Vermont Attorneys Title Corporation

• Vermont Title Standards Index ›

  • 1.1 The Role of the Examining Attorney
  • 1.2 The Examining Attorney's Attitude
  • 1.3 Definition of Marketable Title
  • 1.4 Reference to Title Standards in Real Estate Sales Contract
  • 2.1 Period of Search
  • 2.2 The Concept of the Chain of Title and its Relationship of the Rule of Record Notice and the Scope of the Title Searcher's Obligation
  • 2.3 Effect of Recording Instruments Claiming an Interest in Real Estate
  • 2.4 Wild Instruments: Instruments by Strangers to the Record Chain of Title
  • 2.4A After Acquired Property
  • 2.5 Priority of Conveyances
  • 2.6 Time When a Conveyance is Considered as Properly "Recorded"
  • 2.7 Record of Expired Leases or Expired Interests
  • 4.1 Limitation on the Use by Grantor of Corrective Deeds
  • 6.1 Grantors
  • 6.2 Majority
  • 6.3 Mental Capacity
  • 6.4 Marital Interests
  • 6.5 Powers of Attorney
  • 7.1 Grantees
  • 8.1 Name Variances
  • 9.1 Execution, Witnessing and Acknowledgement
  • 11.1 Delivery
  • 13.1 Conveyance by Heirs' Deed
  • 13.2 Conveyance by Devisees in Lieu of Probate Administration
  • 13.3 Omitted Real Estate or Faulty Description of Closed Estate
  • 13.4 Conveyance by Trustee of a Non-Probate Trust
  • 14.1 Conveyance to Two or More Persons
  • 18.1 Federal Special Gift Tax Lien
  • 18.2 Irregularities and Discrepancies in Discharges of Mortgage and other Documents
  • 18.3 Discharges of Corrected, Re-Recorded, or Modified Mortgages
  • 18.4 Effect of Failure to Discharge Assignments of Leases and/or Rent, Riders or Financing Statements
  • 18.5 Discharges Involving Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS)
  • 20.1 Presumptions Applicable to Corporate Conveyances
  • 22.1 Limited Liability Companies
  • 23.1 Federal General Tax Lien
  • 24.1 Federal Special Estate Tax Lien
  • 25.1 Federal Gift Tax Lien
  • 27.1 Vermont Estate Tax Lien
  • 28.1 Establishing Marketable Title To Interests In Real Property Owned By Failed Financial Institutions
  • 28.2 Title of the Receiver of a Failed Financial Institution to the Assets of That Institution
  • 28.3 Title of the Immediate Transferee of the Receiver of a Failed Financial Institution
  • 28.4 Marketability of Title In a Real Estate Interest of a Failed Financial Institution for Which No Conveyance, Transfer or Assignment Appears of Record Prior to the Dissolution of the Bridge Institution Which Had Continued The Business of the Failed Institution
  • 28.5 Discharges, Partial Releases, Assignments and Foreclosure of Mortgages of a Failed Institution By a Transferee of the Receiver For Such Failed Institution

CHAPTER XI

STANDARD 11.1

* * * * *

DELIVERY

Delivery of instruments which are witnessed, acknowledged and recorded in accordance with Vermont law, is presumed in all cases. Specifically, delay in recording, with or without record evidence of the intervening death of the grantor, does not of itself rebut the presumption.

___________________________________________

Comment 1 . A transfer of title to real estate, by deed, requires a delivery of the deed. The fact of execution of the deed does not suffice to transfer title; and recording of the deed is not necessary to transfer title, only to give notice of the transfer to third parties. A potential problem arises in that, unlike execution, which requires the presence of a witness and notary, or recording, which requires the Town Clerk, delivery may take place in private, with only the parties present. Furthermore, the delivery of the deed must be with the intent to make a present transfer, rather than in any sort of escrow, loan, fraud on creditors or spouses, etc. Delivery is, therefore, far more difficult of proof than either execution or recording, even though it is the fact crucial to the transfer. In an attempt to avoid that difficulty of proof especially in the absence of the original parties, Vermont law provides that a presumption of delivery of the deed arises when a deed is properly executed and recorded. This presumption may fly in the face of facts; for instance, a seller might execute his deed and hold it pending receipt of payment, and the "buyer" might steal the executed deed and record it without the consent of the seller. The presumption is not, therefore, conclusive. Nonetheless, a prudent title examiner may rely upon such presumption in the absence of any definite rebutting evidence.

Comment 2 . In most cases, a deed will be delivered at the time of execution, and recorded as soon as practicable after execution and delivery. In those cases in which there is a substantial time interval between execution and recording, there is no certain means of determining the time of delivery. This uncertainty does not, however, negate the presumption of delivery.

Comment 3 . A particular problem is presented when there is a substantial interval between the execution of the deed and the recording thereof and the grantor is known to have died or to have become incompetent in the interval. In the absence of any significant evidence to the contrary, the presumption still applies - the grantor is presumed to have delivered the deed prior to death or other disability.
 

Comment 4 . The issue of status of title in the situation in which a grantor executes a deed, and places it in the hands of a third party for safekeeping, or it is found in the "grantor's" effects following death, and then recorded, is beyond the scope of these standards, as it would require determination - presumably by a court of competent jurisdiction - of the grantor's intent. A prudent attorney or title examiner, having actual knowledge of such a state of facts would normally decline to certify title under the deed in question pending a court ruling or corrective action.

©2010 Vermont Attorneys Title Corporation. All rights reserved.