[WSBARP] Possibility of Reverter

Tue Jan 31 10:53:43 PST 2017

All,

Just an FYI: I have a thorny future interests question that was fit for a law school exam and learned that WA has not adopted very much of the uniform law.  I found that Prof. Stephen Bender at SU Law School is pretty amazing and can be engaged as a consultant to make sure we get this right.  He supported my conclusion (which made me feel good) ,but even better, everyone in the deal respected his scholarship.

Kathleen J. Hopkins
Real Property Law Group, PLLC
1326 Fifth Avenue, Suite 654
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone & Fax: (206) 625-0404
email: khopkins at rp-lawgroup.com
www.rp-lawgroup.com

This message is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine; if you are not the intended recipient of this message please let the sender know you received it in error and please delete this message.  Thank you.

Pursuant to U.S. Treasury Regulations concerning tax practice, you are advised that this message is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by anyone for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under any tax laws; or promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Eric Nelsen
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 9:37 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Possibility of Reverter

FWIW, a long while back I did some research on automatic reverters, and I recall that if the reverter is triggered, the 10-year S/L on adverse possession begins to run (grantee is in open, hostile, etc. possession even though in theory title has reverted to grantor). So if one can show a violation of the determinable fee more than 10 years prior, it can be extinguished via quiet title.

That is in contrast to the determinable fee where the grantor instead holds a right of re-entry. With right of re-entry, in theory the S/L can't start to run until the grantor actual asserts the right. In that case, the grantee's defense typically needs to be laches, when the right of re-entry was triggered decades before and grantor did nothing about it.

How long ago was the deed with the reverter?

Sincerely,

Eric

Eric C. Nelsen
SAYRE LAW OFFICES, PLLC
1417 31st Ave South
Seattle WA  98144-3909
phone 206-625-0092
fax 206-625-9040

Please Note that We Have Moved. We have moved our Seattle office to Mount Baker Ridge (a small commercial community just above the I-90 tunnel). Our new address is 1417 31st Avenue South, Seattle WA 98144. All other contact information remains the same.

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of John McCrady
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 9:01 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Possibility of Reverter

In the fact situation given, I would continue to show the matter.  I don’t want to pay the cost of a determination that the restriction has been abandoned, etc.
I am curious whether the title company is worried that a use by the current owners has triggered the reverter?  It sounds like they are not worried about a reverter already having taken place, but are only continuing to show the restriction?

John McCrady
Counsel
Puget Sound Title Company
5350 Orchard Street West
University Place WA 98466
253-476-5721

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Roger Hawkes
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 6:21 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Possibility of Reverter

Well done☺ a big difference from current query and your case is the grantor was still alive in your case; although a reservation could be crafted to protect future generations too.  I am curious to know what the title insurer gurus say about this.

Roger Hawkes, WSBA 5173
19909 Ballinger Way NE
Shoreline, WA 98155
www.hawkeslawfirm.com<http://www.hawkeslawfirm.com/>
206 367 5000 voice
206 367 4005  fax

From: Rowley, Rob [mailto:rob at rowleylegal.com]
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 4:59 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Possibility of Reverter

My one case that I got to argue at the Supreme Court dealt with the enforceability of fee simple determinable estates.

Alby v Banc One (2006)
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6610484979493170052&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:36 PM, Roger Hawkes <Roger at law-hawks.com<mailto:Roger at law-hawks.com>> wrote:
Egads!!  Picking nits by title insurer.

I would seek other insurer’s inputs; failing a change, then advise Buyer that it probably will impact a future sale or pledge by them; they can do a quiet title action, of course; and have the Sellers pay for cleaning it up?

Roger Hawkes, WSBA 5173
19909 Ballinger Way NE
Shoreline, WA 98155
www.hawkeslawfirm.com<http://www.hawkeslawfirm.com/>
206 367 5000 voice
206 367 4005  fax

From: Marc Holmes [mailto:marc at holmeslawgroup.com<mailto:marc at holmeslawgroup.com>]
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 4:22 PM
To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv'
Subject: [WSBARP] Possibility of Reverter

Mates,

I have a client purchasing a single family home and an old deed showed up on title with a restriction against “carrying on a trade or business” on the property or else the property “immediately reverts to the grantors” who are long since dead.  I’ve been to the property and there is nothing there to suggest it’s been used for anything but a typical residence since the house was built in the 90s and the current owners have owned for more than 10 years.  However, they have registered two LLCs to using this property’s address.  When asked they said they have never operated a business on the property and that the LLCs are holding companies they own for two completely unrelated multifamily properties run by an outside property manager.  On the advice of their real estate agent, they signed and notarized a written statement to that effect.

The sellers will be conveying by warranty deed and the title company is excepting the old deed from title policy.  Whether the old deed was sufficient to create a defeasible fee is debatable but assuming that it was, what more, if anything, should I do to look out for the buyers’ interest?

Marc Holmes
Holmes Law Group PLLC
808 5th Ave N
Seattle WA 98109
HolmesLawGroup.com<http://holmeslawgroup.com/>
marc at holmeslawgroup.com<mailto:marc at holmeslawgroup.com>
Ofc: 206-357-4224
Cell: 206-849-0853

_______________________________________________
WSBARP mailing list
WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com>
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp

--

Robert R. Rowley, Attorney at Law

7 S. Howard St., Suite 218

Spokane, WA  99201

T: (509) 252-5074

C: (509) 994-1143

F: (509) 928-3084

E: rob at rowleylegal.com<mailto:rob at rowleylegal.com>

W: www.rowleylegal.com<http://www.rowleylegal.com/>

Practice concentrated on business, real estate and general legal matters in Washington and Idaho.

NOTICE: The contents of this message and any attachments may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine or other applicable protections.  If you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error, please notify the sender and promptly delete the message.  Thank you for your assistance.

DISCLAIMER: You should recognize that responses provided by e-mail means are akin to ordinary telephone or face-to-face conversations and do not reflect the level of factual or legal inquiry or analysis which would be applied in the case of a formal legal opinion. A formal opinion may very well reach a different conclusion.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20170131/b2d7f2e4/attachment.html>