[WSBARP] 2nd DOT invalid?
Kary Krismer
krismer at comcast.net
Wed Mar 30 07:58:00 PDT 2022
Thank you for that additional detail about the default. I had thought
the only issue was priority.
Quit claim deeds pick up after-acquired title, but AFAIK, SWDs do not.
Perhaps case law (or a statute) on deeds could be applied to DOTs. Of
course it's really whatever the title company thinks
Kary L. Krismer
206 723-2148
On 3/29/2022 1:42 PM, Douglas Scott wrote:
> I appreciate your thoughts. In clarification, the client seller had
> no knowledge of the 2nd DOT. Buyer defaulted in payments and said
> he'd Deed In Lieu the commercial property back to the client. But
> when the title was searched, the client found the $440,000 2nd DOT.
> Client would rather not foreclose. There was no language in the 2nd
> DOT about it being signed before the closing but filed thereafter.
> *DOUGLAS W. SCOTT*
> Rainier Legal Advocates|LLC
>
> 465 Rainier Blvd. N., Suite C
> Issaquah, Washington 98027
> 425.392.8550 (tel)
> 425.392.2829 (fax)
> *
> *
>
>
> www.rainieradvocates.com <http://www.rainieradvocates.com/>
>
>
> Notice: This communication, including attachments, may contain
> information that is confidential and protected by the attorney/client
> or other privileges. It constitutes non-public information intended to
> be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If the reader or
> recipient of this communication is not the intended recipient, an
> employee or agent of the intended recipient who is responsible for
> delivering it to the intended recipient, or you believe that you have
> received this communication in error, please notify the sender
> immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail,
> including attachments without reading or saving them in any manner.
> The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of
> this e-mail, including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful.
> Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is not a waiver
> of any attorney/client or other privilege
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 12:46 PM David R. Ambrose
> <drambrose at ambroselaw.com> wrote:
>
> To the collective:
>
> 1. As to the direct question, I am not aware of any Washington
> law which would render the 2^nd DOT invalid if executed before the
> grantor even held title to the subject property. There could
> certainly be language in the 2^nd DOT and presumably some
> promissory note which provided that the 2^nd DOT would be recorded
> on the subject property if and when the grantor acquired ownership
> of the subject property. And even if there wasn’t any such
> language, as the 2^nd DOT wasn’t recorded until after the
> grantor/buyer acquired ownership of the subject property, it
> wasn’t a lien or cloud on title against the seller’s property.
> Query whether the beneficiary under the 2^nd DOT understood what
> the terms of the purchase price would be and that there would be a
> 1^st DOT in favor of the seller?
>
> 2. Doesn’t sound like there is a priority issue, assuming the
> facts as stated that the seller didn’t know of the executed 2^nd
> DOT, and that it was recorded nine days after the closing (and
> presumably after recording of the 1^st DOT. This would
> technically satisfy the race/notice provision of RCW 65.08.070,
> and it’s irrelevant from that standpoint as to when the 2^nd DOT
> was executed. I think the more interesting question is what would
> have happened if the seller knew of the 2^nd DOT before closing?
> At the time of execution, the grantor under the 2^nd DOT had no
> interest in the subject property, and could not have validly
> recorded the 2^nd DOT. So, does this knowledge kick in and put
> the 2^nd DOT effectively in first position, if the seller went
> ahead and just closed and recorded the seller’s deed, followed
> immediately by the recording of the 1^st DOT? Of course, if the
> seller had notice, presumably the seller would never have closed
> on the sale without addressing this issue.
>
> Best,
>
> David Ambrose
>
> drambrose at ambroselaw.com
>
> *From:* wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com
> <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> *On Behalf Of *Kary Krismer
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 29, 2022 11:49 AM
> *To:* wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
> *Subject:* Re: [WSBARP] 2nd DOT invalid?
>
> Assuming no knowledge of the 2nd DOT, wouldn't client be a BFP and
> thus take clear of the 2nd DOT? If that's not the purpose of
> recording statutes, I don't know what is.
>
> Did client have title insurance? If so, that would cover the DOT
> even if it recorded a couple of hours or days before the deed.
>
> Kary L. Krismer
>
> 206 723-2148
>
> On 3/29/2022 11:41 AM, Douglas Scott wrote:
>
> Client sells property to buyer securing the substantial
> balance of the payments by a 1st DOT. Unknown to the client,
> 2 months before the sale, the buyer had signed a 2nd DOT which
> buyer then recorded 9 days after the sale closed. Would
> executing the 2nd DOT 2 months before the buyer even bought
> the property render the 2nd DOT invalid?
>
>
> *DOUGLAS W. SCOTT*
>
> Rainier Legal Advocates|LLC
>
> 465 Rainier Blvd. N., Suite C
>
> Issaquah, Washington 98027
>
> 425.392.8550 (tel)
>
> 425.392.2829 (fax)
>
> www.rainieradvocates.com <http://www.rainieradvocates.com/>
>
> Notice: This communication, including attachments, may contain
> information that is confidential and protected by the
> attorney/client or other privileges. It constitutes non-public
> information intended to be conveyed only to the designated
> recipient(s). If the reader or recipient of this communication
> is not the intended recipient, an employee or agent of the
> intended recipient who is responsible for delivering it to the
> intended recipient, or you believe that you have received this
> communication in error, please notify the sender immediately
> by return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail, including
> attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. The
> unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction
> of this e-mail, including attachments, is prohibited and may
> be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the intended
> recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney/client or other
> privilege
>
>
>
> ***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
>
> ***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
>
>
> ***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
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20220330/db9142dd/attachment.html>
More information about the WSBARP
mailing list