Release of Mortgage without Warranty

[zddoodah]

I quick claimed first mortgage to get him off it

That doesn't make a lick of sense. First, the term is "quitclaim," not "quick claim." Second, a quitclaim deed is a deed by which one person conveys an interest in real property to another person without any warranties that would normally come with such a conveyance. Third, you (presumably a co-owner of the property and a co-borrower on the mortgage) cannot use a quitclaim deed to get your co-owner/co-borrower off the mortgage. Only the mortgage lender can release a borrower from his/her obligations under the mortgage.

I noticed the 2nd was just taken off my credit report a month ago. I went in clerk of court records and saw the bank filed a Release of Mortgage without Warranty. I didn't receive any notice in the mail or a call - which I'm guessing is bc ex had this listed in his bankruptcy. So what does this mean for me?

No one can answer this question intelligently without reviewing the documents you've referenced. Your follow up posts aren't terribly clear about what has happened, so I would encourage you to take everything you have to a local attorney for a consultation.

 

[quincy]

That doesn't make a lick of sense. First, the term is "quitclaim," not "quick claim." Second, a quitclaim deed is a deed by which one person conveys an interest in real property to another person without any warranties that would normally come with such a conveyance. Third, you (presumably a co-owner of the property and a co-borrower on the mortgage) cannot use a quitclaim deed to get your co-owner/co-borrower off the mortgage. Only the mortgage lender can release a borrower from his/her obligations under the mortgage.



No one can answer this question intelligently without reviewing the documents you've referenced. Your follow up posts aren't terribly clear about what has happened, so I would encourage you to take everything you have to a local attorney for a consultation.

I respectfully suggest that you read an entire thread before responding.

 

[Litigator22]

The release of the mortgage without warranty is saying that only the interest held by the one named on the release is being released or excused from the mortgage obligations. (?) It does not mean that another or others are released from the obligations and are not still held responsible for the mortgage. . . . (?)

If someone were to suggest that the above remarks have been spun from whole cloth? And that no one (including a number of recently quizzed mortgage loan officers, realtors, attorneys and seasoned professional title examiners) has ever heard of "a release of mortgage with or without warranty" how would you respond?

 

[quincy]

If someone were to suggest that the above remarks have been spun from whole cloth? And that no one (including a number of recently quizzed mortgage loan officers, realtors, attorneys and seasoned professional title examiners) has ever heard of "a release of mortgage with or without warranty" how would you respond?

How would I respond? Probably with a bolded question mark.

 

[Litigator22]

How would I respond? Probably with a bolded question mark.

"More people would learn from their mistakes if they weren't so busy denying them." - Anonymous

 

[quincy]

"More people would learn from their mistakes if they weren't so busy denying them." - Anonymous

"More people would learn if actual information was posted rather than criticisms." - anonymous

Care to share what you know?

 

[Litigator22]

State: Florida
Ex declared bankruptcy - I quick claimed first mortgage to get him off it and continued paying on 2nd with both our names on it. I noticed the 2nd was just taken off my credit report a month ago. I went in clerk of court records and saw the bank filed a Release of Mortgage without Warranty. . . . I I understand release of mortgage but what does 'without warranty' mean.

What does it mean?

If and when you get around to examining the actual recorded document you find appended the wording "without warranty", I'll tell you what it would mean. It would mean absolutely nothing! If in fact it does so appear (doubtful) , it is because of someone's error, as it would have no legal import or significance whatsoever.

In particular it would NOT mean that the mortgage lien holder is releasing those named and reserving rights against those not named as has been mistakenly proffered herein.

Such a philosophy that would empower a lender to pick and choose which co-debtors to hold responsible for a given debt and which to formerly excuse from the same debt is totally contrary to law. In particular the law of suretyship that tells us that the release of one joint obligor by the obligee without the consent of the remaining obligor(s) releases all obligors.

Now it is true that the obligation of a co-debtor is unaltered should another jointly indebted be discharged of the same debt through bankruptcy. But in that instance the discharge (or release if you will) is by operation of law and not by overt, formal action on the part of or within the control of the creditor.

 

[Zigner]

Such a philosophy that would empower a lender to pick and choose which co-debtors to hold responsible for a given debt and which to formerly excuse from the same debt is totally contrary to law. In particular the law of suretyship that tells us that the release of one joint obligor by the obligee without the consent of the remaining obligor(s) releases all obligors.

What if the contract allows for it...?

 

[quincy]

... Such a philosophy that would empower a lender to pick and choose which co-debtors to hold responsible for a given debt and which to formerly excuse from the same debt is totally contrary to law. In particular the law of suretyship that tells us that the release of one joint obligor by the obligee without the consent of the remaining obligor(s) releases all obligors.

Now it is true that the obligation of a co-debtor is unaltered should another jointly indebted be discharged of the same debt through bankruptcy. But in that instance the discharge (or release if you will) is by operation of law and not by overt, formal action on the part of or within the control of the creditor.

In a bankruptcy, or in contracts as pointed out by Zigner, it is possible for one person to be released from their obligation while still holding a cosigner responsible.

 

[LdiJ]

In a bankruptcy, or in contracts as pointed out by Zigner, it is possible for one person to be released from their obligation while still holding a cosigner responsible.

While I agree, I think its more likely that in this case the fact that they are a junior lienholder explains the "without warranty" bit. In other words, that they are only releasing their lien, not any other lien that might be on the property.

 

[quincy]

While I agree, I think its more likely that in this case the fact that they are a junior lienholder explains the "without warranty" bit. In other words, that they are only releasing their lien, not any other lien that might be on the property.

There is another lien on the property. The first mortgage lien.

But I understand what you are saying. You think both lunawolfe and her ex are being released from the secondary lien. That's possible. It depends on the wording of the release document.

I suspect that only the ex has been released from his obligation, however, because of his bankruptcy.

 

[LdiJ]

There is another lien on the property. The first mortgage lien.

Yes, that I why I said they were junior lienholders

But I understand what you are saying. You think both lunawolfe and her ex are being released from the secondary lien. That's possible. It depends on the wording of the release document.

No, you misunderstood me. The lien is being released on the property. That has nothing to do with whether or not lunawolfe is going to still be held responsible for the debt. I am stating no opinion as to whether or not the bank will continue to hold her responsible for the debt.

 

[quincy]

Yes, that I why I said they were junior lienholders



No, you misunderstood me. The lien is being released on the property. That has nothing to do with whether or not lunawolfe is going to still be held responsible for the debt. I am stating no opinion as to whether or not the bank will continue to hold her responsible for the debt.

The ex alone might have been released from his obligations on the second mortgage but the release is without warranty.

 

[LdiJ]

The ex alone might have been released from his obligations on the second mortgage but the release is without warranty.

The release is without warranty because the lienholder is not the only lienholder and knows that. You are mixing up releasing a lien and releasing someone from their obligations under a loan contract. Those are two separate things.

 

[quincy]

The release is without warranty because the lienholder is not the only lienholder and knows that. You are mixing up releasing a lien and releasing someone from their obligations under a loan contract. Those are two separate things.

No. I am not really confusing anything.

There is a question as to whether lunawolfe has been released from the second mortgage, which was in both her and her ex's name. Her ex filed for bankruptcy and apparently listed the second mortgage in his bankruptcy filings.

lunawolfe did not file for bankruptcy, and lunawolfe still owns the property subject to the liens. The liens on the property generally would not be released with her ex's bankruptcy.