No unless there is a power of attorney that authorizes the seller to do so on the owners behalf.

Powered by

My wife and i are separated (she has literally left the country). she is on the deed/title but only my name is on the loan because she didn't have a ssn. i want to sell our property do i need her consent or can i sell it and remit the mortgage?

You can but it would not be legal. She is the legally registered co-owner of the property. You would need to get a court order to sell her half.

Powered by

I own 1/3 of a vineyard in napa valley. no home is on the land. my mother and sister own the other 2/3. i discover it listed for sale by accident one day on the internet. i am against the sale of this land and was never asked about selling it for it to be listed. i instantly e mailed the agent who had it listed telling her who i was and to take it off the listing now!!! she soon found out what i said was true. my question here is. when you contact a agent to sell your property isnt there some kind of a contract that has to be signed by all owners of the property to do so? i think my sister and mother might of forged my signature. the property is in the process of being sold to a buyer now. i have been contacted by the title/escrow company, but i have refused to sign anything untill i get some answers. i know the property can not be actually sold without my signature too. it can not be sold in sections either. i want to know if a real estate agent can list it for sale without all of the owners consent!

The property cannot be sold without your consent, unless it is by a court ordering the partition of the property. When more than one person owns a piece of property and the others wish to sell, they can petition the court to partition the property. If the court grants the request, the property is sold and the profits divided among the owners.

Powered by

I co-own a property with my business partner in seattle, wa. the property is titled under our individual names. i found that my business partner has used our house as collateral for a loan after the house was sold last month. and the title company has used all the proceeds to pay the loan. my question is: is the deed of trust (loan) valid without my signature on it? can the proceeds be used to repay the loan even if i didn't agree with it? is it title company's fault by not clearing the records on my house? if i can claim against the title company and my business partner in this case? thank you!

If I am reading this right, when you and your partner sold the house last month (and you closed on it and signed that the settlement statement was correct), you realized that there was an extra loan against the property that you had not known about previously? If that is what happened, you should not have completed the sale until that was addressed. If your partner did that, he committed fraud. He would have had to bring in someone to sign your name on the other loan when he took it out. Whoever closed on that loan is who committed a crime (as well as your partner). If the loan was validly filed of record, then the title company used to sell the property did correctly to pay it off when you sold the house. When you sold it, you signed that it was correct for them to pay off that loan with the proceeds. Didn't you realize that was happening at the time?

Powered by

I am interested in buying a plot of land to construct a house near patna in bihar. the information i have received from the registrar's office is as follows: the land was originally self-acquired by a person who had died long before. his only son and three grandsons are living as on date and enjoying the property (i have no information about existence of any daughter or grand-daughter). now the grandsons are pretending that they have divided all the properties (between the three grandsons only) with consent of their father but the partition is oral and there is no partition deed made. further, one grandson has sold some of his share of the land and his father has signed the sale deed as one of the witnesses. another grandson has agreed to sale some part of his share to me. he is saying that he will sale the property but in the similar way as his brother did (as mentioned above). now i have following questions: 1). whether the oral partition amounts to acquisition of title of ownership and right to sell by the grandsons without any documents registered in their name regarding the title of ownership after partition of the property? is it a type of ancestral property? who can be the rightful claimant(s) for this property under hindu succession act? someone has told me that instead of son, grandson has inherent right in the property of the grandfather and can sell the property. 2). is the method by which one grandson has sold his part of the land (by making his father as witness to the sale deed) is legally valid? 3). if the answer to question 2 is "no" then please suggest the actions i should ask (to the person who is willing to sale the land to me) to perform before the execution of sale deed in my favour so that the transfer becomes legally valid without any potential legal obstacles which may arise if the transfer is done in the way as one grandson has already done. 4) please also give me the name of the acts which are applicable in this situation. waiting for your valuable suggestions.

In case of transfer of immovable property nothing is done orally unless it is given on rent for a period less than one year and even in that form of transfer there exist a rent deed although not registered. The transfer of immovable property specially sale-purchase should take place by written sale deed duly registered with the Sub-Registrar of the district where the said property is located. Secondly, the sale of immovable property can be legally valid if that is done by the owner i.e. title holder of the property to the seller the new title holder. In the given case the property was having owned by the grand father and after his death his son and his grand sons acquired it. Legally the self acquired property of a Hindu male who dies intestate i.e. without leaving a Will is inherited by his sons/daughters not grand sons/daughters during the lifetime of the sons/daughters as provided under the Hindu Succession Act,1956, in this case the first thing which has to be checked is in whose name the property stands in the revenue department/sub-registrar records. If the property still in the name of grand father, was there name of his son or grand sons brought by way of mutation or not. If there is no mutation of name in the records, than neither the son nor grand sons of the deceased sell the property. The whole process of sale-purchase has to be done by process as provided by law (Transfer of Property Act and Registration Act) and by the Sub-Registrar, it not what one grand son did to some portion of the property by selling it to some one, such bogus sale-purchase of property through undervalued Non Judicial Stamp Paper, such Sale-Deed being attested by the Notary Public etc rather the Sub-Registrar is in practise through out India but that doesn't make the transfer of the immovable property valid, the large number of litigation's involving void transfer of properties though out India is just because of such cases.

Powered by

This was filed in california giving 50 percent of my property to my daughter and son-in-law, done without my consent, done without my knowledge, was not signed by me, recorded without being notarized, recorder's office said "oops" but my responsibility to correct because it would cause a cloud on title. son-in-law is trying to "buy me out" by giving me 1/2 of my equity. i want to sell, have ready buyer, how can i undo this fraudulent quit claim without their knowledge and sell with a clear title. there is a mortgage on the property, i have paid 100 percent of all costs, payments, utilities, insurance, etc.

Call my attorney, Michael Thomas, at 916-781-7750. He is a real estate attorney in California.

Powered by

This case was brought up in my organizational business class and i dont see how the teacher is correct. this is the sumary of the case: a company bought items from another store, took labels off and relabeled them with theirs, and marked up price. to resell. this is for sure unethical but how about legal? my teacher had a few comments: our legal code is based on the transfer of title (ownership) with the completion of the transaction (sale and exchange.) the property then belongs to the buyer who can use it in any legal fashion (any illegal fashion is a matter for the state and judiciary to investigate and sanction according to the law.) hence, when you buy something (of any amount) you own it. so if you sell your own property it is implicit that you have given your consent. price gouging is a legal concept based on a price established by government. the price can be arbitrary or pegged to some standard such as using the “market” rate at some reference time. (no more room) guys i dont care about the resell. its about taking tags off and putting yours on.

To be sure not, I mean, there has to be laws against this. If not whats keeping me from ripping the badges off my BMW and calling it a Bauran, I could make a mint!

Powered by

H, husband of w, holds a house on implied trust (w contributes to purchase price) for both of them but has sole registered title. while w is away, he invites p to view the house with a view to selling without w's consent or knowledge. p views the house and sees w's clothes, but h claims that these belong to a visiting family member, avoiding mention of w. h then destroys the clothes before p again views the house at the time of disposition, and only a picture of h and w remains as evidence of w. p buys the property. while the issue is clearly one of actual occupation under lra 2002, the outcome is not clear because of the need for occupation to be obvious. my question is this: in the event that the court finds occupation (despite the fact this may be unlikely given the aims of the new act), then p will take subject to w's interest and interest to occupy, holding it on trust for her. as p is entirely blameless due to the considered deception by h, does p have a remedy against h?

I think it would depend on whether or not P eventually suffers any damages; for example, if W never comes home or contests the sale, P would still have superior title to the world and have suffered no damages. In that case, i can't see how P would have an action against H.

Powered by

We’re living in a country that elected a president that believes in redistributing wealth. he’s mentioned this himself, from the “joe the plumber” incident to his critique of the failures of the civil rights movement. whether you call it socialism, communism, marxism, or by its simpler name, theft, they are all part of the same economic system that destroys private property and puts everything in central control of the state. socialism’s recent failures can be seen in russia, cuba, vietnam, ethiopia, poland and mongolia. yet these lessons don’t have to be learned from studying the histories of far off lands, for we have numerous examples of collectivist/socialist experiments here in america. the pilgrims sought to live in a society that promoted “just and equal laws.” their first year saw the death of half of their population through disease, starvation, and malnutrition. in the story we learn that only when william bradford instituted private property that people began to work harder and innovate more. even women and children went out to the fields with their husbands, which meant more crops were planted and ultimately harvested. this led to more trade with the local tribes, earlier repayment of debt to the english sponsors, and overall prosperity of the colony. january 1, 1816. a man named robert owen proposed a new type of model society. in his plans, each of these communities of 2,500 individuals would “be self-governing and hold its property in the common.” so popular was owen that when he reached america from britain, president john quincy adams displayed one of owen’s architectural models for this ideal community. he established his community in indiana, christening it new haven in 1825. in new haven, “not only work, but also recreation and meditation were communal and regimented.” everything was collectivized, including “cooking, child care, and other domestic work.” ironically, it was women that were relegated to these chores. the community lasted two years. (the term “socialism” was actually coined by owen’s followers around the time new haven failed.) july 16, 1840. charles fourier, a french social theorist, came up with the solution to the problems associated with collectivized living: it should be done on a smaller scale. he calculated that 1,620 was the ideal population and that they should live on 6,000 acres. these were called phalanxes. charles brisbane decided to implement this idea, ultimately establishing 28 of them. all failed within 12 years. march 5, 1804. george rapp and six hundred of his followers came to america. they set up a community in pennsylvania called harmony where communal farming was practiced yet eventually sold it ten years later to robert owen. in 1841, humphrey noyes started the “perfectionists”, and wrote a book on his theories titled bible communism. noyes took collectivism to the next level; not only was all property communal, but so were spouses. the term for this was “complex marriage” and in practice it meant, “all the men in the perfectionist community considered themselves husbands to all the women, and each woman the wife of every man.” before coitus, and even conception, people had to have consent granted by the whole community. economically, and with a hint of irony, they flourished by building and marketing animal traps. however, this particular communist experiment ended when they established a joint-stock company called oneida community, ltd. during the last seventy years, socialists had their chance to institute their ideal in many countries around the world. and in every case the result has been disastrous. socialism in practice has produced tyranny, mass murder, poverty, corruption and cultural destruction. the rejection of socialism by the people of eastern europe and the former soviet union must be considered the ultimate indictment of the ideology that declared itself to be the liberator of mankind. my sources charles fourier http://www.britannica.com/ebchecked /topic/215092/charles-fourier george rapp http://www.britannica.com/ebchecked /topic/491531/george-rapp humphrey noyes http://www.britannica.com/ebchecked /topic/620790/utopian-socialism i have the books but i was nice enough to post the online link for those who are politically unable to research it for themselves. which part do you consider a rant? these are historical facts presented in a educational way.

Yes the latest experiment is a failure. Why work for $10 per hour when you can draw endless unemployment for $10 per hour? Socialism-Communism-Marxism only works when everyone who buys in totally buys in to the system. It is my understanding that in the Israeli Kibbutz communities, they are totally socialist and everyone who lives there knows this and wants this. So if you are a doctor, then your net benefit is the same as an agricultural worker. It's all equal no matter how much hard effort you put in. It's all equal no matter how much education and training are needed to do what you do. Now, taking that system and applying it to people who don't want it never works. Humans inherently understand fairness and unfairness. Even toddlers can understand it.

Powered by

We're currently unhappy with our listing realtor. now that we are on a tighter deadline (we found a property we hope to buy) she is claiming that we listed 5g above what she had suggested; which is entirely untrue, we listed the exact middle of the range she gave us on the market analysis. she is also refusing to do an open house, stating that it's pointless. now because my husband bought our house prior to our marriage he is the only person on the title. i have not signed the dower consent and acknowledgment that the contract states is neccessary in our case. also, the contract is not signed at the bottom of the 3rd page (stating brokerage fees, deposits, and security on brokerage fees). is our contract valid. (i was present when my husband signed it) if we 'fire' our realtor will we need to uphold the 90 day holdover period? any other thoughts on the situation? it might help to know our location (central alberta, canada). the reason for our sale is not financial difficulty, only that we want to be closer to our extended family and work. the property we hope to buy is in the same general price range as our current home.

The single most important factor to consider when selling a house is the home price tag: how much your house is worth. You don't want to overprice the house because you will lose the freshness of the home's appeal after the first two to three weeks of showings. After 21 days, demand and interest wane. On the other hand, don't worry about pricing it too low because homes priced below market value often will receive multiple offers, which will then drive up the price to market. Pricing is all about supply and demand. It's part art and part science, and no two agents price property the same way. You picked the middle price range..she gave you a choice. I would say, if homes like yours, in your area are selling for $300,000, put your asking price at $295,000 if you want your house to get attention. Your selling in a buyers market..it's tough out there! Hope the site helps you...been there ( in a bad real estate market ) There are are things YOU can do..to help !