<div dir="ltr">I believe that if the deed language is silent on the character then it is a TIC by default split equally between the individuals on the deed. So it would be 25% each and each owner would have had to sign the deed of trust/note to encumber that owner's respective interest. <div><br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div>Kelby J. Derenick </div><div>Attorney</div><div><br></div><div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34)"><b><span style="font-family:garamond,"times new roman",serif">9414 State Ave., Suite E</span></b></div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34)"><b><span style="font-family:garamond,"times new roman",serif">Marysville, WA 98270<br>Ph: (206) 659-5061</span></b></div></div><div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34)"><div><b style="font-family:garamond,"times new roman",serif"><br></b></div></div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34)"><b><span style="font-family:garamond,"times new roman",serif">14 E. Main Street, Suite 207</span><br></b></div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34)"><font face="garamond, times new roman, serif"><b>Walla Walla, WA 99362</b></font></div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34)"><b><font face="garamond, times new roman, serif">Ph: (509) 676-9805</font></b></div></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;font-size:11pt"><br></span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;font-size:11pt">CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail message contains information that (a) is or may be legally privileged, confidential, proprietary in nature, or otherwise protected by law from disclosure, and (b) is intended only for the use of the Addressee(s) named herein. If you are not the intended recipient, an addressee, or the person responsible for delivering this to an addressee, you are hereby notified that reading, using, copying, or distributing any part of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic mail message in error, please contact me immediately and take the steps necessary to delete the message completely from your computer system. Thank you.</span><br></div><div><div style="margin:0px;padding:0px 0px 20px;width:468.381px;color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:Roboto,RobotoDraft,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:medium"><div><div style="margin:8px 0px 0px;padding:0px"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><span style="font-size:11pt;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif"><br></span></div></div></div></div></div><div></div><div></div></div></div><div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Jul 7, 2023 at 1:04 PM Eric Nelsen <<a href="mailto:eric@sayrelawoffices.com">eric@sayrelawoffices.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div class="msg285407011846551993">
<div lang="EN-US" style="overflow-wrap: break-word;">
<div class="m_285407011846551993WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">You are correct: Chucklehead only burdened his own interest in the property. If all four names are on title, I don’t see any viable theory that would allow C’s signature on a deed of trust to also encumber the other three owners’ interests.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Sincerely,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Eric<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Eric C. Nelsen<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Sayre Law Offices, PLLC<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>1417 31st Ave South<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Seattle WA 98144-3909<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>206-625-0092<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><a href="mailto:eric@sayrelawoffices.com" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(5,99,193)">eric@sayrelawoffices.com</span></a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div style="border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:none;border-top:1pt solid rgb(225,225,225);padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>From:</span></b><span> <a href="mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com" target="_blank">wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a> <<a href="mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com" target="_blank">wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Craig Gourley<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, July 7, 2023 12:50 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> WSBA Real Property Listserv <<a href="mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com" target="_blank">wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [WSBARP] encumbering a partial interest.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Listmates, I think I know the common sense answer to this question but I have little faith that common sense applies to most legal matters. Facts- 4 people own a home together. Their names are all on the title with no indication of
percentage or characterization ( JT or TIC or ?). One chucklehead goes and gets a loan without the knowledge or consent of the other 3 and gives a DOT against the property. Chucklehead then dies and loan goes into default. Lender is now foreclosing. The
question is this. Did Chucklehead only encumber an undivided 25% intertest or is there some legal theory that he was able to unilaterally grant a security interest in the entire property to the lender? Thanks much to anyone still in the office on a sunny
Friday. <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>GOURLEY LAW GROUP</span></b><span><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>THE EXCHANGE CONNECTION</span></b><span><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>SNOHOMISH ESCROW </span>
</b><span><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>P.O. Box 1091<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Snohomish, WA 98291<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>PH: (360) 568-5065 (800) 291-8401<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Fax: (360) 568-8092 <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt">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</span><span>.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
***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.***<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
WSBARP mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:WSBARP@lists.wsbarppt.com" target="_blank">WSBARP@lists.wsbarppt.com</a><br>
<a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp</a></div></blockquote></div>