Landlords Don’t Want to Prove Ownership, they failed to transfer, so no public record

[Alegraelaine1]

Thank you for the responses. I did speak w a local title co. today and the agent recommended writing my check to the owner of record (the living trust of deceased former owner) that they claim to be trustees of. I think I’m going to do that. I can’t see any reason why if they are the trustees this should be a big issue.

[llworking]

Nothing in that other thread forecloses the possibility that the other party to the lease is a trust. And, as I mentioned in that other thread, the mere existence of a lease doesn't necessarily make the lease enforceable.

I didn't say that the other party to the lease was a trust. The OP said that the home was deeded in the name of a living trust. The OP wants to continue to live there, so whether or not the lease is enforceable is kind of a moot point.

Thank you for the responses. I did speak w a local title co. today and the agent recommended writing my check to the owner of record (the living trust of deceased former owner) that they claim to be trustees of. I think I’m going to do that. I can’t see any reason why if they are the trustees this should be a big issue.

I don't think that you should do that without speaking to a local real estate attorney first. A title company agent isn't remotely qualified to give that kind of advice.

[pg1067]

I didn't say that the other party to the lease was a trust.

Of course you didn't. You wrote exactly the opposite:

You have a lease, which is an enforceable contract between you and your current landlord. You do not have a lease between you and the living trust.

The only point I've been making is that neither you nor I have the slightest idea whom the OP has a lease with.

I did speak w a local title co. today and the agent recommended writing my check to the owner of record (the living trust of deceased former owner) that they claim to be trustees of. I think I’m going to do that. I can’t see any reason why if they are the trustees this should be a big issue.

An agent of whom? Of the title company? You're going to taking legal advice from an agent of a title company? What you ought to be doing is contacting this "agent's" boss and telling him/her that this person is illegally dispensing legal advice.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why you would do anything different than you have done since you started living there. You seem somehow to have concocted the notion that, if you keep paying the rent as you have been, you might cause a problem, but there's simply no reason to think that.

[Alegraelaine1]

I will talk w and maybe hire an attorney to help with going forward. I’m not concerned I’d cause a problem continuing to pay the rent to the people I signed a lease with who called themselves owners without properly transferring ownership into their name w the county. I am bothered by, and have reason enough to question that they may not be the actual owners via deed fraud/elder abuse. Do you not understand why this would be disturbing to a renter paying allot of rent and managing upkeep of a large property? I want to feel sure that the people I am paying rent to are entitled to receive it. This should have been easy but they failed to follow procedure and now are unwilling to just send me a snapshot. It doesn’t make me feel at ease.

[llworking]

I will talk w and maybe hire an attorney to help with going forward. I’m not concerned I’d cause a problem continuing to pay the rent to the people I signed a lease with who called themselves owners without properly transferring ownership into their name w the county. I am bothered by, and have reason enough to question that they may not be the actual owners via deed fraud/elder abuse. Do you not understand why this would be disturbing to a renter paying allot of rent and managing upkeep of a large property? I want to feel sure that the people I am paying rent to are entitled to receive it. This should have been easy but they failed to follow procedure and now are unwilling to just send me a snapshot. It doesn’t make me feel at ease.

Again, if the current deed shows the property as being in a trust, the property would still be in the trust and they could be the beneficiaries. It would not be appropriate for the house to be transferred into their names unless the trust distributes the house to them, which can only happen if the trust allows for that to happen.

You are all caught up in the idea that the house SHOULD be transferred into their names, when their is every possibility that the trust might not allow for that.

Now, the possibility does still exist that they might have done something nefarious, but the fact that the house was not transferred into their names is absolutely NOT proof of that or even a valid reason for suspicion.

[pg1067]

I am bothered by, and have reason enough to question that they may not be the actual owners via deed fraud/elder abuse. Do you not understand why this would be disturbing to a renter paying allot of rent and managing upkeep of a large property? I want to feel sure that the people I am paying rent to are entitled to receive it.

Meh...it's kind of a whatever IMO, but I generally mind my own business. Of course, we're now far afield of any legal issue, and it's of no value to you to convince me of anything, so you do you.

[Alegraelaine1]

When the trustee dies the county needs an affidavit of death submitted by the trustee which requires proof of new ownership/deed etc. within 6 weeks, this then would link new owners tied to the trust to the property. That becomes public record. This was not done in 5 years on either house they claim they inherited. So when I said transfer, I meant this. And when I gently remarked that maybe a step had been missed it was ignored. This lack of providing affidavit combined w a good amount of other odd things is enough reason for me to question. Can you think of any good reason why when asked nicely, they would so adamantly refuse? Esp since they didn’t do the proper steps?

[llworking]

When the trustee dies the county needs an affidavit of death submitted by the trustee which requires proof of new ownership/deed etc. within 6 weeks, this then would link new owners tied to the trust to the property. That becomes public record. This was not done in 5 years on either house they claim they inherited. So when I said transfer, I meant this. And when I gently remarked that maybe a step had been missed it was ignored. This lack of providing affidavit combined w a good amount of other odd things is enough reason for me to question. Can you think of any good reason why when asked nicely, they would so adamantly refuse? Esp since they didn’t do the proper steps?

Where exactly did you get that information? Why are you assuming that the person who died was the trustee of the trust? Are you aware that a trustee of a trust is NOT the owner of the trust?

You NEED the advice of an attorney. You don't understand how things work.

[Alegraelaine1]

I was told by county ownership dept. that the deceased was the trustee at the time 7 years ago he put the property in his living trust. No change has been made since then. And the landlords were the informants of his death, and claim to be beneficiaries, and that he had no other friends or family, so it seems they would be the ones, and it doesn’t really matter, someone was supposed to file an affidavit of death for the property shortly after he died, my understanding is that the process of filing an affidavit of death would link new true trustee to the property on public record even if it remains in trust.

[KaSiris]

If 7 years has passed and he been occupying the dwelling then "Adverse Possession" comes into play.