[WSBARP] RCW 61.24.110 "declaration of payment" method of reconveyance

[Eric Nelsen]

I received some helpful responses to the below--thanks Gretchen, John, Bob, Joseph!--and now I have a new wrinkle.

It appears B of A recorded the exact identical DOT twice, with consecutive recording numbers even. And they reconveyed the first recorded DOT, and now are refusing to reconvey the second recording because they say they already reconveyed.

Assuming I can't get any movement from them on getting the second recording, is the Declaration of Payment method usable in this odd instance? To remove an erroneous second recording of a DOT that actually was reconveyed in its first recorded instance?

Sincerely,

Eric

Eric C. Nelsen
SAYRE LAW OFFICES, PLLC
1320 University St
Seattle WA  98101-2837
phone 206-625-0092
fax 206-625-9040



From: Eric Nelsen
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2015 3:04 PM
To: WSBA Real Property listserve (wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com)
Subject: RCW 61.24.110 "declaration of payment" method of reconveyance

Another rant about Bank of America! :-)

How are our title company people treating the RCW 61.24.110<http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=61.24&full=true#61.24.110> "declaration of payment" method of dealing with an old DOT? Does it work?

Loan was paid in full 2 years ago, and the Bank (of America, of course) acknowledges it's paid and the account is closed, but they refuse to request a reconveyance. Next step is, contact the out-of-state trustee and request them to reconvey. Assuming that doesn't work, Client would like to use the "declaration of payment" method. Has it been tested yet, and are title insurance companies willing to remove exceptions on that basis?

Happy Friday everyone!

Sincerely,

Eric

Eric C. Nelsen
SAYRE LAW OFFICES, PLLC
1320 University St
Seattle WA  98101-2837
phone 206-625-0092
fax 206-625-9040

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20150121/9cb97d85/attachment.html>