Quiet Title

Quiet Title - If one person claims to be the owner of an interest in property, and another person claims to be the owner of an interest in the same property, and the two claims conflict, either may sue the other for a judgment resolving that conflict. The judgment will declare who owns what interest and may give other specific or preventive relief to the extent required under the circumstances.

The action is called an action to quiet title because the effect of the judgment is to quiet adverse claimants to the rightful owner's title (claim of ownership).

The action is, in effect, a foreclosure action not unlike that which a secured lender might bring to collect the debt by foreclosing the borrower's interest in the security (property).

Thorough research is required. Some things may or may not be appropriate in bringing an action to quiet title. E.g. if the claimant lacks record title, a quiet title is considered inappropriate; sometimes there may be preliminary steps required before it can be brought, such as rescission.

Angelo Trotter, in continual education of self, shares his research of coin, credit and circulation and how it relates to the current real property crisis from a lay man's perspective.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• mortgage crisis
• foreclosure defense
• rule of law
• Angelo Trotter
• quiet title

[MsTeachful]

Hello, does this work in Arizona? How does one start working on finding out? Is there a real org that can help out on this? I do not have much time. Please help me. I do not want to lose my home. I have put so much into this house. I am desperate.

[LoonyVision]

@cchessmaster Correct. But the "contract" is a promissory note, and only one signature is necessary because it is "made" by the one that "makes" the promise.

FYI an issuer of a promissory note is called a "maker," and one giving a check or draft is called the "drawer."

[LoonyVision]

@3089280288 Deed, and mortgage states. Doesn't matter, because the obligation being enforced is not the homeowner v. "lender"; it's the "lender" v. "the investors who loaned to the investor.

Look up the legal definition of issuer (see UCC sec. 8-201; Cal UCC sec. 8201) and you'll see who the TRUE debtor is.

[cchessmaster]

There is no contract with only one signature. No one at the bank ever signs the so called loan nor can they, a corporation can not sign anything. They never give anything of value.

[3089280288]

You are talking about trust deed states? We don't have those in the east.

[LoonyVision]

@ONTHEMOVE95 congratulations. I'm glad the information helped.

[ONTHEMOVE95]

YOU JUST SAVED MY HOME! MY 5 YRO, 8 YRO THANKS YOU.

[LoonyVision]

@LadyStarmer Not entirely, the note isn't separated from the security. It's the securitization transaction itself that's problematic. There are many problems with it, too much to go into here. But in short, the investors only bought rights to "payments from the trust pool," not any right to any single individual mortgage; second, the "lender" (sic) sold all of its rights title and interests at the creation of the trust. So where's the obligation?

[LoonyVision]

@SpecialForceOperator Rules of Court, Rules of Civil Procedure, the Rules of Evidence, and controlling case law. check out: jurisdictionary(dot)com/index(­dot)asp?refercode=TA0003

[SpecialForceOperator]

how do you do it. I want my house back from these thieves