Posted by Knotaree FL on 4/26/05 9:37am
Msg #33993

PAW not always accurate/right

On 4/23/05 (mess #33595), he stated, in part, "...everyone who is "on title" needs to sign the mortgage..". This is not correct. Here is at least one siituation where all those "on title" need not sign the mortgage: when property is owned as tenants in common, a lender may elect to seperately lend upon and mortgage a common tenant's interest. More beyond the general comprehension of this forum, a ground lessee's interest can be mortgaged apart from joinder of the ground lessor (legal title owner of the land). Also, as can be seen from the foregoing examples, "needs" is not correctly used to the extent he meant "legally required". A lender can decide from whom to obtain a mortgage and have a valid mortgage as to that interest. I have noticed on more than this occasion inaccuracies in PAW's responses and will try to enligten the forum when this next occurs.

Reply by Dave_CA on 4/26/05 9:40am
Msg #33996

Well put a star on your smug little head... N/M

Reply by A_MD on 4/26/05 9:44am
Msg #33998

As to ground rent, which is still fairly common is some area of MD, only the owner of the ground is on the title to the ground. So, the owner of the building/house/etc is not on the ground title.
You forgot to mention the situation of dower states and community property states where lending on a "tenent in comon"'s interest still would require spouses signature.

Art

Reply by Knotaree on 4/26/05 9:48am
Msg #34000

As a response to the general and all comprehensive nature of PAW"s comment, I maintain the accuracy of my reponse..

Reply by Knotaree FL on 4/26/05 10:00am
Msg #34003

Further response to A__MD

The ground lessor/lessee relationship I referred to in my initial email is where both have title to the ground---one as owner; one as lessee.

Reply by A_MD on 4/26/05 10:12am
Msg #34009

Re: lessee doesn't have title.

A lessee doesn't have title and will not appear on any deed. They have a contract.

Reply by Charm_AL on 4/26/05 10:16am
Msg #34011

A_MD

*A lessee doesn't have title and will not appear on any deed. They have a contract*

that' may be why he does $25.-$30. signings

Reply by Stephen_VA on 4/26/05 10:18am
Msg #34013

Re: A_MD

But Nerfred does a lot of them because now that he is offering to do them for $30 all the brokers decided they would go get more customers and increase volume.

Reply by Knotaree on 4/26/05 10:22am
Msg #34014

Re: lessee doesn't have title.

Wrong...ground lease, or memo of, that evidences the "title" to the leasehold is recorded

Reply by Txbroker on 4/26/05 12:07pm
Msg #34041

Re: Further response to A__MD


I am a real estate broker also and find this interesting. A lessee has only the right to possession for consideration which is RENT. Nothing goes on the title of the land in the lessee name. A ground lease is for the land ONLY exclusive of any building . The owners name is on the title, not the leassee or tenant whichever name you want to use.

Reply by Art_MD on 4/26/05 1:09pm
Msg #34068

Re: Further response to A__MD

In Baltimore Md, and several adjacent counties, a significant amount of "ground rent" exists. Some of it 200 years old. Most, not all is redeemable, at building owners option. Most rent is set, and the purchase price would be 16 2/3 times the yearly rent. (lessee is paying 6% of land value as rent). Law now is once the building and land are rejoined, they cannot be broken apart again. (What law has joined together, let no man put asunder)

In MD we have to be title producers to do refi closings, and ground rent was included in the learning curve.

Art

Reply by Stephen_VA on 4/26/05 10:09am
Msg #34005

Well thank you for the information.

However, it seems like PAWs statement is so applicable to 99% of cases that it is a good stance to operate from as a non lawyer. In other words, it is so applicable as to be common knowledge, your example is a legal distinction. If I am just doing a bozo check, then when I call and say "99% of mortages have both sign, are you sure you want it this way?" They would in all likelihood respond by saying "This is a special case. Do it this way." However, in many peoples experience they might say "The borrower is MARRIED?? What??" I would much rather have a 45 second conversation with someone to clarify a rarely occurring situation than to have a loan that is messed up.

Reply by Stephen_VA on 4/26/05 10:25am
Msg #34015

Point being, PAWs stance is safe because I am going to call the SS or Title company before acting on anything anyway. They can clarify the specifics.

Reply by Jeanie-fl on 4/26/05 10:49am
Msg #34023

Well WHOOPIE - there's an exception to the rule

Anyone over the age of 10 expects there to be exceptions to any rule. Both Paw and Sylvia answered my question to my satisfaction and I was grateful for their input. If you had a problem with the answer you should have said so then.

Oh, so sorry, I forgot you crave attention by any means possible. Last week it was your $25 to $30 signing fee. This week you're gloating that you found an exception to a rule given by a well respect member of this board.

It's a good thing all you want is attention by stirring things up because you're NEVER going to get respect!!!!!!!

Reply by PAW_Fl on 4/26/05 11:42am
Msg #34034

>>> On 4/23/05 (mess #33595), he stated, in part, "...everyone who is "on title" needs to sign the mortgage..". This is not correct. <<<

I typically don't answer dimwitted anonymous posters, but in this case I'll make an exception.

I was answering a post about a specific set of circumstances. Given those conditions, my answer is 99 44/100 percent accurate. As has been pointed out by others, your premise and exception notwithstanding, is flawed in itself. I called a local attorney and asked about ground lessee conditions of title to property. I was told that the owners of the property in question (e.g. a modular or manufactured home in a "park") would be on title to the property in question, but not to the land. The owner of the property in question may have a lease to the land, but wouldn't appear on title to that land. Having leases, mortgages, etc., recorded, does not constitute someone having ownership rights by title to the property.

I also inquired about separate mortgages for different owners on one title. He told me he didn't know if it could be done, but doesn't make sense to do it that way, especially with the way Florida statutes concerning real property and homestead are written.

I personally would think that a lender would ensure how title is written when preparing the mortgage. That's their job. And, as far as I've ever seen, in Florida, everyone who has been on title for any property that I have done, has had to sign the mortgage and the vesting on the mortgage had to match the vesting on the deed of conveyance(s) that transferred the ownership to the property owners. Any case that would arise where it is noted that there is a non-signer on title, would raise a red flag. A call to title would hopefully rectify the situation, as has been in the past.

Also, please enlighten me on my inaccuracies in my responses. I pride myself in being accurate and if I am in error, I would like to know it so I don't make that error again. This is called learning and I am always in learning mode.

Reply by Knotaree FL on 4/26/05 12:12pm
Msg #34042

Re: PAW not always accurate/right--Response to PAW

The premises and exceptions are not flawed. In a ground lease, there is a legal title holder to the land and a legal title holder to the use (or lease ) of the land. The ground lessee, by virtue of the lease, certainly does have a set of rights to the land. When a title search is done, both interests will show up and be insurable interests. You are looking at "title" narrowly as the deed and not the ownership rights that in this case are also evidenced by a ground lease---look up "lease" in Black's (i.e., a conveyance of land for a certain period) and look up "title" (i.e.. a right to possession). The separate interests can be mortgaged (granted that subordinations and tri-party agreements as to rights if a default may be entered, but nevertheless the sepertate legal OWNERSHIP interests can be mortgaged). In a tenant in common situation, the seperate interests can certainly be mortgaged. Again, you wrote as if it were an absolute to have all those "on title" on the mortgage and it is not.

Reply by John / FL on 4/26/05 12:58pm
Msg #34060

Re: PAW not always accurate/right--Response to PAW

Hmmmmmm...before you go quoting Black's, maybe you should actually take the time to look it up. Do you actually own a legal dictionary?? A lease as defined by black's is not the "conveyance of land," but rather the conveyance of the right to use the land.

"A contract by which a rightful possessor of real property conveys the right to use and occupy the property in exchange for consideration, usu. rent." Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004)

A title is most definitely not the "right to possession." It is the "1....the legal right to control and dispose of property" and "2. Legal evidence of a person's ownership rights in property..." Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004)

A lessee has no rights of ownership. Just a right of possession.

However, what is even more troubling than your inability to reconcile fact and fiction is your desire to slam a specific poster for trying to deliver assistance. You should be ashamed.

Reply by Knortaree FL on 4/26/05 1:07pm
Msg #34064

John (pea brain)

Read all the definitions and stretch your pea brain a little. I am correct in my assertions.

Reply by John / FL on 4/26/05 1:10pm
Msg #34069

Re: John (pea brain)

OUCH!!! That really hurts. Glad to see that you don't have a better response. I will take Paw's info over yours any day of the week.

Reply by Sylvia_FL on 4/26/05 6:36pm
Msg #34156

Re: John (pea brain)

John
It is far better to have a pea brain, than have no brain like Notaree

Reply by BrendaTX on 4/26/05 3:46pm
Msg #34111

*This is called learning and I am always in learning mode.*
- - - - - -

Well, just stop it .... get your huff on, Paul .... you are making the rest of us look bad.

- - - - - -

Reply by Kari/CA on 4/26/05 11:55am
Msg #34038

Why attack Paul, This make you feel better now?

Small, small, mind

Reply by Sylvia_FL on 4/26/05 12:04pm
Msg #34040

Re: Why attack Paul, This make you feel better now?

Yeah must make the dimwit feel better now.

Let's see, whose word would I take on this.

On the one hand you have Paul - a former VPO with Chase Title
On the other hand you have someone who won't even use their real name, is so inexperienced that they would work for $30.

Hmmmm doesn't take much to figure out whose word is more reliable.

Reply by Sylvia_FL on 4/26/05 12:13pm
Msg #34043

Re: Why attack Paul, This make you feel better now?- oops

That should be Chase Manhattan bank and not Chase Title

Reply by Kari on 4/26/05 12:42pm
Msg #34055

A dimwit, that could fit.

Amazes me when someone can just offer information finds the need to put someone down.
When I read something like that, just makes me think the person putting the other down is
jealous of the other person, don't ya think!

Reply by DellaCa on 4/26/05 1:31pm
Msg #34072

Re: Leave Paul alone He's one of my Hero's N/M

Reply by Kari on 4/26/05 8:44pm
Msg #34185

hey, my response was to Sylvia's response refer to the

dimwit, bashing Paul. That she had sent to me. Read all the response to see what we were talking about.

Reply by Adrock_fl on 4/26/05 1:43pm
Msg #34082

Re: Why attack Paul, This make you feel better now?

if this were a dance off, it would be ON!!!!!!

Reply by CarolynCO on 4/26/05 8:13pm
Msg #34179

*I have noticed on more than this occasion inaccuracies in PAW's responses and will try to enligten the forum when this next occurs.*

Enlighten the forum ??? Life must either be dull for you, or you have nothing better to do.