Forged Deed Transfer – Lien Paid – Original Owner Still Responsible for Lien

[Homeowner in pA]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Pennsylvania

Situation:
1) Deed falsely transferred from owner.
2) New holder of deed satisfies lien.
3) Deed restored to original owner.
Question: Can/does the lien renew to the original owner?

 

[FlyingRon]

Why would a paid up lien revert? Are you asking would the original owner bear some responsibility to pay back the person who paid off the lien?

 

[Homeowner in pA]

Why would a paid up lien revert? Are you asking would the original owner bear some responsibility to pay back the person who paid off the lien?

Thanks for the read!

The person who held the lien... Is also the person who fraudulently transferred the property. So yes... Is it possible the original owner, after re-acquiring the property, might then be liable for the original loan?

 

[Zigner]

Thanks for the read!

The person who held the lien... Is also the person who fraudulently transferred the property. So yes... Is it possible the original owner, after re-acquiring the property, might then be liable for the original loan?

Your didn't answer a question.

The lien is paid off, so the original lender doesn't give a fly's fart. Are you asking if the person who paid the lien (the new owner) can force the original owner to repay him?

 

[Homeowner in pA]

Your didn't answer a question.

The lien is paid off, so the original lender doesn't give a fly's fart. Are you asking if the person who paid the lien (the new owner) can force the original owner to repay him?

I wrote-up a more thorough explanation of the events... Maybe this will help:

John purchased a property/business of which Peter financed and holds the article-of-agreement. John became sick and unable to run the business. Peter presented a "document" for John to sign, of which Peter explained (falsely) to John that Peter would hold payments on the loan until John recovered, and was able to re-start payments. The document was a single signature page... Of which Peter then attached to the first page, out of site from John, that transferred the property/business to Peter.

Peter then, not in the presence of John, had the document notarized... But not really. Peter "acquired" a notary-stamp, not his, and stamped/signed himself.

After John recovered and wanted to re-start his business… He contacted Peter to re-start the payments. Peter did not return John’s calls. John returned to the property/business and found Peter had sold it to a new owner (cash… don’t know if there is mortgage-insurance).

An inquiry at the courthouse confirmed the transfer from Peter to the new owner; And the loan that Peter held on John was satisfied by Peter.

At this point… John reads the deed-transfer and realizes he did not sign the document that was filed at the courthouse.

Now understand although John is great at his craft… He is not a businessman. In conversation between John and another person named Paul… Paul as a title-researcher, offered to look into the matter. Paul pulled a copy of the notary used… And quickly realized the signature on the notary certificate did not match the signature on the document that was used to transfer the property from John to Peter.

Although notary logs are public… The notary refused to show Paul his ledgers. Long-story short… The Attorney General’s office investigated and confirmed the deed transfer was a fraudulent transaction. The Attorney General’s office is currently in-touch with the District Attorney’s office.

Assuming the property does eventually revert back to John because of the fraudulent transaction… Can Peter reinstate the lien/loan?

 

[Zigner]

The loan has already been satisfied, but I can't guess what another person will do.

ETA: If the property does "revert" to John, then Peter is almost definitely going to be sued by the new "owner" of the property. Frankly, there are too many moving pieces in this puzzle for anything other than vague guesses.

 

[Homeowner in pA]

The loan has already been satisfied, but I can't guess what another person will do.

ETA: If the property does "revert" to John, then Peter is almost definitely going to be sued by the new "owner" of the property. Frankly, there are too many moving pieces in this puzzle for anything other than vague guesses.

I understand there a lot of what-if's. Needless-to-say... Peter is in a pickle! Peter will most-likely get hit by both John and the new-owner. I further understand... IF the property reverts back to John (and now John no longer want the building)... The new owner can purchase it back/from John. Now that we are at the so's and the if's.. IF Peter reinstates the loan... John can pay it off with the funds from the new owner; Otherwise John may keep the funds if Peter does not reinstate.

 

[latigo]

I wrote-up a more thorough explanation of the events... Maybe this will help: (It doesn't!) . . . . . . . .

Long-story short… The Attorney General’s office investigated and confirmed the deed transfer was a fraudulent transaction. The Attorney General’s office is currently in-touch with the District Attorney’s office. . . .

"In touch", huh? Do you have a "plant" in the AG's office?

Would you care to explain on what authority the AG's office supposedly undertook said supposed investigation; OTHER than through its Bureau of Consumer Protection, which is the only division of the AG's office that is permitted to investigate private disputes Moreover, investigate and recommend ONLY!

My suspicions are that this "long-story short" like the rest of this hearsay riveting account is nothing more than self-serving stuffing in an attempt to enhance interest. Of which I have none.

If John would care to appear and explain this so-called "situation", fine. But I'm not interested in sorting out a second hand, jumbled account by someone so naïve as to believe that deeds can be both transferred and restored.

 

[Homeowner in pA]

Responses:

"In touch", huh? Do you have a "plant" in the AG's office?

Would you care to explain on what authority the AG's office supposedly undertook said supposed investigation; OTHER than through its Bureau of Consumer Protection, which is the only division of the AG's office that is permitted to investigate private disputes Moreover, investigate and recommend ONLY!
I read disbelief in your tenor of your question. The complaint was filed with the notary-commission. To fill you in since it seems that is what you want. After filing the complaint, the case was assigned to an investigator. Who met with myself and the title-researcher first, then attempted to get a copy of the notary's ledger. I don't know the outcome of that meeting. I do know the investigator spoke to original property owner on a phone-call.

My suspicions are that this "long-story short" like the rest of this hearsay riveting account is nothing more than self-serving stuffing in an attempt to enhance interest. Of which I have none.
I tend to agree you are cynical person.

If John would care to appear and explain this so-called "situation", fine. But I'm not interested in sorting out a second hand, jumbled account by someone so na�ve as to believe that deeds can be both transferred and restored.
Although I am not John... I assure you that the facts are true to the best of my knowledge. I disagree that the deed cannot be restored to the original owner.

 

[justalayman]

Responses:

I think there is a bovine habitat about. It surely smells of one.

The deed cannot be ruled invalid unless it is taken before a court which is nowhere in your story (although I suspect it will conveniently show up now). Unless John sued Peter and the new buyer the property would still be in the hands of the new buyer and would remain there unless John mounted a successful suit to quiet title. The AG does not have the authority to rule the deed invalid.


I don't know what you were referring to when you said "the courthouse" confirmed the transfer of the property. The fact is the Recorder of Deeds is where deeds are registered and where one would check on recorded deeds but they will not confirm a transfer. That would require expressing more authority than they have. They can provide a copy of deeds recorded but they are not going to read and describe what the deed is for. That's not what they do.


Your comment about Paul refusing to show his notary logs; you said he used another's stamp but signed it himself. Don't know if you mean he signed his own name as notary (which makes the document invalid as he was an involved party) or he signed the name associated with the stamp (where Johns logs would be meaningless since it was not John notarizing the signature so of course it wouldn't show up in his logs).

Then you say John realized he did not sign the document recorded. The fact is; he did, or at least that is his signature on the document recorded. John may argue his signature page was added to the deed without his knowledge but he cannot rightfully dispute the fact it is his signature. It being attached to a document he claims it was not is something a court would have to deal with.

And there would be no reason Paul had to be deceptive about the notary issue. All a notary does is witness the signature. They couldn't care less about the reason so a notary would witness johns signature so no need to be deceptive.


I sure hope all the problems in your textbook aren't this fraught with glaring errors. It would make your class too easy and nothing like the real world. You wouldn't learn much that would be useful in the real world.


And in your first post you say "deed restored to original owner" yet in subsequent posts you say the property is still owner by the "new purchaser"


Yes, the BS is strong with you young litigator wanna be.

 

[Homeowner in pA]

I think there is a bovine habitat about. It surely smells of one.
 No problem… Keep me honest!

The deed cannot be ruled invalid unless it is taken before a court which is nowhere in your story (although I suspect it will conveniently show up now). Unless John sued Peter and the new buyer the property would still be in the hands of the new buyer and would remain there unless John mounted a successful suit to quiet title. The AG does not have the authority to rule the deed invalid.
 The matter is currently at the District Attorney’s office. I suspect you are correct that the Attorney General’s office does not have the authority to rule… But they did in-fact inform us that it is their opinion the notary signature is not valid… And have referred the issue to the District Attorney’s office.

I don't know what you were referring to when you said "the courthouse" confirmed the transfer of the property. The fact is the Recorder of Deeds is where deeds are registered and where one would check on recorded deeds but they will not confirm a transfer. That would require expressing more authority than they have. They can provide a copy of deeds recorded but they are not going to read and describe what the deed is for. That's not what they do.
 To clarify as I am a legal layman… Courthouse records document the chain-of-title as I described.

Your comment about Paul refusing to show his notary logs; you said he used another's stamp but signed it himself. Don't know if you mean he signed his own name as notary (which makes the document invalid as he was an involved party) or he signed the name associated with the stamp (where Johns logs would be meaningless since it was not John notarizing the signature so of course it wouldn't show up in his logs).
 Peter apparently “borrowed” Paul’s notary-stamp. Peter signed as the notary even though he was not a notary. The investigator concluded that the signature on the documents in question, were not signed by the notary whose certificate is filed at the courthouse. I don’t know if the investigator obtained a copy of Paul’s ledger. Is there a log of the signing event or not? I think it may show if the actual holder of the notary had any involvement.

Then you say John realized he did not sign the document recorded. The fact is; he did, or at least that is his signature on the document recorded. John may argue his signature page was added to the deed without his knowledge but he cannot rightfully dispute the fact it is his signature. It being attached to a document he claims it was not is something a court would have to deal with.
 Agree. Noting that John signed the document that was later notarized not in Johns presence.

And there would be no reason Paul had to be deceptive about the notary issue. All a notary does is witness the signature. They couldn't care less about the reason so a notary would witness Johns signature so no need to be deceptive.
 True. But when John signed the document there was no notary present… The notary stamp/signature was added later.

I sure hope all the problems in your textbook aren't this fraught with glaring errors. It would make your class too easy and nothing like the real world. You wouldn't learn much that would be useful in the real world.
 I’m not sure I understand… But I am a retired IT guy who worked for a fortune 100 company for 30-years.

And in your first post you say "deed restored to original owner" yet in subsequent posts you say the property is still owner by the "new purchaser".
 “deed restored to original owner” was to get feedback on the root-question of… Can Peter re-instate the loan Peter had with Paul? No legal actions has been taken as yet…. The case is currently in the hands of the District Attorney’s office.

Yes, the BS is strong with you young litigator wanna be.
 I receive this as a complement!

 

[justalayman]

You keep bringing in the ,,AG and DA. They are not going to be involved in the civil issue which this is. If John wants something done he will have to sue Paul. The da is not going to mess with a civil matter which so far is all this is.

The courthouse records? Nothing at the courthouse regarding deeds. It's at the Recorder of Deeds. If by chance the Recorder of Deeds office is at the courthouse then the records would be found at the courthouse in the generic sense but the state courts have no records of the deeds.

Unless this so called investigator is a trained handwriting analyst they cannot legally determine anything but beyond that, even if there was a suspicion of it not being a valid signature, that again must go before a court before any action is taken on it and the person behind the suit would have to be John (I think but you have so much crap flying about I tend to forget who is who).

 

[Homeowner in pA]

You keep bringing in the ,,AG and DA. They are not going to be involved in the civil issue which this is. If John wants something done he will have to sue Paul. The da is not going to mess with a civil matter which so far is all this is.
 I attempted to contact the investigator to confirm… No reply as yet.

The courthouse records? Nothing at the courthouse regarding deeds. It's at the Recorder of Deeds. If by chance the Recorder of Deeds office is at the courthouse then the records would be found at the courthouse in the generic sense but the state courts have no records of the deeds.
 In our county… All the records I have referenced are located in the same building where court is held. The Courthouse. Enough said about this.

Unless this so called investigator is a trained handwriting analyst they cannot legally determine anything but beyond that, even if there was a suspicion of it not being a valid signature, that again must go before a court before any action is taken on it and the person behind the suit would have to be John (I think but you have so much crap flying about I tend to forget who is who).
 You may use whatever words you choose… But the fact is the investigator acknowledged a difference in the signatures. Again…. No legal actions have been taken as yet.

 I have tried to answer your questions… May return to my initial question? What is the legal likelihood, assuming the property reverts back to the original owner, can the original lien-holder initiate a new lien?

 

[Zigner]

 I have tried to answer your questions… May return to my initial question? What is the legal likelihood, assuming the property reverts back to the original owner, can the original lien-holder initiate a new lien?

I see - this is hypothetical (ie: based on something that has not occurred). In fact, you lied in your initial post, because you stated it had already happened.

 

[LdiJ]

You keep bringing in the ,,AG and DA. They are not going to be involved in the civil issue which this is. If John wants something done he will have to sue Paul. The da is not going to mess with a civil matter which so far is all this is.

The courthouse records? Nothing at the courthouse regarding deeds. It's at the Recorder of Deeds. If by chance the Recorder of Deeds office is at the courthouse then the records would be found at the courthouse in the generic sense but the state courts have no records of the deeds.

Unless this so called investigator is a trained handwriting analyst they cannot legally determine anything but beyond that, even if there was a suspicion of it not being a valid signature, that again must go before a court before any action is taken on it and the person behind the suit would have to be John (I think but you have so much crap flying about I tend to forget who is who).

There is definitely a criminal case here. There is also a civil case.