Welcome to the 3rd edition of what we hope is a fun and informative monthly blog featuring a quiz to test your knowledge of Vermont title law. Please remember to SUBSCRIBE here to ensure that you will automatically receive future quizzes via email. Answers to Past Quizzes and the Prior Month’s Honor Roll can both be found at the bottom of the page.
The quizzes are proving challenging! Many participants are getting 4 out of 5, oh so close. Keep trying and send us any feedback!! Thanks.
- There are no rules. You may use research, statutes, cases, Title Standards, etc.
- Firm/Team entries are welcome – just give it a name!
- Submit your answers from the web form on this page.
- We will post the answers in the Honor Roll with the next blog.
- Feel free to share this with friends and colleagues
This quiz is now closed – see the answers in bold below. To view winners please visit our Honor Roll page.
- Which landmark Vermont Supreme Court decision held that municipal permits violations are marketable title issues, resulting in passage of 27 VSA §612?
- Bianchi v. Lorenz
- Estate of Fleming v. Nicholson
- New England Federal Credit Union v. Stewart Title
- Hunter Broadcasting v. City of Burlington
- Title search reveals a P&S contract recorded on January 2, 2015. That contract names a buyer (buyer #1) other than your client (buyer #2) who signed a contract last month. The recorded contract’s existence:
- Doesn’t create a title problem because it is not a statutorily recognized encumbrance on title.
- May cloud title because buyer #1 may have an equitable interest in the property per Hemingway v. Shatney as noted in Title Standard 2.3.
- May have once clouded the title but because the P&S was recorded more than 3 years ago, the Statute of Limitations has expired. Note it and insure over.
- May be ignored because Vermont law does not recognize the recording of lis pendens.
- Title search reveals a mortgage to “MERS, as nominee for ABC Bank”. There are no recorded mortgage assignments. Mortgage was discharged by “QRS Mortgage”. The discharge is:
- Not valid because a servicer is never authorized to execute discharges.
- Not valid because there is no recorded mortgage assignment to QRS Mortgage.
- Valid if QRS Mortgage is a MERS-member, as discussed in Title Standard 18.5.
- Valid, but only if accompanied by a POA from ABC Mortgage to QRS Mortgage.
- Title search reveals that Seller acquired title on 3/2/2017 via a deed that was not validly notarized. Seller understands the request to cure the title problem, but the closing is tomorrow morning. No lender involved. If Seller conveys by Warranty Deed, title will be marketable:
- Immediately because the defective notarization is cured by 27 VSA §348(b)(1).
- Immediately because this is a 1031 Exchange and federal law prevails.
- ONLY if predecessor conveys a corrective deed directly to the Buyer.
- When Seller records a corrective deed from predecessor to Seller, under the theory of After Acquired Title (Title Std. 2.4A).
- Title search reveals:
• 2004 conveyance to Grantee: Trustee A and Trustee B, Co-Trustees of the Alpha Trust.
• 2015 conveyance from Grantor: Trustee A and Successor Trustee C, Trustees of the Alpha Trust
• There is no statutory trustee certificate, 14A VSA §1013, of record:
- Unmarketable because a statutory trustee certificate is required by 14A VSA §1013.
- Unmarketable because only 1 Trustee signed.
- Marketable based on presumptions contained in 14A VSA §1012 and Title Std. 13.4.
- Unmarketable because the trust’s beneficiaries failed to join in the deed consenting to the signature of the Successor Trustee.