[WSBARP] Quitclaim Deed Question

[Craig Blackmon]

I stand duly corrected -- and I will continue to defy the alligator.

Thanks Eric, nice work!

Craig
Craig Blackmon, Attorney at Law
<https://www.mywsba.org/PersonifyEbusiness/LegalDirectory/LegalProfile.aspx?Usr_ID=000000029240>
92 Lenora St. #8, Seattle WA  98121
Office/Cell: (206) 369-5949
On the blog: Co-Ownership of Real Property by Single People
<https://www.fsbolawyers.org/blog/tenants-in-common-agreement>
<https://seattlepropertylawyer.com/>    <https://www.fsbolawyers.org/>
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication is a private, confidential
electronic communication encompassed by 18 USC 2510. It is for the sole use
of the intended recipient and receipt by anyone other than the intended
recipient does not constitute a loss of its confidential or privileged
nature.  Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If
you are not the intended recipient please inform the sender and destroy all
copies.


On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 12:45 PM Eric Nelsen <eric at sayrelawoffices.com>
wrote:

> Found the case: *Stevens v. Stevens*, 10 Wn.App. 493, 496, 519 P.2d 269
> (Wash. App. 1974):
>
> Where an instrument has the effect of conveying after-acquired title, the
> general rule is that it will do so irrespective of how the subsequent title
> is acquired. R. Patton, Land Titles § 215 (2d ed. 1957); 3 American Law of
> Property § 15.21 (1952). [fn 1]
>
> [fn 1] *This rule is subject to a necessary exception in the case of
> title acquired from the grantee or those claiming under him*. R. Patton,
> Land Titles § 220 (2d ed. 1957); 3 American Law of Property, § 15.21
> (1952). This exception eliminates the dilemma posed by the trial court in
> its memorandum decision: 'If the court were to conclude otherwise it would
> never be possible to acquire the same property twice if at some time prior
> to the second acquisition a quit claim deed with an after acquired property
> clause had been given.'...
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> Eric
>
>
>
> Eric C. Nelsen
>
> Sayre Law Offices, PLLC
>
> 1417 31st Ave South
>
> Seattle WA 98144-3909
>
> 206-625-0092
>
> eric at sayrelawoffices.com
>
>
>
> *Covid-19 Update - *All attorneys are working remotely during regular
> business hours and are available via email and by phone. Videoconferencing
> also is available. Signing of estate planning documents can be completed
> and will be handled on a case-by-case basis. Please direct mail and
> deliveries to the Seattle office.
>
>
>
> *From:* Eric Nelsen
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 29, 2021 12:26 PM
> *To:* WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> *Subject:* RE: Quitclaim Deed Question
>
>
>
> Party 1, the original Grantor. The “after-acquired title” phrase does not
> prevent a conveyance from the original grantee, Party 2, back to the
> original grantor. I think I saw a WA case on this, but can’t find it on a
> quick search. 23 Am.Jur.2d Deeds sections 294-309 (1965) has a discussion
> that indicates, basically:
>
>    1. All traditional common-law deeds convey both title presently held
>    by a grantor, and any title later acquired by the grantor. This is to
>    ensure that, even if grantor’s title is defective or grantor does not even
>    own the property at the time, the grantor can’t later use the defect or the
>    lack of title to set up a claim against their own grantee.
>    2. The after-acquired title thing was classified conceptually as an
>    “estoppel by deed,” whereby a grantor who conveys property can’t later
>    claim an interest in the property against the grantee. The estoppel from
>    making such a claim effectively transfers grantor’s after-acquired title to
>    the grantee.
>    3. Because the “after-acquired title” concept derives from estoppel,
>    the doctrine does not apply in situations where estoppel doesn’t make much
>    sense, and grantor’s after-acquired interest comes from a source that does
>    not work an inequitable result against the grantee.
>    4. A “quitclaim” deed historically derives from a release of interest
>    and not a common-law deed, so it “releases” (conveys) grantor’s
>    *present* interest only, and does not operate on after-acquired title
>    unless it specifically so states. Our statute confirms this setup.
>
> So, if the grantee affirmatively quitclaims back to the grantor, there’s
> no reason to estop grantor from keeping the interest against any later
> claim by grantee. Similarly, if grantee sells the property to a third
> party, and then third party conveys to the original grantor, that also does
> not estop grantor from keeping the interest against any claim of the
> grantee.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> Eric
>
>
>
> Eric C. Nelsen
>
> Sayre Law Offices, PLLC
>
> 1417 31st Ave South
>
> Seattle WA 98144-3909
>
> 206-625-0092
>
> eric at sayrelawoffices.com
>
>
>
> *Covid-19 Update - *All attorneys are working remotely during regular
> business hours and are available via email and by phone. Videoconferencing
> also is available. Signing of estate planning documents can be completed
> and will be handled on a case-by-case basis. Please direct mail and
> deliveries to the Seattle office.
>
>
>
> *From:* wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <
> wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> *On Behalf Of *Mark Anderson
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 29, 2021 11:14 AM
> *To:* WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> *Subject:* [WSBARP] Quitclaim Deed Question
>
>
>
> Dear Listmates:
>
> This is just the sort of logic question that might appear on an LSAT.
>
> Party 1 records a quitclaim deed to Property to Party 2, including the
> phrase “and all after-acquired title.”  Sometime later, Party 2 records a
> quitclaim deed to that same Property back to Party 1, which deed also
> includes the phrase “and all after-acquired title.”
>
> Who holds title to the Property?
>
>
> *Mark B. Anderson *ANDERSON LAW FIRM PLLC
> 821 Dock St  Ste 209  PMB 4-12
> Tacoma, Washington 98402
> +1 253-327-1750
> +1 253-327-1751 (fax)
> marka at mbaesq.com
> www.mbaesq.com
>
>
> *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE *This transmission is confidential and is
> intended solely for the use of the individual named recipient. It may be
> protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or other
> confidentiality protection. If you are not the intended recipient, or the
> person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, be advised that
> any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is
> prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please
> immediately notify the sender via e-mail or by telephone at (253) 327-1750
> that you have received the message in error, and then delete it. Thank you.
>
>
> ***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/20211229/117b98c4/attachment.html>