|
Mods,
I am unsure of what's legalbeagles motivation by misrepresenting what the case he/she mentions says about land patents and the context in which it was mentioned, but the above is not a cite nor decision concerning a land patent.
The case used by legalbeagle is about discharge of a mortgage debt, which they mentioned a land patent as one of their defenses against a lien on the real estate. As I have stated numerous times, a land patent doesn't infringe on anyone's right to contract nor is it a means of defense against the terms of said contract. The court was not ruling on the supremacy nor validity of the land patent - it only agreed with the trial court that:
Finally, appellants argue the trial court improperly granted summary
judgment because their property is protected by a U.S. land patent, shielding it from collateral attack. Appellee argues contra that a land patent is merely a conveyance, and not a general protection from liens. We agree. As the trial court aptly stated, "the information sheds no light on the case at hand."
Although the court agrees with appellee as stated above, they are merely agreeing that a patent does not provide general protection againt liens, so its irrelevant information. The Supreme Court has ruled consistently on land patents since the formation of the country - properly assigned land patent is supreme.
|