UTAH QUIET TITLE CASE GIVES CLEAR TITLE TO HOMEOWNER

GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

Harvey v Garbett, quiet title case in Draper Utah

(1) The case was decided on procedural rather than substantive grounds, so citing to this case as proof that the homeowner is entitled to quiet title in the context of a securitized loan would not be right. Nevertheless the substantive defects in the position of the pretenders prevents them from correcting the procedural defects in their position.
(2) The procedural history of the case would indicate that the lawyer for the Plaintiff knew what he was doing and gradually realized that Quieting Title has nothing to do with securitization. It is a simple matter of whether the party OF RECORD in the title registry of the county in which the property is located has any right, title or interest in the property — and therefore whether the recording of that instrument should be expunged from the record.
(3) Quieting title has nothing to do with the debt in a direct sense, although the fact that no money is owed to the defendant is a compelling reason for expunging the mortgage. If someone is holding or otherwise claims rights to the obligation that arose when the loan was funded for the benefit of the homeowner, they might and might not be able to use the note as evidence, but they certainly could introduce evidence of the fact their money went to the homeowner and it wasn’t a gift. It would be more like a lawsuit for restitution than enforcement of a note. There are some theories out there that an equitable lien could be imposed on the property, but the courts have not been very receptive to equitable liens or equitable assignments.

So in plain language what it means is that if you sue to quiet title your lawsuit should only be against the party in the title record and not the other parties who appear to have some claim or interest. And if you win, you have removed the security instrument from the title records, which probably eliminates the mortgage rights altogether, but if the courts split  hairs, they could carve out a distinction between the recording of an instrument and the recording of it. Either way it would be an uphill battle for anyone to argue that the debt was secured, and they would be required to plead and prove a difficult case.

Tags: borrower, creditor, disclosure, Eviction, foreclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, fraud, MERS, quiet title, rescission, securitization, TILA audit, trustee
Posted in bubble, Corruption, Eviction, securities fraud |