CA CA - Bob Harrod, 81, Orange County, 27 July 2009 - # 9

[believe09]

Starting in 1999 and through 2007, there were various deeds and assignment of rent recorded for AH’s (Bob’s grandson’s) property between AH and Bob/Georgia/Trust

AH and his wife filed for bankruptcy on 03/19/2001

It’s my understanding Bob/Georgia/Trust held the deed to AH’s house via a Trust Deed, so AH was obligated to pay off the loan for his house

Last month, there is a Quitclaim Deed recorded on 4/25/2012 with AH as Grantor and PB and RB COTR (Conservators?) as Grantees

Does this mean AH gets to walk away from his debt to Bob?


OC Clerk Property Records:
Document Number: 2012000235329
Document Type: QUITCLAIM DEED
Recording Date: 4/25/2012
Number of Pages: 2
Grantor: HARROD ANDREW R TR
Grantee: BORCHER PAULA S COTR

Document Number: 2012000235329
Document Type: QUITCLAIM DEED
Recording Date: 4/25/2012
Number of Pages: 2
Grantor: HARROD ANDREW R TR
Grantee: BRADY ROBERTA D COTR

· Deeds of Trusts are loan documents given at the time of purchase resulting in an obligation to pay the loan or foreclosure may result. The Deed of Trust is also recorded when refinancing.
· Quit Claim Deed: A legal instrument (document) which is used to transfer (convey) rights in real property from one entity (the grantor) to another (the grantee). This type of real estate deed only transfers the interest that the grantor currently holds in the property to the grantee. Commonly used in transfers of title or interests in title, quit claims are often made to family members, divorcing or recently married spouses, LLCs, corporate entities, trusts, or in other transactions between people well-known to each other. This type of deed is sometimes incorrectly referred to as a "Quick Claim Deed."


https://cr.ocgov.com/recorderworks/
http://www.quitclaimdeed.com/
http://www.pacer.gov/

I need to get back to this.

So, perhaps AH is divorcing his wife and he deeded the house back to the trust to prevent his wife and children from benefiting from owning the house...is this possible?

It defies reason that he would be absolved of a debt, an accumulating one at that, on a whim. So how would forgiveness enhance Bob's holdings I wonder? It cant be forgiveness because it makes no earthly sense, so it must be that the trust is taking back the property and the trust will be taking AH to court for what he owes on top of the home itself.

In order to do something like this, does there need to be an appraisal on file? Like if he bought the house for 20K, and it is worth 40K, which amount is subracted from what he owes or do they just take back the house and pursue him for all of the debt...like a repo?

I might lean to the divorce thing....if that is also a method of preventing having to share.

Have any other Harrod members done the same thing? Bob owned all of their houses at one point, didnt he?

 

[Cubby]

When someone is in foreclosure the mortgage company does not re-appraise the property to determine the amount of debt owed by the borrower. The amount of debt is determined by the original mortgage documents for which the person borrowed.

The debt would be all unpaid mortgage fee's, plus interest, plus late fee's, plus all costs involved in the mortgage foreclosure process. In the case of a normal mortgage that would include court filing fee's as well as attorney's fee's.

It is my understanding if the home later sells for less than what what the debtor owed, (after a foreclosure) the mortgage holder/bank can still go after the debtor for the difference between what was owed on the mortgage and what the home sold for.

IOW if the bank sells the home for 50,000 (after foreclosure) but the mortgage debt was for 100,000 the bank can go after the debtor to collect the 50,000 difference or the banks loss on the home.

At least that is my understanding of how this works.

 

[Oriah]

I need to get back to this.

So, perhaps AH is divorcing his wife and he deeded the house back to the trust to prevent his wife and children from benefiting from owning the house...is this possible?

It defies reason that he would be absolved of a debt, an accumulating one at that, on a whim. So how would forgiveness enhance Bob's holdings I wonder? It cant be forgiveness because it makes no earthly sense, so it must be that the trust is taking back the property and the trust will be taking AH to court for what he owes on top of the home itself.

In order to do something like this, does there need to be an appraisal on file? Like if he bought the house for 20K, and it is worth 40K, which amount is subracted from what he owes or do they just take back the house and pursue him for all of the debt...like a repo?

I might lean to the divorce thing....if that is also a method of preventing having to share.

Have any other Harrod members done the same thing? Bob owned all of their houses at one point, didnt he?

The accepting trust portion of a quit claim deed would have to have had Bob sign off on that (because he has not been declared deceased and still manages the trust) isn't that correct? Is that one of the reasons for all of the co-conservatorship filings then?
Not an attorney, but now I feel like calling mine and asking.

 

[believe09]

The accepting trust portion of a quit claim deed would have to have had Bob sign off on that (because he has not been declared deceased and still manages the trust) isn't that correct? Is that one of the reasons for all of the co-conservatorship filings then?
Not an attorney, but now I feel like calling mine and asking.

Do it!!! Cause I need a clearer picture, lol. So AH owes what he owes regardless of whether or not he gives the house back to the trust...kind of like a short sale situation? Without the sale part?

 

[charminglane]

Let's get back to AH for a minute-what if he isnt JeM's? It really is an interesting thought...or perhaps he had such distaste for his own surname he adopted his beloved grandfather's. JeM jettisoned his surname as well.

Weird family...jmo.

If he adopted his beloved grandfather's name, then he should get off his ever loving and put the word out across the land that the poor man is missing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Cubby]

Here is some information on release of liability on short sales. I don't know how these laws apply to private financing versus bank financing, or if the court would allow such due to the fiduciary responsibility of the co-conservator's.

Considering they went full force after money that the court determined not to be a loan per Bob's so detailed record keeping, it will be interesting to see how the co-conservator's approach this documented debt of a family member.

Not to mention, the house has not been sold, so not sure how a release of liability not associated with a sale of some sort could even apply.

http://homebuying.about.com/od/shortsale/qt/What-Is-A-Release-Of-Liability-For-A-Short-Sale.htm

 

[Cubby]

If he adopted his beloved grandfather's name, then he should get off his ever loving and put the word out across the land that the poor man is missing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can we make that an ever loving lazy azz since he couldn't be bothered to pay his debt to his grandfather or make a peep about his disappearance?

Not one peep from an able bodied 33 yr old man who benefited so much from his grandfather. :maddening:

 

[believe09]

If he adopted his beloved grandfather's name, then he should get off his ever loving and put the word out across the land that the poor man is missing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah. This family is interesting for sure. There are a long list of reasons apparently why they cant get the word out...didnt we see one once that no one was "local" to Placentia?

I would do the rotf-laughing smiley, but it isnt funny. Guess their lives are so full, they just dont have the time to do the heavy lifting themselves.

Mrs Harrod has the time apparently, or at least Mrs Harrod has been heroic in her effort. Since day one.

How many interviews do they have a piece? Bio daughters-one. Mrs Harrod and family-many.

 

[Angelo]

Yeah. This family is interesting for sure. There are a long list of reasons apparently why they cant get the word out...didnt we see one once that no one was "local" to Placentia?

I would do the rotf-laughing smiley, but it isnt funny. Guess their lives are so full, they just dont have the time to do the heavy lifting themselves.

Mrs Harrod has the time apparently, or at least Mrs Harrod has been heroic in her effort. Since day one.

How many interviews do they have a piece? Bio daughters-one. Mrs Harrod and family-many.

BBM~~

IIRC, one daughter said she felt "uncomfortable" in the area and that it was a very creepy place to be and she did not feel safe there.

 

[Oriah]

Do it!!! Cause I need a clearer picture, lol. So AH owes what he owes regardless of whether or not he gives the house back to the trust...kind of like a short sale situation? Without the sale part?

Now I'm really curious, cause I called my attorney.

I know these things can vary from state to state, but to use an example:

Let's say I have several different trusts set up with co-conservators named that include property (some mortgaged, some owned) and various bank accounts with cash and funds and anything else of value, such as antiques etc. The co-conservators are there in the event of death of the trustor(s), to manage the trust as is directed in the will by the trustor. So let's say as trustor I have named three trustees to benefit from my trust in the event of my death, and I have also dedicated a 4th portion of the trust to continuity of the trust itself. The co-conservators are there to ensure that the three individuals I have named receive the portion of the trust I have designated for them, and to maintain the integrity of the fourth portion in perpetuity (as I have designated in my will, using whatever perpetuity formula chosen by myself.)

A quit claim deed to any of the properties ensconsed within my trust is going to serve no purpose unless I am alive or have been declared dead. If I have been declared dead, then the co-conservators could sign off on the title of property within my trust via a quit claim, but if it were mortgaged through a bank the trustee would still be accountable for the debt...unless the trustee declared bankrupcy.
If it were owned outright by my trust, then co-conservators could sign off on a quit claim and it would be a gift back to the trust, and I would think any money owed via a personal loan could be paid in that fashion.

I don't know. I am somewhat confused, because if I disappear tomorrow (not die) my co-conservators cannot make any changes to my trust- and they are not necessarily one in the same as the trustees either...for that very reason. And at any rate, it all seems a moot point (with the, umm, exception of motive of course) because the reality is, we do not know if Bob is alive or dead. If he decided to up and move to Panama, all of his trust is still his, under his control, and his alone until declared dead.

Why would co-conservators even be wasting their time with all of this? If AH's home is in foreclosure, and Bob was the 'bank' that was holding what is essentially his 'mortgage'...then a quit claim isn't going to do a thing because Bob isn't here to sign off on it- and he still owes his payments to the 'bank' which is the trust that loaned him the money to begin with.
That's the way it was explained to me, anyway.

Am I making any sense? We need a verified attorney in here!

 

[believe09]

Now I'm really curious, cause I called my attorney.

I know these things can vary from state to state, but to use an example:

Let's say I have several different trusts set up with co-conservators named that include property (some mortgaged, some owned) and various bank accounts with cash and funds and anything else of value, such as antiques etc. The co-conservators are there in the event of death of the trustor(s), to manage the trust as is directed in the will by the trustor. So let's say as trustor I have named three trustees to benefit from my trust in the event of my death, and I have also dedicated a 4th portion of the trust to continuity of the trust itself. The co-conservators are there to ensure that the three individuals I have named receive the portion of the trust I have designated for them, and to maintain the integrity of the fourth portion in perpetuity (as I have designated in my will, using whatever perpetuity formula chosen by myself.)

A quit claim deed to any of the properties ensconsed within my trust is going to serve no purpose unless I am alive or have been declared dead. If I have been declared dead, then the co-conservators could sign off on the title of property within my trust via a quit claim, but if it were mortgaged through a bank the trustee would still be accountable for the debt...unless the trustee declared bankrupcy.
If it were owned outright by my trust, then co-conservators could sign off on a quit claim and it would be a gift back to the trust, and I would think any money owed via a personal loan could be paid in that fashion.

I don't know. I am somewhat confused, because if I disappear tomorrow (not die) my co-conservators cannot make any changes to my trust- and they are not necessarily one in the same as the trustees either...for that very reason. And at any rate, it all seems a moot point (with the, umm, exception of motive of course) because the reality is, we do not know if Bob is alive or dead. If he decided to up and move to Panama, all of his trust is still his, under his control, and his alone until declared dead.

Why would co-conservators even be wasting their time with all of this? If AH's home is in foreclosure, and Bob was the 'bank' that was holding what is essentially his 'mortgage'...then a quit claim isn't going to do a thing because Bob isn't here to sign off on it- and he still owes his payments to the 'bank' which is the trust that loaned him the money to begin with.
That's the way it was explained to me, anyway.

Am I making any sense? We need a verified attorney in here!

And that is what I thought without the level of detail. So Bob has to sign off on the quit claim, because the conservators cannot change the trust. Since Bob is not dead then they cannot parcel out the trust assets either-do I have this correct?

 

[believe09]

So unless the law is different in say CA, this is an uh oh move. Hmm...the question is why, again, are the attorneys that belong to the co conservators filing this kind of possible nonsense paperwork yet again?

We do need someone familiar with CA law to weigh in here....

 

[believe09]

I asked gitana1 to visit us if he/she has time...

 

[Oriah]

And that is what I thought without the level of detail. So Bob has to sign off on the quit claim, because the conservators cannot change the trust. Since Bob is not dead then they cannot parcel out the trust assets either-do I have this correct?

That was my understanding, yes. :waitasec:

 

[Oriah]

So unless the law is different in say CA, this is an uh oh move. Hmm...the question is why, again, are the attorneys that belong to the co conservators filing this kind of possible nonsense paperwork yet again?

We do need someone familiar with CA law to weigh in here....

BBM:
Well, it would be to my attorney. I mean- what else is the purpose of protecting your assets in that fashion, except to ensure that your wishes for your trust(s) are legally binding to co-conservators should you die? Disappear does not = death. And there are state statutes for that purpose, that define how an individual can be legally declared dead. Right?

 

[believe09]

That was my understanding, yes. :waitasec:

Good lord. Yeah no money motivation here....they are just trying to cut AH a break...wait he has moved to a far more affluent area.

Wonder who paid for that move. Sigh.

 

[believe09]

OK-wait a minute,

AH didnt own the property-the trust did right? So they signed the property back to themselves? WTH?

 

[Cubby]

BBM~~

IIRC, one daughter said she felt "uncomfortable" in the area and that it was a very creepy place to be and she did not feel safe there.

Excuses, excuses. Good grief, and this was while Bob's great grandchildren were still perfectly safe in that neighborhood. And while the SIL didn't indicate in any way shape or form his wife would be unsafe alone in Bob's home the day following his disappearance, or that his son, daughter in law and grandchildren might be in some kind of danger.

Clearly there was no danger or fear factor until the daughters were asked why they were not shouldering any of the heavy work to get the word out about their father's disappearance.

 

[Cubby]

OK-wait a minute,

AH didnt own the property-the trust did right? So they signed the property back to themselves? WTH?

That's how I understand it, well, his name would be on the title or deed to the property but he would not own it free and clear while a mortgage note existed... and I think you can't quit claim a mortgage note.


I'm hoping gitana1 can drop in. She is one of the most knowledgable and admirable posters here, imo. I can't speak highly enough about her. Her knowledge is amazing.

 

[believe09]

lol-so by signing the property back to themselves, how is this a quitclaim deed? And if only Bob can sign it...well, I look forward to gitana weighing in because this could be really head shaking, and another example of some strange legal manoevering. Perhaps.