An action to quiet title is a legal action used to establish a party’s title to property and remove (“quiet”) any challenges or claims to that title. Once a property title is clear, a party has the ability to sell or refinance the property.
A quiet title is used in matters relating to:
Tax issues
Adverse possession
Fraudulent conveyance
Boundary disputes
Surveying errors
Filing a Quiet Title Action
In most cases, the individual who will be filing the quiet title action will be the one who owns or has authority over the real property, during the filing process. This, however, can indeed vary depending on which state the filing occurs. Every state tends to have its own set of laws on property related matters. In certain states, it may not be an issue as to who can legally file the action, for as long as an individual has some form of interest or desire in obtaining the property, it won’t necessarily be an issue in terms of preventing one from being able to carry on and file.
Basic Prerequisites
If the ultimate goal is for one to invest in a property with the intention of transferring some time in the future, filing a quiet title throughout this process will be crucial. In most states, an individual must possess a title in respect to the property, before being able to file a quiet title action. This will require some patience, as one must allow the time for the property conveyed to your name, in order for the quiet title action to be carried on from then on.
Alienation by Operation of Law or Court Action Relating to Action to Quiet Title
A prospective title holder can bring a legal action suit against those who claim to be the true title holder. Alienation refers to the transfer of title without the true or original owner consenting. The true title holder will be established through an action to quiet title, wherein a prospective owner attempts to prove his or her ties to the property. Typically, this is the standard procedural process that will occur when a prospective owner tries to claim land. The final decision may be to split the property amongst “owners”.
A partition action is a legal procedure where property is divided into two or more equal sections when one owner wants to sell and the other wants to retain ownership. The court may force the owners to sell the property if it cannot be divided equally into two separate parcels. If the property can be divided equally, the court will give both property owners real property rights to the land, such as selling one land, while keeping the other.
Quiet title in the long term
Although the whole process and concept of filing a quiet title may be both time consuming as well as frustrating in many instances, such action must be pursued and capitalized, for in the long run, one will begin to realize the pros and overall benefits in regards to the protection of your investment.
Furthermore, in order for a title insurance to be obtained, it is mandatory in most places to have gone through the proper proceedings and execute a quiet title action. This action will help both insure, secure, and carry on your investment free of any inconveniences going forward.
Consulting with Legal Counsel
A quiet title action claim is no simple nor smooth transition when dealing with property claims and transfers. As it is recommended with other forms of action relating to the topic of property and real estate, consulting with an attorney, though somewhat costly in terms of legal fees, can save your time and potentially reduce one from areas of misunderstandings throughout this action process.
Case Law As It Relates to Quiet Title
Case Review: Springmeyer v. City of South Lake Tahoe (1982)
The case, Springmeyer v. City of South Lake Tahoe (1982) 132 Cal.3d 375., involved a grantor who brought action against the city for attempting to quiet title of real property.
The property in question had a deed to the city by Springmeyer. The deed included a virtue of reversion provision, which stated that the land would be used for government purposes. The two conditions of reversion were: the city’s failure to build and occupy the buildings for city purposes and second was if the property failed to occupy one or more buildings. The plaintiff brought action to quiet title claiming the defendant had failed to use the property for city purposes.
The court ruled the plaintiff did not state a valid cause of action. The court concluded that claiming reversion was a drastic remedy and that if the plaintiff did not want to claim reversion it had to be stated clearly in the contract, which the court believed was not clear. Ultimately, the defendant’s objection was granted by the court and the plaintiff’s lawsuit was thrown out of court.
Case Review: Warren v. Merrill (2006)
The case, Warren v. Merrill (2006) 143 Cal.4th 96., involved a buyer who sued his real estate agent for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and action to quiet title.
The buyer (Warren) did not have the necessary credit or down payment to qualify for the financing required to purchase a Los Angeles condominium property. The defendant, Merrill, was the real estate agent who assisted Warren in the transaction.
In order to prevent the loss of a sale, Warren’s real estate agent (Merrill) agreed to lend Warren the remaining down payment amount out of her commission. Merrill also offered to help Warren qualify for financing by applying for a loan through Merrill’s daughter, Charmaine. Warren agreed.
While applying for the loan, Warren’s name was not placed on the property title. Merrill promised Warren that upon the close of the transaction, she would have her daughter transfer the title to Warren. However, Charmaine never signed the promised deed that would transfer the property to Warren.
During this time, Warren was facing significant personal problems, including a divorce, health problems, and losing money in his business. As a result, Warren began using drugs. Warren was also experiencing neurological disorders, such as Tourette’s syndrome, which significantly affected his cognitive abilities. Warren checked himself into a drug rehabilitation facility. While in rehab, Warren stopped making mortgage payments (which he had done previously for 3 months). He had also fallen behind nearly $5,000 in H.O.A. fees, which nearly caused the property to go to foreclosure.
Merrill had begun making payments on Warren’s behalf to avoid this. After she had brought all property-related payments current, Merill filed an unlawful detainer action to evict Warren on the basis that Charmaine was the property owner, not Warren. Merrill got a judgement imposed on Warren which led to Warren’s eviction. When Warren left rehab and discovered the situation, he filed a lawsuit against Merrill.
The Superior Court found that Merrill’s testimony was “ unreliable and lacked credibility.” It quieted the title and found Merril guilty of fiduciary duty and fraud. Warren was awarded $15,000 in noneconomic damages and $50,000 in punitive damages. Merrill appealed.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s ruling, holding that “substantial evidence supported the fact that the agent breached her fiduciary duty by fraudulently procuring title to property.” The court believed that Merrill had no intention of transferring the property title to Warren. The court deemed Merrill guilty of quieting title and imposing constructive trust for a breach of fiduciary duty. The court then answered the punitive damage claims by stating that “proof of actual damages to purchaser was sufficient to support punitive damages.”
