[WSBARP] Release of bank lien on adverse possession.
Kary Krismer
Krismer at comcast.net
Fri Sep 11 13:48:34 PDT 2020
Would a title company remove the exception for the DOT on those facts?
Seemingly they could rely on the court order rather than needing a release.
Kary L. Krismer
206 723-2148
On 9/11/2020 1:04 PM, Craig Gourley wrote:
> Thank you all. In thus case the AP claim in about 30 years old so
> predates the DOT. We did serve the bank and they are subject to the
> award of AP. Problem is that the bank sold the loan after the AP award
> so we have a new "lender" who was not a party. Normally banks do a
> partial recon and we have no issues. Here the new lender is not a
> party and won't respond to our communications .
>
> Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
> Get Outlook for Android <https://aka.ms/ghei36>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com
> <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> on behalf of Gregory L. Ursich
> <gursich at insleebest.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, September 11, 2020 9:59:36 AM
> *To:* WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [WSBARP] Release of bank lien on adverse possession.
>
> All Lender’s title policies have extended coverage and therefore
> insurance for AP claims. By suing the lender in the quiet title, they
> will instantly tender to the title insurer and will get appointed a
> very reasonable attorney, such as myself, to have the lender stipulate
> to adverse possession. -Greg
>
>
>
> *Gregory L. Ursich *
>
> Shareholder
>
> Skyline Tower, Suite 1500 | 10900 NE 4^th Street | Bellevue, WA 98004
>
> P: 425.450.4258 | F: 425.635.7720
>
> _vCard
> <http://www.insleebest.com/uploads/vcards/gursich.vcf>_|_website
> <http://www.insleebest.com/>_|_gursich at insleebest.com
> <mailto:gursich at insleebest.com>_
>
> This electronic mail transmission is privileged and confidential and
> is intended only for the review of the party to whom it is addressed.
> If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately
> return it to the sender. Unintended transmission shall not constitute
> waiver of the attorney-client or any other privilege.
>
> *From:*wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com
> [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] *On Behalf Of *Kary Krismer
> *Sent:* Friday, September 11, 2020 6:04 AM
> *To:* wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
> *Subject:* Re: [WSBARP] Release of bank lien on adverse possession.
>
> I'm not sure Doug's issues matter based on zero research and what my
> wife claims is a questionable faulty memory.
>
> I believe a grantee under a statutory warranty deed would take subject
> to the AP claim even if the full 10 years had not passed at the time
> of transfer. The AP claimant would merely have to wait for the
> remaining time to pass. I don't see any reason a grantee of a DEED of
> trust would be any different. If the claim of ownership disappears
> through AP I think it disappears as to anyone with a claim against the
> property, or at least anyone claiming through the owner against which
> the period of AP started.
>
> Alternatively, if the 10 years had passed at the time of the recording
> of the DOT then the DOT may have never attached to the portion. As I
> recall it's the date of the expiration of 10 years that matters, not
> the date of the court ruling that the 10 years passed.
>
> As to Greg's point about title insurance, if the bank has coverage the
> bank would have little motivation to act and so probably won't act.
> But does a lender's policy cover AP, or does it matter when the AP
> claim 10 year period expired? I'm pretty sure owner's policies
> wouldn't cover an owner when the entire period of AP occurred after
> they took title.
>
> Kary L. Krismer
> 206 723-2148
>
> On 9/10/2020 8:02 PM, Doug Owens wrote:
>
> Dear Craig, this is an interesting question. I have not done any
> research on the point but it seems to me that the principle behind
> adverse possession is that the open, notorious and hostile
> possession for the statutory term should be something that would
> motivate the person entitled to protect the property interest to
> take action to eject the trespasser. Under this principle I ask
> myself what could the lien holder have done to eliminate the
> trespass? And is the lien holder charged with knowledge of the
> adverse possession such that the lien holder could declare a
> breach of the deed of trust for the borrower’s failure to protect
> the title? On what basis would such knowledge be imputed? An
> alternative analysis is that the adverse possessor takes title
> “subject to” the lien. At a minimum if the adverse possessor did
> not serve the lender with the summons and complaint it would seem
> anomalous that the lien could be invalidated by the award of title
> through adverse possession. Good luck. Yours truly, Doug Owens
>
>
>
> On Sep 10, 2020, at 6:47 PM, Craig Gourley <craig at glgmail.com
> <mailto:craig at glgmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Listmates, When a party is awarded title to property by
> adverse possession is the lender lien automatically stripped?
> We have an uncooperative lender that refuses to recon the
> adversely possessed parcel and we really don’t want to file a
> quiet title over a planter box. However, this small cloud on
> title is preventing our clkient’s sale of the property. Thoughts?
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *Gourley Law Group*
>
> *Snohomish Escrow*
>
> *The Exchange Connection*
>
> **
>
> 1002 10^th Street / PO Box 1091
>
> Snohomish, WA 98291
>
> 360.568.5065
>
> 360.568.8092 fax
>
> _Craig at glgmail.com <mailto:Craig at glgmail.com>_
>
> **
>
> Be Aware! Online banking fraud is on the rise. If you receive
> an email containing*Wire transfer instructions*call us
> immediately to verify the information prior to sending any funds!
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission may
> contain legally privileged, confidential information belonging
> to the sender. The information is intended only for the use of
> the individual or entity named above. If you are not the
> intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
> disclosure, copying, distribution or taking any action based
> on the contents of this electronic mail is strictly
> prohibited. If you have received this electronic mail in
> error, please contact sender and delete all copies
>
> ***Disclaimer: Please note that RPPT listserv participation is
> not restricted to practicing attorneys and may include
> non-practicing attorneys, law students, professionals working
> in related fields, and others.***
>
> _______________________________________________
> WSBARP mailing list
> WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com <mailto:WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
>
>
>
>
> ***Disclaimer: Please note that RPPT listserv participation is not restricted to practicing attorneys and may include non-practicing attorneys, law students, professionals working in related fields, and others.***
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> WSBARP mailing list
>
> WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com <mailto:WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com>
>
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
>
>
> ***Disclaimer: Please note that RPPT listserv participation is not restricted to practicing attorneys and may include non-practicing attorneys, law students, professionals working in related fields, and others.***
>
> _______________________________________________
> WSBARP mailing list
> WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20200911/bf711afd/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 5282 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20200911/bf711afd/image003.jpg>
More information about the WSBARP
mailing list