David Saks

How can you possibly close a sale if you don't believe in yourself?

Don't we want to impart things to our buyers that reflect our own levels of confidence?

How can there be a closing without the conviction to close firmly embedded in your purpose?

It's gratifying when we make our clients happy and when they share our enthusiasm.

How do you feel about it?

Is it true that all buyers have weaknesses that need exploiting?

When your buyer says that he or she doesn't want the place are you motivated enough to keep going?

Do you believe that just because your client resounds with "no" that they can't be sold?

It sounds like it's time to put on the schmaltz that helps the buyer overcome their weaknesses, and that maybe you need to push them a little bit.

When does the pushing become a little bit to hard on the buyer, and when should it be applied?

How long do you keep up the momentum after the buyer's said no?

What is this beast?

It's adverse possession.

Adverse possession is a means of, what we would call, involuntary transfer of property.

An individual can make a claim to a property, take possession of it and take the title away from the owner if the owner doesn't use the property for a period of years under the laws of involuntary alienation.

To claim adverse possession all of the following conditions must exist:

1. The claimant is Open about using the property.

2. The possession is Notorious and is known to other people.

3. The possession has been Continuous and without interuption.

4. The occupation is Hostile or without the consent of the owner.

5. The possession is Adverse or without the true owners occupation or possession.

In order to receive a title by adverse possession there has to be proof that there was no permission to use the property in question and that the use was open, notorious, exclusive and adverse for a period of years defined by statute.

These conditions are governed by state laws.

What kinds of experiences have you had with adverse possession?

The reconveyance deed is an instrument used by a trustee to give back a title to a trustor.

When a loan secured by a deed of trust has been satisfied and paid off the lender will contact the trustee on the deed and request that the trustee reconvey, or return the property, with a reconveyance deed to the trustor.

The best policy afterwards is that the reconveyance deed should always be recorded to prevent any problems with the title from rearing their ugly heads.

What experiences have you had with a reconveyance deed?

The quitclaim deed provides the least protection of all of the deeds that I've discussed up until now.

It hasn't got any covenants or warranties and basically conveys only the interest or whatever interest the grantor may have when the deed is delivered to the grantee.

If the grantor doesn't have any interest neither will the grantee and the grantee gets nothing.

Also, the grantee isn't given any rights to make a warranty claim of any kind against the grantor.

On another note, a quitclaim deed can convey title just as well as a warranty deed if the grantor has a good title when the deed is delivered, but none of the guarantees are included like you would have with a warranty deed.

The language includes the words 'remises, releases and quitclaims'.

The quitclaim is the most common instrument used to cure a defect of title commonly referred to as a cloud on the title.

A classic example is one where the buyer or grantee's name is misspelled on any warranty deed that's been filed in the register's office or in the public record.

A quitclaim deed may be given to a grantee to correct the spelling and make the title good.

A simple transfer of property is another common use for the quitclaim deed.

What experiences have you had with a quitclaim deed?

First of all, a bargain and sale deed doesn't contain an express warranty against an encumberance.

It does say that the grantor holds title and possession to the property.

What kind of words are used?

The granting clause usually says that so and so 'grants, bargains and sells' or 'grants and releases'.

A warranty is not specifically stated and the grantee or the buyer doesn't have much legal ammunition to go on if a title defect rears it's ugly head.

The grantor can add a covenant against any encumberances to create what is commonly referred to as a 'bargain and sale deed with covenant against the grantor's acts' which makes it kind of like a special warranty deed.

What kind of experiences have you had with a bargain and sale deed?

We generally recognize that the special warranty deed generally has two basic warranties :

1. The Grantor received title.

2. That the property wasn't encumbered during the time that the grantor held the title, unless something contrary to that position is actually noted in the deed.

Strangely enough, the grantor is actually defending the title against himself. (huh?)

The clause which grants the deed usually contains the words, 'Grantor remises, releases, alienates and conveys'.

A grantor may also include additional warranties in the deed, but they're always specifically stated.

Title insurance should be adequate protection to the buyer or grantee.

Trustees, executors and corporations like to use the special warranty deed because they don't have the authority to warrant against any acts of the former owners of title, or their predecessors.

They may also hold the title for a while without retaining any personal interest in the sale.

Special warranty deeds are used by grantors who buy properties at tax sales, too.

Have you had any experiences with a special warranty deed ?

Do you know about the changes to the laws in the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988?

What are some of the changes and how do they affect individuals with disabilities and families with children?

Do the fair housing laws require that the same tenant rules be applied to families with children that are applied to adults?

Can landlords charge different amounts for rent or security deposits because a child is a tenant?

The common landlord argument is that children are unruly and destroy property.

We all know that adults can become much worse than children, however.

What are your experiences with this type of landlord-tenant issue, and how do you view fair housing and the laws affecting the relationship?

It's been said that the bundle of legal rights originated from the laws of merry old England.

Sellers were known to transfer property by giving the buyer a small bundle of sticks from a tree, or a shovel full of earth, from the property they bought.

If the buyer accepted the dirt and the sticks he then become the owner of the tree that the sticks or branches came from and the land to which the tree was attached.

The sticks were a symbolic representation of the rights to transfer ownership of the property.

I remember a Woody Allen film where a peasant in medieval Russia carried a small piece of square land in his pocket and would proudly display it to his family by removing it from his coat, and equally as proudly announce that he was a landowner. I laughed so hard I fell over.

The Bundle of Legal Rights are recognized as:

1. The right of possession.

2. The right to control the property based on the existing laws governing the jurisdiction of the lands location.

3. The right of enjoyment which allows the owner to use the property in conformity with the laws.

4. The right of exclusion which allows the owner to keep people off of their property or from entering or using the property without permission.

5. The right of disposition which allows the owner to will, transfer, sell, encumber, constrain or dispose of the property.

Have modern times changed the way we honor these rights?

Does the general warranty deed provide the greatest protection for a buyer?

We call it a general warranty deed because the seller or grantor is bound by law to honor definite warranties and covenants.

Usually, your state will require that certain words be used that are codified by a legislative act which imply the warranties in a general warranty deed.

The warranties are explicitly written into the deed with specific intentions; for an express purpose to honor the deed.

Some of the words we look for are 'convey and warrant' and 'warrant generally'.

The canonic warranties are five:

1. The covenant of sesin : The grantor warrants that they own the property and has the right to convey title.

2. The covenant against encumberance : The grantor warrants that the property is free from encumberances or liens except those which are included in the deed.

3. The covenant of quiet enjoyment : The grantor guarantees that the title is good and protected from those who might want to sue for the property.

4. The covenant of further assurance : The grantor promises to deliver and obtain all documents and instruments required to make the title a good one, for example, removing a cloud on the title.

5. The covenant of warranty forever : The grantor makes a promise to pay the grantee for any losses if the title ever fails.

Importantly, these covenants extend all the way back to the origins of the property by the grantors defense of the title against both himself and anyone who previously held title to the property.

What kind of examples can you think of that would challenge the warranty deed ?