How People Steal Houses in Philadelphia
January 10, 2015 9:18 AM Subscribe
A tip on a shady deed transfer involving a man who died in 1980 is continuing to uncover many other instances; an on-going nine-part (so far) investigation.
Part 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Philadelinquency, which calls itself "the underbelly of Philadelphia real estate," was started in 2012 by Chris Sawyer, who first pledged to rid of the city of bandit signs.
Part 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Philadelinquency, which calls itself "the underbelly of Philadelphia real estate," was started in 2012 by Chris Sawyer, who first pledged to rid of the city of bandit signs.
The fraudster is taking advantage of the obvious flaws in America's property recording system. No one else in the developed world is still using deed recording and its associated junk the way we are. Even England, which invented this way of doing things when all there was to work with was documents on parchment sealed with wax, switched to a Torrens title system years ago. But here in the USA, a conspiracy among real estate lawyers, investors, mortgage insurance companies, and real estate agents (yes, really) keeps the current creaky system shambling along. Here in Massachusetts there IS a Torrens title system, but through slow gnawing away by the state courts it's been reduced to almost nothing. Real estate lawyers will tell you you're crazy for wanting to register land, and nearly all of the actions related to land registered in the Torrens system is to remove the land from the registers and return it to the deed recorders. Mortgage companies will still require you to buy title insurance on registered land, even though the entire point is that there are no contests allowed with respect to ownership when land is registered. In Iowa at least this has been made illegal, but here in Massachusetts it's business-as-usual. To be clear: people are removing land from a registration system that gives you near-absolute confidence in title, that will never require you to do a title search and that should make "title insurance" meaningless, and moving it back to a system where any jerk can record any document against any parcel.
On Wednesday in court I heard two lawyers arguing about whether a non-recorded deed executed in 1952 is effective against the grantee. The answer to that question in every jurisdiction but our own is: no.
posted by 1adam12 at 10:04 AM on January 10, 2015 [18 favorites]
On Wednesday in court I heard two lawyers arguing about whether a non-recorded deed executed in 1952 is effective against the grantee. The answer to that question in every jurisdiction but our own is: no.
posted by 1adam12 at 10:04 AM on January 10, 2015 [18 favorites]
If the police and the District Attorney were doing their job, there would be no need for this kind of in-the-moment investigative reporting.
At what point do frankly ridiculous filings (like the quitclaim deed for house #3, where Joeziel Vasquez is the grantee, the only witness, and the notary without a stamp) start to imply corruption on the part of public officials rather than mere incompetence?
posted by muddgirl at 10:16 AM on January 10, 2015 [6 favorites]
At what point do frankly ridiculous filings (like the quitclaim deed for house #3, where Joeziel Vasquez is the grantee, the only witness, and the notary without a stamp) start to imply corruption on the part of public officials rather than mere incompetence?
posted by muddgirl at 10:16 AM on January 10, 2015 [6 favorites]
To be clear: people are removing land from a registration system that gives you near-absolute confidence in title, that will never require you to do a title search and that should make "title insurance" meaningless, and moving it back to a system where any jerk can record any document against any parcel.
part of the problem is that land boundaries are very much the wild west in the US... I don't know how it is in Europe but lots of buildings here sit on lots with only very tenuous records as to what the boundaries are. My house in particular is on a lot for which it's just not possible to define the boundaries in any non-challengeable way. Many of the houses in my Massachusetts town sit on legal town roads, some roads go through non-taken land parcels. And then the town itself doesn't even have a clear record of what is *actually* a town road. The best we have is a handwritten log-book of town meeting notes going back to 1892.
actually registering the land would open a huge expensive can of worms.
posted by ennui.bz at 10:41 AM on January 10, 2015
part of the problem is that land boundaries are very much the wild west in the US... I don't know how it is in Europe but lots of buildings here sit on lots with only very tenuous records as to what the boundaries are. My house in particular is on a lot for which it's just not possible to define the boundaries in any non-challengeable way. Many of the houses in my Massachusetts town sit on legal town roads, some roads go through non-taken land parcels. And then the town itself doesn't even have a clear record of what is *actually* a town road. The best we have is a handwritten log-book of town meeting notes going back to 1892.
actually registering the land would open a huge expensive can of worms.
posted by ennui.bz at 10:41 AM on January 10, 2015
Is there some popular conspiratological justification for opposing and dismantling land title registries, such as having to register your land being a surrender of precious American freedoms to the Big Brother state, sort of like water fluoridation/smart meters/Common Core?
posted by acb at 10:52 AM on January 10, 2015
posted by acb at 10:52 AM on January 10, 2015
Wow, so much breathless, over-excited reporting. While this guy's 9-part investigation is about 3 parts guesswork, 3 parts irrelevant information, 1 part inuendo and only 2 parts actual relevant facts, to his credit I would bet that this investigation did get the wheels of the justice system spinning a little faster than they would have otherwise.
But in case anyone's wondering: this is not how you steal houses in Philadelphia, or anywhere else. The "story" here amounts to: a guy who was very ballsy but not as smart as he thought he was managed to slip a bunch of obviously-forged documents past a bunch of totally apathetic government clerks. He only got away with it for as long as he has because he tried it with properties nobody cared about much - a little old lady's second property, a foreign investment group's cheap rental house, etc.
The fraudster is taking advantage of the obvious flaws in America's property recording system.
The "flaw" he was taking advantage of was the fact that government clerks didn't give a shit and rubber-stamped everything he brought them without even looking at it. I'm pretty confident this flaw exists in literally every bureaucracy ever, though it sounds like the level of apathy in Philadelphia is really disastrously high.
In a torrens/registered-land system (also called the "Land Court" in Massachusetts), that same flaw not only still exists but would be far more damaging and much harder to fix, because the bureaucrats who rubber-stamped these deeds would have the power and authority of the Land Court on their side, making the presumption that the deed was valid significantly harder to overturn. I have years of experience with both of the land records systems in Massachusetts, and I can tell you exactly why people advocate taking property out of the registered-land system: mistakes and screw-ups happen under both systems but under registered-land those screwups are a lot harder and more time-consuming to fix.
posted by mstokes650 at 10:55 AM on January 10, 2015 [3 favorites]
But in case anyone's wondering: this is not how you steal houses in Philadelphia, or anywhere else. The "story" here amounts to: a guy who was very ballsy but not as smart as he thought he was managed to slip a bunch of obviously-forged documents past a bunch of totally apathetic government clerks. He only got away with it for as long as he has because he tried it with properties nobody cared about much - a little old lady's second property, a foreign investment group's cheap rental house, etc.
The fraudster is taking advantage of the obvious flaws in America's property recording system.
The "flaw" he was taking advantage of was the fact that government clerks didn't give a shit and rubber-stamped everything he brought them without even looking at it. I'm pretty confident this flaw exists in literally every bureaucracy ever, though it sounds like the level of apathy in Philadelphia is really disastrously high.
In a torrens/registered-land system (also called the "Land Court" in Massachusetts), that same flaw not only still exists but would be far more damaging and much harder to fix, because the bureaucrats who rubber-stamped these deeds would have the power and authority of the Land Court on their side, making the presumption that the deed was valid significantly harder to overturn. I have years of experience with both of the land records systems in Massachusetts, and I can tell you exactly why people advocate taking property out of the registered-land system: mistakes and screw-ups happen under both systems but under registered-land those screwups are a lot harder and more time-consuming to fix.
posted by mstokes650 at 10:55 AM on January 10, 2015 [3 favorites]
1adam12 is correct as far as I can tell -- the property recording system in this country is broken and largely captured by interests who don't want to see it fixed. It's a mystery to me why more people don't seem to be concerned about this -- I suppose it's the relative rarity of flagrant outright fraud, but even without the threat of losing your home to someone who's good at paperwork people ought at least to be concerned about the money each of the parties involved drains in transaction fees.
I remember a disillusioning moment when I bought my home. After diligently doing all of the things a purchaser is supposed to do, I showed up at the local title agency where the closing was being held. When I was presented with the final documents I noticed that the legal description of the property had been changed, and it wasn't a subtle change, either -- a whole sentence clause had been inserted, changing the legal description from "lots (#) and (#) of (local zoning section)" to "lots (#) and (#) of (local zoning section), excepting those portions surrendered by quitclaim deed by (past owner) on (date)."
"Excuse me," I said, "I need to know why the legal description has changed and what exactly this is referring to."
Everyone else in the room was pretty obviously just there to get paid because they looked at me as if I had suddenly grown a second head. "It's OK, just sign," said the seller's agent.
"It's probably nothing," said "my" agent, "don't worry about it."
"I want to know exactly what this means," I insisted, "and I'm not signing anything until I do."
The title agent reacted as if I was being petulant and unreasonable, "I'll have to go look up the deed," he whined, as though his entire role in the transaction wasn't to be there to make sure that the transaction that was agreed upon was accurately and faithfully executed. (Although maybe that's not what he was there for. I'm still a little confused about what value he supposedly added to the process.)
I began to suspect that none of the "professionals" in the room, including those who were allegedly there to safeguard my interests, had the least bit of concern about what my interests were, just so long as the transaction took place and they all got their commissions. And I'm guessing my experience was not all that uncommon and that a lot of people wind up screwed by a system they thought was supposed to protect them. I never did figure out who was responsible for the discrepancy between the two descriptions. It did in fact clip a section off the property and adjoin it to a neighbor's property but the alteration was one that I decided I could live with -- ONCE WE HAD RESEARCHED IT AND I WAS SATISFIED I KNEW WHAT IT WAS. I still can't believe anyone expected me to sign without knowing.
posted by Nerd of the North at 11:06 AM on January 10, 2015 [30 favorites]
I remember a disillusioning moment when I bought my home. After diligently doing all of the things a purchaser is supposed to do, I showed up at the local title agency where the closing was being held. When I was presented with the final documents I noticed that the legal description of the property had been changed, and it wasn't a subtle change, either -- a whole sentence clause had been inserted, changing the legal description from "lots (#) and (#) of (local zoning section)" to "lots (#) and (#) of (local zoning section), excepting those portions surrendered by quitclaim deed by (past owner) on (date)."
"Excuse me," I said, "I need to know why the legal description has changed and what exactly this is referring to."
Everyone else in the room was pretty obviously just there to get paid because they looked at me as if I had suddenly grown a second head. "It's OK, just sign," said the seller's agent.
"It's probably nothing," said "my" agent, "don't worry about it."
"I want to know exactly what this means," I insisted, "and I'm not signing anything until I do."
The title agent reacted as if I was being petulant and unreasonable, "I'll have to go look up the deed," he whined, as though his entire role in the transaction wasn't to be there to make sure that the transaction that was agreed upon was accurately and faithfully executed. (Although maybe that's not what he was there for. I'm still a little confused about what value he supposedly added to the process.)
I began to suspect that none of the "professionals" in the room, including those who were allegedly there to safeguard my interests, had the least bit of concern about what my interests were, just so long as the transaction took place and they all got their commissions. And I'm guessing my experience was not all that uncommon and that a lot of people wind up screwed by a system they thought was supposed to protect them. I never did figure out who was responsible for the discrepancy between the two descriptions. It did in fact clip a section off the property and adjoin it to a neighbor's property but the alteration was one that I decided I could live with -- ONCE WE HAD RESEARCHED IT AND I WAS SATISFIED I KNEW WHAT IT WAS. I still can't believe anyone expected me to sign without knowing.
posted by Nerd of the North at 11:06 AM on January 10, 2015 [30 favorites]
part of the problem is that land boundaries are very much the wild west in the US... I don't know how it is in Europe but lots of buildings here sit on lots with only very tenuous records as to what the boundaries are.
That was pretty much the case here in the UK as well. It didn't stop us moving over to a Land Registry system. Don't you have title deeds? If not, how does anyone know what they're buying/selling? If you do, you just register what's on the deeds with the registry the next time the property changes hands.
actually registering the land would open a huge expensive can of worms.
Pretty sure that here, it's made the whole thing cheaper, faster and altogether more sensible.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 11:30 AM on January 10, 2015 [4 favorites]
That was pretty much the case here in the UK as well. It didn't stop us moving over to a Land Registry system. Don't you have title deeds? If not, how does anyone know what they're buying/selling? If you do, you just register what's on the deeds with the registry the next time the property changes hands.
actually registering the land would open a huge expensive can of worms.
Pretty sure that here, it's made the whole thing cheaper, faster and altogether more sensible.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 11:30 AM on January 10, 2015 [4 favorites]
Re Mr. Sawyer and the 'bandit' signs: good for him! I wish I could do the same, but around here --- even though those signs are all illegal --- it is also illegal to take them down..... yes, removing someone's illegal sign can get you arrested. Sigh.
posted by easily confused at 11:30 AM on January 10, 2015
posted by easily confused at 11:30 AM on January 10, 2015
Also: that Sawyer guy is a hero.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 11:33 AM on January 10, 2015
posted by PeterMcDermott at 11:33 AM on January 10, 2015
mstokes650 The "story" here amounts to: a guy who was very ballsy but not as smart as he thought he was managed to slip a bunch of obviously-forged documents past a bunch of totally apathetic government clerks. He only got away with it for as long as he has...Huh? This dude is still getting away with it. The wheels of justice are not turning. He is continuing to forge documents, including documents relating to warrants against him.
posted by TheNewWazoo at 11:49 AM on January 10, 2015 [3 favorites]
To be clear: people are removing land from a registration system that gives you near-absolute confidence in title, that will never require you to do a title search and that should make "title insurance" meaningless, and moving it back to a system where any jerk can record any document against any parcel.
I want to be absolutely clear about this, because I am a professional title examiner who has to do title searches in the Massachusetts Registered Land system all the freakin' time (I have one sitting in my inbox right now that I have to do on Monday) - the Massachusetts Land Court will not (and should not) give you near-absolute confidence in title, absolutely requires title searches, absolutely requires title insurance, and is nowhere near the imaginary utopia 1adam12 thinks it is. I don't know if other parts of the world have refined their registered land system to be as wonderful as 1adam12 describes, but here in the US in the one place it's been tried it absolutely isn't.
I also want to make clear the basic functional difference between registered and recorded land as it pertains to the first house in the OP. Here's how it plays out:
Recorded land (which is how it happened): Guy records forged deed for house, by slipping it past apathetic clerk at recording counter. In order to finish stealing the house from the little old lady, guy has to take additional step of going to court to quiet the title, has to slip (really blatantly obviously) fake papers claiming he gave notice to the little old lady past the court clerk. (<>the little old lady ends up being the one who has to take the step of going to a judge and serving notice to guy and so forth.
posted by mstokes650 at 11:51 AM on January 10, 2015 [6 favorites]
I want to be absolutely clear about this, because I am a professional title examiner who has to do title searches in the Massachusetts Registered Land system all the freakin' time (I have one sitting in my inbox right now that I have to do on Monday) - the Massachusetts Land Court will not (and should not) give you near-absolute confidence in title, absolutely requires title searches, absolutely requires title insurance, and is nowhere near the imaginary utopia 1adam12 thinks it is. I don't know if other parts of the world have refined their registered land system to be as wonderful as 1adam12 describes, but here in the US in the one place it's been tried it absolutely isn't.
I also want to make clear the basic functional difference between registered and recorded land as it pertains to the first house in the OP. Here's how it plays out:
Recorded land (which is how it happened): Guy records forged deed for house, by slipping it past apathetic clerk at recording counter. In order to finish stealing the house from the little old lady, guy has to take additional step of going to court to quiet the title, has to slip (really blatantly obviously) fake papers claiming he gave notice to the little old lady past the court clerk. (<>the little old lady ends up being the one who has to take the step of going to a judge and serving notice to guy and so forth.
posted by mstokes650 at 11:51 AM on January 10, 2015 [6 favorites]
D'oh, an anglebracket ate part of my comment. Where the <> is, it should have said:
(this clerk should have been fired). Court says land is his.
Registered land: Guy records forged deed for house, by slipping it past apathetic clerk at land court counter. Land Court says land is his. To overturn this and reclaim her property, the little old lady ends up being the one who has to take the step of going to a judge and serving notice to the guy and so forth.
posted by mstokes650 at 11:57 AM on January 10, 2015 [2 favorites]
(this clerk should have been fired). Court says land is his.
Registered land: Guy records forged deed for house, by slipping it past apathetic clerk at land court counter. Land Court says land is his. To overturn this and reclaim her property, the little old lady ends up being the one who has to take the step of going to a judge and serving notice to the guy and so forth.
posted by mstokes650 at 11:57 AM on January 10, 2015 [2 favorites]
...but it sounds like the court clerks and judges in this case are also rubber-stamping obviously fake papers, so the end result is the same - little old lady has to go to court, no?
posted by muddgirl at 12:31 PM on January 10, 2015
posted by muddgirl at 12:31 PM on January 10, 2015
Wow. Interesting and at the same time kind of frightening. I have family involved in real estate, and I've often felt what they're doing is pretty shady but don't know enough about it other than to have a hunch. But they're always talking about some quit claim deed or similar questionable sounding maneuvers. I wish I had enough know how to see if their dealings are as shady as I think they are.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 1:55 PM on January 10, 2015
posted by [insert clever name here] at 1:55 PM on January 10, 2015
Is there some popular conspiratological justification for opposing and dismantling land title registries, such as having to register your land being a surrender of precious American freedoms to the Big Brother state, sort of like water fluoridation/smart meters/Common Core?
Anyone who has purchased a house in the U.S. know there are a lot of BS nickel and dime charges involved in the transaction.
Document fees, courier payment, check origination, registration surcharges, title selection charge, etc.
The thing is, that all of these are presented as "Closing costs" along with your down-payment, first month mortgage, and everything else.
So, yeah, you paid an extra $600 in crap, but in the context of a $150,000 note, it's pretty negligible and hardly noticed.
Less conspiracy and more 'You know, we've been trying to buy a house for 6 months, just pay so we can just get this done'
posted by madajb at 2:29 PM on January 10, 2015
Anyone who has purchased a house in the U.S. know there are a lot of BS nickel and dime charges involved in the transaction.
Document fees, courier payment, check origination, registration surcharges, title selection charge, etc.
The thing is, that all of these are presented as "Closing costs" along with your down-payment, first month mortgage, and everything else.
So, yeah, you paid an extra $600 in crap, but in the context of a $150,000 note, it's pretty negligible and hardly noticed.
Less conspiracy and more 'You know, we've been trying to buy a house for 6 months, just pay so we can just get this done'
posted by madajb at 2:29 PM on January 10, 2015
I still can't believe anyone expected me to sign without knowing.
Heh.
When we bought our house, My wife and I sat in the office and read every single page of the stack of papers they gave us to sign.
You could see the closing agents get more and more frustrated as the the clock moved towards 7pm.
I suggested that they could have used some of the $75 'courier fee" to bring the documents to my house early, so I could look them over before the meeting.
They were not amused.
posted by madajb at 2:34 PM on January 10, 2015 [12 favorites]
Heh.
When we bought our house, My wife and I sat in the office and read every single page of the stack of papers they gave us to sign.
You could see the closing agents get more and more frustrated as the the clock moved towards 7pm.
I suggested that they could have used some of the $75 'courier fee" to bring the documents to my house early, so I could look them over before the meeting.
They were not amused.
posted by madajb at 2:34 PM on January 10, 2015 [12 favorites]
Nerd of the north, good on you for catching that. If you ever buy real estate again, that experience why one of the things that prudent purchasers always, always do is hire a real estate lawyer familiar with local practice, even if it is not-standard for residential deals in an area. In general, brokers, title agents, and lenders only get paid if you close. Therefore, their interest is in getting the deal to the finish line, rather than making sure the deal is done right.
In fact, in a lot of places, agents and real estate brokers typically make clients sign paperwork explicitly, specifically, and repeatedly saying that the broker/agent IS NOT A LAWYER or IF THE TITLE AGENT DOES HAPPEN TO BE A LAWYER, THEY ARE NOT YOUR LAWYER YOU andTHEY CANNOT AND WILL NOT PROVIDE ADVICE ON YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS, which is what a change in legal description may involve.
(The situation may be more complicated in places where lawyers are allowed to write title insurance. I do not practice in a state where that happens, so I'm not sure how ethical obligations run there, or whether lawyers are allowed to write title insurance for deals where they are also representing the buyer. IAAreal estate lawyer, but I am not your real estate lawyer.)
tl;dr: one time, at a zoning meeting, when the Philadelinquency guy was going on in about how the oldbies in the neighborhood should just suck it up about parking, with his usual charming mix of 40% hot air, 30% vicious personal attack, and 30% having-a-good-point, the two guys in the row in front of me jumped up and started screaming about how they were going to beat his ass.
posted by joyceanmachine at 3:24 PM on January 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
In fact, in a lot of places, agents and real estate brokers typically make clients sign paperwork explicitly, specifically, and repeatedly saying that the broker/agent IS NOT A LAWYER or IF THE TITLE AGENT DOES HAPPEN TO BE A LAWYER, THEY ARE NOT YOUR LAWYER YOU andTHEY CANNOT AND WILL NOT PROVIDE ADVICE ON YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS, which is what a change in legal description may involve.
(The situation may be more complicated in places where lawyers are allowed to write title insurance. I do not practice in a state where that happens, so I'm not sure how ethical obligations run there, or whether lawyers are allowed to write title insurance for deals where they are also representing the buyer. IAAreal estate lawyer, but I am not your real estate lawyer.)
tl;dr: one time, at a zoning meeting, when the Philadelinquency guy was going on in about how the oldbies in the neighborhood should just suck it up about parking, with his usual charming mix of 40% hot air, 30% vicious personal attack, and 30% having-a-good-point, the two guys in the row in front of me jumped up and started screaming about how they were going to beat his ass.
posted by joyceanmachine at 3:24 PM on January 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
I did particularly enjoy the crazy tail of identity theft the perpetrator tried to spin; how he was convincing enough to cause the author to cast some doubt on something he's pretty fucking sure was true. And then how it all came back with evidence that it was in fact a single person.
The auto tag shop and rape derail just made the story that much more surreal.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 4:03 PM on January 10, 2015
The auto tag shop and rape derail just made the story that much more surreal.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 4:03 PM on January 10, 2015
I don't know if other parts of the world have refined their registered land system to be as wonderful as 1adam12 describes, but here in the US in the one place it's been tried it absolutely isn't.
Once a property is registered with the UK land registry, the government guarantee that the record is correct. If someone suffers a loss by relying on info in the Land Registry, they'll get compensated for it.
You still need a lawyer to do the conveyance, but it makes there job quicker. Not that the lawyers fees are the expensive bit. They're cheap compared to the rapacious estate agents.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:58 PM on January 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
Once a property is registered with the UK land registry, the government guarantee that the record is correct. If someone suffers a loss by relying on info in the Land Registry, they'll get compensated for it.
You still need a lawyer to do the conveyance, but it makes there job quicker. Not that the lawyers fees are the expensive bit. They're cheap compared to the rapacious estate agents.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:58 PM on January 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
Nerd of the north, good on you for catching that. If you ever buy real estate again, that experience why one of the things that prudent purchasers always, always do is hire a real estate lawyer familiar with local practice, even if it is not-standard for residential deals in an area. In general, brokers, title agents, and lenders only get paid if you close. Therefore, their interest is in getting the deal to the finish line, rather than making sure the deal is done right.
This this this this, so much this.
Having your own attorney will save you (and everyone else) the hours and hours and hours and hours of sitting around while you read every single word of a boilerplate document that your attorney could summarize in a minute.
(And the courier fee is a legit fee. Everyone wants their stuff done NOW NOW NOW AS SOON AS POSSIBLE WHY AREN'T WE READY TO CLOSE YET, and using a courier is faster than mail [and safer, too. Mailing an Abstract of Title is not a good idea].)
posted by Lucinda at 5:07 PM on January 10, 2015
This this this this, so much this.
Having your own attorney will save you (and everyone else) the hours and hours and hours and hours of sitting around while you read every single word of a boilerplate document that your attorney could summarize in a minute.
(And the courier fee is a legit fee. Everyone wants their stuff done NOW NOW NOW AS SOON AS POSSIBLE WHY AREN'T WE READY TO CLOSE YET, and using a courier is faster than mail [and safer, too. Mailing an Abstract of Title is not a good idea].)
posted by Lucinda at 5:07 PM on January 10, 2015
I want to be absolutely clear about this, because I am a professional title examiner who has to do title searches in the Massachusetts Registered Land system all the freakin' time (I have one sitting in my inbox right now that I have to do on Monday) - the Massachusetts Land Court will not (and should not) give you near-absolute confidence in title, absolutely requires title searches, absolutely requires title insurance, and is nowhere near the imaginary utopia 1adam12 thinks it is.
A proper registered title system doesn't have these problems. Sounds like the Massachusetts system is just poorly designed, presumably because if it worked properly it would remove too many opportunities for the various parasites who live off the old system - title insurance companies being the most obvious example.
A well-designed Torrens Title system does give near-absolute confidence in title, requires a very simple search of the register, doesn't require title insurance (I don't think you can even get title insurance where I live) and in the fairly rare cases of fraud or error the government pays compensation. It isn't an imaginary utopia but it does work pretty well most of the time.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 5:14 PM on January 10, 2015 [4 favorites]
A proper registered title system doesn't have these problems. Sounds like the Massachusetts system is just poorly designed, presumably because if it worked properly it would remove too many opportunities for the various parasites who live off the old system - title insurance companies being the most obvious example.
A well-designed Torrens Title system does give near-absolute confidence in title, requires a very simple search of the register, doesn't require title insurance (I don't think you can even get title insurance where I live) and in the fairly rare cases of fraud or error the government pays compensation. It isn't an imaginary utopia but it does work pretty well most of the time.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 5:14 PM on January 10, 2015 [4 favorites]
doesn't require title insurance (I don't think you can even get title insurance where I live)
I think you need it in the UK in those rare cases where there's a problem preventing the property being registered with the Land Registry -- competing claims, or some kind of lack of clarity about ownership. We've got all these weird ancient covenants, third party easements and what have you. Insurance means people can actually buy/sell the property and owners aren't stuck in some horrendous limbo that takes years and years and costs a fortune in legal fees.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 5:56 PM on January 10, 2015
I think you need it in the UK in those rare cases where there's a problem preventing the property being registered with the Land Registry -- competing claims, or some kind of lack of clarity about ownership. We've got all these weird ancient covenants, third party easements and what have you. Insurance means people can actually buy/sell the property and owners aren't stuck in some horrendous limbo that takes years and years and costs a fortune in legal fees.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 5:56 PM on January 10, 2015
Having your own attorney will save you (and everyone else) the hours and hours and hours and hours of sitting around while you read every single word of a boilerplate document that your attorney could summarize in a minute.
I would still suggest reading the documents anyway. We had our own attorney for our house closing (incidentally in Massachusetts). Because I read the documents, I noticed that the type of ownership and some other details were not what we had talked about and my own lawyer explained to me that what we had requested was only available to married couples. The lawyer had ignored our own verbal statements, emails, and initial paperwork with him stating that we were married and assumed we weren't because of our separate last names. He actually said that - 'oh, well I just thought you weren't married because your last names differ.'
When we caught this, there was then some whining about how paperwork would have to get redone. As if we were causing the extra work.
In the end, nobody in that transaction really cares that things are accurate during a closing except the buyers (and sellers).
posted by Tandem Affinity at 6:51 PM on January 10, 2015 [5 favorites]
I would still suggest reading the documents anyway. We had our own attorney for our house closing (incidentally in Massachusetts). Because I read the documents, I noticed that the type of ownership and some other details were not what we had talked about and my own lawyer explained to me that what we had requested was only available to married couples. The lawyer had ignored our own verbal statements, emails, and initial paperwork with him stating that we were married and assumed we weren't because of our separate last names. He actually said that - 'oh, well I just thought you weren't married because your last names differ.'
When we caught this, there was then some whining about how paperwork would have to get redone. As if we were causing the extra work.
In the end, nobody in that transaction really cares that things are accurate during a closing except the buyers (and sellers).
posted by Tandem Affinity at 6:51 PM on January 10, 2015 [5 favorites]
In the end, nobody in that transaction really cares that things are accurate during a closing except the buyers (and sellers).
Yeah, this. When I bought my current place the closing happened—as it always seems to—in a hurry, at the very end of the day, on a Friday, when everybody wanted to go home.
The 'title binder', basically, or so I was told, the thing we were paying the title search company for, which would trace the chain of title of the property back to Lord Fairfax or King George or whatever passes for original ownership in Virginia, and thereby ensure clean title, wasn't there. Everyone said that it didn't matter, and we'd get the binder in the mail after the fact. I balked, but it was either sign or find another place to live for a week or two while the title company did their thing.
So, of course, everyone signed. Including, strangely enough, the title company, who—again, as far as I can tell from the total mess of paperwork—warranted the title even though they were as much admitting that they hadn't finished the title search.
Everyone shook hands; keys were exchanged, kudos all around.
The mysterious binder, of course, never arrived. I even called the title company a few months after the fact, asking them what was going on. Never having bought property here, I wasn't entirely sure what to expect. They emailed me a PDF of the same stack of paperwork that everyone signed at closing. As far as I can tell, the whole title search, trace-it-back-to-antiquity thing? Never happened. I'm suspicious that it ever happens.
The whole system is a pile of lies and misdirection; it's designed to fleece buyers bit by bit at closing, taking ridiculous amounts in fees and doing as little as possible in return. I would never again go through the process without my own lawyer. Everyone else is just there to push for the sale, get everyone to sign, get their pound of flesh, and go home, presumably hoping that if it ever blows up down the road that they'll be far removed from it.
posted by Kadin2048 at 7:56 PM on January 10, 2015 [6 favorites]
Yeah, this. When I bought my current place the closing happened—as it always seems to—in a hurry, at the very end of the day, on a Friday, when everybody wanted to go home.
The 'title binder', basically, or so I was told, the thing we were paying the title search company for, which would trace the chain of title of the property back to Lord Fairfax or King George or whatever passes for original ownership in Virginia, and thereby ensure clean title, wasn't there. Everyone said that it didn't matter, and we'd get the binder in the mail after the fact. I balked, but it was either sign or find another place to live for a week or two while the title company did their thing.
So, of course, everyone signed. Including, strangely enough, the title company, who—again, as far as I can tell from the total mess of paperwork—warranted the title even though they were as much admitting that they hadn't finished the title search.
Everyone shook hands; keys were exchanged, kudos all around.
The mysterious binder, of course, never arrived. I even called the title company a few months after the fact, asking them what was going on. Never having bought property here, I wasn't entirely sure what to expect. They emailed me a PDF of the same stack of paperwork that everyone signed at closing. As far as I can tell, the whole title search, trace-it-back-to-antiquity thing? Never happened. I'm suspicious that it ever happens.
The whole system is a pile of lies and misdirection; it's designed to fleece buyers bit by bit at closing, taking ridiculous amounts in fees and doing as little as possible in return. I would never again go through the process without my own lawyer. Everyone else is just there to push for the sale, get everyone to sign, get their pound of flesh, and go home, presumably hoping that if it ever blows up down the road that they'll be far removed from it.
posted by Kadin2048 at 7:56 PM on January 10, 2015 [6 favorites]
Yeah, the signing in Minnesota was similar to others, an attempted rush. However, Mr. Jadepearl LIKES being an asshole when signing finance documents. Actually, I should say he does not care nor need your liking or affection (I wish I was free, like that.). He goes page by page and starts rewriting portions of the contract. The real estate people were, for Minnesotans, flipping out. I believe the phrase, "Earn your commission", was used and "incompetence" as well. The look of hope they had when he went to the bathroom was crushed upon his return. My experience with the real estate industrial complex has not been positive.
posted by jadepearl at 5:42 AM on January 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by jadepearl at 5:42 AM on January 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
I've done a few real estate transactions in my home state, Victoria (Australia). Everything went pretty smoothly, but the best bit was that I - or anyone - could log on to a computer and download government images of the surveyors' map(s) showing the block, lists of any easements or caveats (e.g., mortgages) that applied, plans of future road and sewerage works that might affect it, basically everything. I resent the fact that I had to pay some tens of dollars for this, but it sounds as though our (Torrens) system is amazingly cheap and simple compared to what you guys people have to put up with.
posted by Joe in Australia at 10:12 AM on January 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Joe in Australia at 10:12 AM on January 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
« Older Improving public policy (gov't) using behavioral... | Why is this white man so angry? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by The Zeroth Law at 9:45 AM on January 10, 2015 [1 favorite]