Quote:
gldskr:
If a contract is a nullity from its inception, it is impossible for it to become legitimate merely by recordation.
|
As to the above and the rest of your post:
you may well be right- I mean this is logically sound, but I am concerned that there are statutes that specifically order priorities over "real estate": which of course is your point. Do the statutes apply...
It comes down to- take the scenario posed by
Lawdog: the sheriff shows up looking to evict you from your property so you contest this in court. Will it fly?
There is a doctrine of "gaining possession in the ordinary course of business, which Lawdog refers to as "notice".
Of course if the property is well posted then there is notice- one would figure a potential buyer should at least inspect the place before the sale, right? It's the least he could do...
This is why the approach of actually eliminating the registration in the first place is so interesting.
I just realized that the only issue raised in this 'mini-thread' was "to record, or not to record" ( I got a bit distracted, ahem). And the only alleged 'downside' related to proof of ownership.
Never a word about the effect on tax-registration: more proof, this time from an upstanding member of the BAR that registration=taxation.
I shall take that as legal advice from a licensed attorney.