Not sure if the laws of the US would be the same, but for the lawyers on this forum, a question: Recently a BC man learned that someone had sold his house and that the buyer had obtained a mortgage on it. He learned of this when he didn't get his Property Assessment from the tax department. The title had been fraudulently transferred to a crook.
I've read of similar cases, and the upshot is that the mortgage must be repaid and in some cases the rightful owner loses the house.
It seems to me that the "rights" of the mortgage grantor override the right of the proper owner even when the mortgage was obtained fraudulently. Why?
For the Lawyers here, a question:
For the Lawyers here, a question:
Dig deeper.
It may be peculiar to any given jurisdiction, don't know. It happens in Ontario, too. I just read about such a case and the rightful owner had to spend $50,000 in legal fees to get her house back. And in the end, the court held that the fraudulent mortgage had to be repaid but the bank in question wrote it off as a sort of goodwill gesture.
Dig deeper.
Well, Vison, I'm not a property lawyer, and have tried to forget everything I learned in law school, but I vaguely recall deeds and it is complex.
The main problem has to do with "wild deeds", where somebody sold to somebody else, but nobody bothered to inform the recording office of the sale. What do you do about subsequent good faith purchasers where the owner has not recorded their deed? There are a number of solutions out there, at least in the U.S., saying that first to record wins, no matter if the first to record was the bad faith purchaser, or a solution where the first to record wins, only if they were a good faith purchaser (had no notice of the prior sale).
Anyways, you've now competely exhausted my memories.
The main problem has to do with "wild deeds", where somebody sold to somebody else, but nobody bothered to inform the recording office of the sale. What do you do about subsequent good faith purchasers where the owner has not recorded their deed? There are a number of solutions out there, at least in the U.S., saying that first to record wins, no matter if the first to record was the bad faith purchaser, or a solution where the first to record wins, only if they were a good faith purchaser (had no notice of the prior sale).
Anyways, you've now competely exhausted my memories.
Jeez, Ellienor, I don't know!!!!
But in the two cases I just read about, the rightful owner had proper title recorded at the Land Registry Office. And the newspaper article today said that one way of protecting yourself is to get a copy of the title deed - because when you get the copy, it is recorded on the orginal that someone has a copy and anyone wanting to sell the property, or to buy it I guess, they would have to have both copies. Or something like that.
It just seems weird to me that if a mortage company or bank lends money without being certain of the title, that it isn't their problem instead of the rightful owner's.
But in the two cases I just read about, the rightful owner had proper title recorded at the Land Registry Office. And the newspaper article today said that one way of protecting yourself is to get a copy of the title deed - because when you get the copy, it is recorded on the orginal that someone has a copy and anyone wanting to sell the property, or to buy it I guess, they would have to have both copies. Or something like that.
It just seems weird to me that if a mortage company or bank lends money without being certain of the title, that it isn't their problem instead of the rightful owner's.
Dig deeper.
Hm, so the problem seems to be that somebody forged the proper owner's signature to title documents recording a sale, recorded properly at the land office, and got the mortgage. Therefore, the mortgagor had no notice that this signature was obtained fraudulently. That's messy. Here's where a property lawyer needs to step in. 