[WSBARP] Real Estate Contract and Ownership

[NC]

In Re McDaniel, 89 B.R. 861 (Bankr. E.D. Wash. 1988) contains and excellent
discussion of the evolution of REK's and the nature of ownership and
security interests of the parties.

<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 11:44 AM, John McCrady <j.mccrady at pstitle.com>
wrote:

> See also:
>
> Griffith v. Whittier, 37 Wn 2d 351; Kendrick v. Davis 75 Wn 2d 1456;
> Norlen v. Montgomery, 59 Wn 2d 269; Desmond v. Shotwell, 142 Wash 187
>
>
>
> Basically, the courts so construed Real Estate Contracts in such a way
> that a  contract purchaser has all the elements of ownership except what we
> sometimes call the “naked fee”, and the Real Estate Contract is really a
> species of mortgage.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> John McCrady
>
> Counsel
>
> Puget Sound Title Company
>
> 5350 Orchard Street West
>
> University Place WA 98467
>
> 253-476-5721
>
> j.mccrady at pstitle.com
>
>
>
> *From:* wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.
> wsbarppt.com] *On Behalf Of *Kary Krismer
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 24, 2018 6:50 AM
> *To:* wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
> *Subject:* Re: [WSBARP] Real Estate Contract and Ownership
>
>
>
> Absent a default, correct, and even then I think you'd likely have to go
> through the statutory procedure for forfeit out the interest.
>
> You might want to look at Cascade Security Bank v. Butler, 88 Wn2d 777
> (1977) and maybe even Freeborn v. Seattle Trust, 94 Wn.2d 336 (1980),
> although to some extent these cases deal with perfection issues.
>
> Kary L. Krismer
>
> John L. Scott/KMS Renton
>
> 206 723-2148
>
> On 1/23/2018 9:33 PM, Scott Hildebrand wrote:
>
> In Washington, we hardly ever deal with these things, so I thought I would
> throw it out to the group.
>
>
>
> I have a client who is trying to buy a house from someone who is the heir
> of the owner who gave a real estate contract to the current purported owner
> of the property.
>
> The purported owner has recorded no deed, but has recorded a real estate
> contract which includes phrasing that, upon completion of the payments, the
> buyer will receive a fulfillment deed.
>
> Apparently, something has gone wrong and the party granting a real estate
> contract wants to renig and sell to my client. They are arguing that the
> purported owner does not hold title because he never recorded a deed.
>
> I recall, from those many years ago, that a real estate contract or a
> “contract for deed” gives all the trappings of ownership to the buyer, they
> just do not get a deed until their obligations are fulfilled, correct?
>
> So the question is, can I file a quiet title action to establish ownership
> in the party granting the real estate contract. Methinks the answer is
> no..no??
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Scott Hildebrand
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> WSBARP mailing list
>
> WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
>
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WSBARP mailing list
> WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
>



-- 
Nicholas L. Clapham
(407)484-9625

NOTICE- This email message may contain confidential and privileged
information. It is intended only for the named recipent(s) and may contain
attorney work product and/or information exempt from disclosure under
applicable law. Any unauthorized use is prohibited.  If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy
all copies of the original message. This does not constitute an electronic
signature.

Pursuant to U.S. Treasury Department Circular 230 and other IRS
regulations, unless we expressly state otherwise, any tax advice contained
in this communication (including any attachments) was not intended or
written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding
tax-related penalties or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
another party any transaction or matter(s) addressed herein.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20180124/285cb18c/attachment.html>