company has typically not recorded the reconveyance they’re supposed to. : Yes, when someone voluntarily deeds away their interest in real property, regardless of the type of deed used, they no longer have any interest in the property and so can’t subsequently put any voluntary liens against it since they no longer own it. Thus given the facts you’re reciting, the 2nd for 35K would not be a valid lien against the property. : What I’d ask the guy in charge at the bail bondsman’s business when he gets back is what kind of title check did they do? Did they get a lender’s title policy? In the meantime, look on the face of the 35K trust deed and see if you can find a title order number around its periphery and see if it recorded exactly at 8:00 AM. I’m going to guess you don’t find any title order reference and that it was recorded later than 8:00 AM—both indications that no title report was done. : I suspect exactly what you suspect, and that is that Party A snookered the bondsman and gave them a phony trust deed that has no value at all. Somehow, I’m not surprised. Optional Link URL: Link Title: Optional Image URL: [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Forum Board ] [ FAQ ] WWWAdmin 2.0a © 1997 Matt Wright and DBasics Software Company, All Rights Reserved

Copyright © 1997-2001, InnoVest Resource Management

InnoVest Resource Management, 4569-A Mission Gorge Place, San Diego CA 92120-4112
(619) 283-5444, Fax (619) 283-5455