Quote:
Originally posted by Lawdog
"Ownership of land can exist only because it is recognized and enforced by the legal institutions of the state. Hence, it is not surprising that virtually all modern governments have developed and operate systems which permit interested persons to discover who owns any parcel." p. 823
|
Note the statutory jurisdiction. I agree that this is how it works in these instances, but that has not been my point.
Quote:
Originally posted by Lawdog
In general, no one is obliged to record anything, and there is no direct penalty if a conveyance goes unrecorded....But the recording acts provide a strong incentive for every grantee to record, for one who fails to do so is taking the risk that his or her grantor will make a subsequent conveyance that will diminish or destroy the efficacy of the prior transfer." pp. 825-826
|
The recording acts provide the carrot and stick to statutory transactions, effectively circumventing the Law of Contracts and the Statute of Frauds. It must be so if the "government" is going to insure the title. My point stands though, that the main purpose of recordation is to indemnify the lenders, as the victims of fraud are on their own. To condone such a system is pure heresy from a
de jure POV. Thankfully we have alternatives, regardless of what Lawdog or others may say to the contrary.
gldskr