real-estate
Putting farm you do not own into a living trust
<p>Here is the deal:</p>

<p>Owner <strong>Adam</strong> of a farm gives the farm in 2003ish to son-in-law <strong>Hank</strong> via quit claim deed. Owner <strong>Adam</strong> becomes just <strong>Adam</strong>. <strong>Adam</strong> continues to live on the farm. New owner <strong>Hank</strong> doesn't record the deed with the county, but pays property taxes henceforth.</p>

<p>Fast Forward to 2014.</p>

<p>Subject <strong>Tango</strong> (Son of Hank) moves into farm. <strong>Tango</strong> apparently has a motive to acquire the farm and <strong>Adam</strong> (now 99 years old) decides they want <strong>Tango</strong> to have the farm.</p>

<p><strong>Tango</strong> brings in an attorney and the farm is put into living trust without <strong>Hanks</strong> knowledge or consent. After <strong>Hank</strong> finds out, he believes that since <strong>Adam</strong> signed the quit claim deed they have no basis to put it into the living trust and the farm is still his.</p>

<p>Does <strong>Hank</strong> have the power to dispute the farm being in the living trust? Can there be consequences for the attorney who put the farm into the trust despite knowing there was a quit claim deed? Is the new quit claim deed inside the trust worthless or is the quit claim deed from circa 2003 worthless?</p>

<p>Thank you for any insight or information/experience you have.</p>

<p>There is a legal term for exactly what you describe: "a real mess".</p>

<p>Have a look at <a href="http://wiki.lawdepot.com/wiki/Quitclaim_Deed_FAQ_-_United_States#Property_Transfers" rel="nofollow">http://wiki.lawdepot.com/wiki/Quitclaim_Deed_FAQ_-_United_States#Property_Transfers</a></p>

<p><strong>Does Hank have the power to dispute the farm being in the living trust?</strong></p>

<p>Yes, anyone can dispute anything they like, however, it will almost certainly end in court and his prospects of success are OK at best.</p>

<p><strong>Can there be consequences for the attorney who put the farm into the trust despite knowing there was a quit claim deed?</strong></p>

<p>This rather begs the question: was there a quit claim deed? That is, I am not suggesting that there isn't a piece of paper so described but is it actually what it says it is at law? </p>

<p>Given that the answer to these questions is ambiguous; it would be difficult to state that the attorney has done anything that would be actionable.</p>

<p><strong>Is the new quit claim deed inside the trust worthless or is the quit claim deed from circa 2003 worthless?</strong></p>

<p>If they are valid then all they can do is transfer whatever interest Adam had in the land to Hank and Tango respectively. </p>

<p>If the 2003 deed is valid then Hank owns what Adam owned and all the new deed can do is transfer whatever rights remain to him (for example, a right to live there for the rest of his life).</p>

<p>It is important to remember that a quit claim deed does not make any claim that Adam has title to the land - I could give you a quit claim deed over it knowing that I really do not have an interest in it.</p>

<h2>The Land Mines</h2>

<p>Here are some of the legal issues that I can see</p>

<ul>
<li>Registration with the country appears to be a prerequisite of a valid quitclaim deed</li>
<li>A quitclaim deed can only transfer whatever ownership Adam had in the land - it doesn't mean that other people (e.g. Tango) don't also have a claim</li>
<li>Did Hank/Tango use "undue influence" to induce Adam to sign the quitclaim deed?</li>
<li>Did Hank/Tango give "valuable consideration" to Adam?</li>
<li>Did Adam intend that the documents he signed would be legally binding?</li>
<li>Did Adam at 87/99 years old respectively have legal capacity to sign the deeds?</li>
</ul>

<p>Your friend is going to need professional legal advice and needs to seriously consider the consequences to the family of initiating legal action - no matter who wins; relationships will be changed.</p>

<h1>Short Answer</h1>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>The property belongs to the first to record their deed. In this case, the trust.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>You didn't specify this in the question. But I assume the deed was recorded first by the trust because they had an attorney do it.</p>
<hr>
<h3>Explanation</h3>
<p>If you possess a deed, you must record it for it to take effect. The reason for this is to prevent exactly the situation you describe from &quot;clouding&quot; the title. A deed is generally not a deed unless and until it's recorded.</p>
<hr>
<h3>Reference</h3>
<p><a href="http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/double-check-that-your-home-deed-was-recorded-or-else.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Read this link</a>. There, it says:</p>
<p><em>...if your deed is not recorded, there is nothing in the public record to stop the seller from conveying the property to another person.</em></p>
<hr>
<h3>Disclaimer</h3>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>I am not an attorney. So don't follow my advice. Or any advice from a stranger on the internet. Hire a real attorney to handle your legal matters and treat this web site and my answer just like it came from one of your drunk friends at a party.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
