Land Patent Instructions

"The patent specifically grants the described lands to the party named on the patent and to their heirs and their assigns forever.
The party named on the patent then passes the inheritance, grants, or assigns the patented lands to someone else, which heir or assignee is now named on the patent by that assignment. The documents that demonstrate such an assignment are often called, "Deeds".
Because the granter can not compel you to accept the assignment it is necessary for you to take some action to signify your acceptance of the assignment. For this reason we use Team Law's copyrighted "Declaration of Land Patent".
Once you have accepted the proper assignment of the Land Patent with proper documentation, you are named on the physical Land Patent where it says, "and to his heir and assigns forever".
It doesn’t matter how many times the land is reassigned. The patent by its own creation lasts "forever" and belongs to the named party "and to their heirs and assigns forever".

The deeds that you speak of ONLY demonstrate that the current occupier of the land has an equity right on the land. The deed does not connote ownership of the land. As you indicated, only the Patent can demonstrate that perfect ownership. IF the current occupant (being the one listed on the deed) does not exercise his/her right (entitlement under the particular act of Congress granting the patent) to accept the assign(ment) then he/she is still lacking in having a perfected Title to the land. As such, the land is still in the name of the original Patentee and his/her heirs or assigns... Heirs having primary right over the assign, especially when the assign does not desire to exercise his/her right (entitlement) to a Patent.

Jerry.

[B Rookard]

<sigh> ...

So much confusion among the tax protestor crowd.

When a deed says something along the lines of "A.B. conveys and warrants all interest in Blackacre to C.D., and his heirs and assigns forever" the words "and his heirs and assigns forever" DO NOT mean that A.B. has actually conveyed the property to C.D.'s heirs and assigns as well.

The words are interpreted as what are called "words of limitation" and they indicate the kind of title conveyed.

"The technical words to create a fee are by a devise to one and his heirs, and the words 'heirs and assigns' are words of limitation and not of purchase." Allen v. Heikkinen, 364 Mich. 129 (1961).

The words "A.B. conveys and warrants all interest in Blackacre to C.D." are "words of purchase" showing that A.B. has conveyed to C.D. his interest in the property. The words after that basic grant, which refer to "heirs and assigns" tell us what kind of estate was passed to C.D.

In this case, title is conveyed to C.D. ... and the words "and his heirs and assigns" indicates that he has passed a fee simple.

If the words had been "and the heirs of his body," the title conveyed would be a fee tail. A type of estate that can pass only to lineal descendants and which reverts to the owner if at some point the descendant holding title fails to have children. And note, this type of estate is abolished in most states now.

There are many ways to grant property. Important caveat: and of course, you can't grant more that what you got from the previous owner.

You can grant all title and interest ... a fee simple.

You can grant property to someone to use for that person's life, with the property reverting to the grantor when the grantee dies ... a life estate.

You can grant a possessory interest in property ... with title remaining in the grantor ... and possession reverting to the grantor after a stated time ... this is called a lease.

You can grant a right of way over property ... an easement.

You can place restrictions on subsequent owners ... like "A.B. conveys to C.D. all his interest in Blackacre so long as said property is used for religious purposes" ... and this will give title to C.D. ... and if he fails to use the property for religious purposes, the property will go back to the grantor (A.B.)

A fee simple estate is ownership of the property.

Leases, easements, and other lessor estates convey interests in the property without conveying full title.

Having worked in a law office where we dealt with quiet title actions and property it is absolutely painful to watch tax protestors make bone-headed statements about conveying property. It becomes increasingly clear that you guys really have no clue about deeds, writing deeds, the passing of interests in land, etc.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by B Rookard

<sigh> ...

So much confusion among the tax protestor crowd.

When a deed says something along the lines of "A.B. conveys and warrants all interest in Blackacre to C.D., and his heirs and assigns forever" the words "and his heirs and assigns forever" DO NOT mean that A.B. has actually conveyed the property to C.D.'s heirs and assigns as well.

The words are interpreted as what are called "words of limitation" and they indicate the kind of title conveyed.



The words "A.B. conveys and warrants all interest in Blackacre to C.D." are "words of purchase" showing that A.B. has conveyed to C.D. his interest in the property. The words after that basic grant, which refer to "heirs and assigns" tell us what kind of estate was passed to C.D.

In this case, title is conveyed to C.D. ... and the words "and his heirs and assigns" indicates that he has passed a fee simple.

If the words had been "and the heirs of his body," the title conveyed would be a fee tail. A type of estate that can pass only to lineal descendants and which reverts to the owner if at some point the descendant holding title fails to have children. And note, this type of estate is abolished in most states now.

There are many ways to grant property.

You can grant all title and interest ... a fee simple.

You can grant property to someone to use for that person's life, with the property reverting to the grantor when the grantee dies ... a life estate.

You can grant a possessory interest in property ... with title remaining in the grantor ... and possession reverting to the grantor after a stated time ... this is called a lease.

You can grant a right of way over property ... an easement.

You can place restrictions on subsequent owners ... like "A.B. conveys to C.D. all his interest in Blackacre so long as said property is used for religious purposes" ... and this will give title to C.D. ... and if he fails to use the property for religious purposes, the property will go back to the grantor (A.B.)

A fee simple estate is ownership of the property.

Leases, easements, and other lessor estates convey interests in the property without conveying full title.

Having worked in a law office where we dealt with quiet title actions and property it is absolutely painful to watch tax protestors make bone-headed statements about conveying property. It becomes increasingly clear that you guys really have no clue about deeds, writing deeds, the passing of interests in land, etc.

Thank you Brian;

This time your foot is so full of information and jammed so far down your throat I cannot resist:


http://www.suijuris.net/forum/citize...-finished.html


Regards,

David Merrill.

[B Rookard]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Thank you Brian;

This time your foot is so full of information and jammed so far down your throat I cannot resist:


http://www.suijuris.net/forum/citize...-finished.html


Regards,

David Merrill.

Your non-response is noted.

[rottweiler]

Are you saying that "heir and assigns forever" does not actually mean "heirs and assigns forever"? Let's see, one strawman, A.B. warrants to the other,C.D., both of which are property of the STATE. Makes sense to me, RED ROOKARD is correct, the property does belongs to the public. Your argument is frivolous though because it has nothing to do with a properly prepared land patent, which is what we are discussing here. You are using a strawman argument and are confusing color of law with law. You say you worked in a "law" office. That commie office has nothing to do with law and that's why you can't tell the two apart. Commie's have no law only a gun.

Originally Posted by B Rookard

<sigh> ...

So much confusion among the tax protestor crowd.

When a deed says something along the lines of "A.B. conveys and warrants all interest in Blackacre to C.D., and his heirs and assigns forever" the words "and his heirs and assigns forever" DO NOT mean that A.B. has actually conveyed the property to C.D.'s heirs and assigns as well.

The words are interpreted as what are called "words of limitation" and they indicate the kind of title conveyed.



The words "A.B. conveys and warrants all interest in Blackacre to C.D." are "words of purchase" showing that A.B. has conveyed to C.D. his interest in the property. The words after that basic grant, which refer to "heirs and assigns" tell us what kind of estate was passed to C.D.

In this case, title is conveyed to C.D. ... and the words "and his heirs and assigns" indicates that he has passed a fee simple.

If the words had been "and the heirs of his body," the title conveyed would be a fee tail. A type of estate that can pass only to lineal descendants and which reverts to the owner if at some point the descendant holding title fails to have children. And note, this type of estate is abolished in most states now.

There are many ways to grant property. Important caveat: and of course, you can't grant more that what you got from the previous owner.

You can grant all title and interest ... a fee simple.

You can grant property to someone to use for that person's life, with the property reverting to the grantor when the grantee dies ... a life estate.

You can grant a possessory interest in property ... with title remaining in the grantor ... and possession reverting to the grantor after a stated time ... this is called a lease.

You can grant a right of way over property ... an easement.

You can place restrictions on subsequent owners ... like "A.B. conveys to C.D. all his interest in Blackacre so long as said property is used for religious purposes" ... and this will give title to C.D. ... and if he fails to use the property for religious purposes, the property will go back to the grantor (A.B.)

A fee simple estate is ownership of the property.

Leases, easements, and other lessor estates convey interests in the property without conveying full title.

Having worked in a law office where we dealt with quiet title actions and property it is absolutely painful to watch tax protestors make bone-headed statements about conveying property. It becomes increasingly clear that you guys really have no clue about deeds, writing deeds, the passing of interests in land, etc.

[B Rookard]

Originally Posted by rottweiler

Are you saying that "heir and assigns forever" does not actually mean "heirs and assigns forever"?

I don't think I stuttered.

Was the citation I provided not clear?

You need to understand the difference between "words of purchase" and "words of limitation."

Here's the quote again:

"The technical words to create a fee are by a devise to one and his heirs, and the words 'heirs and assigns' are words of limitation and not of purchase." Allen v. Heikkinen, 364 Mich. 129 (1961).

**************************
Example of fee simple:

Deed says: A.B. grants and conveys to C.D and his heirs and assigns.

Words of purchase: "A.B. grants and conveys to C.D."

Words of limitation: "and his heirs and assigns."


**************************

Example of fee tail:

Deed says: "A.B. grants and conveys to C.D. and the heirs of his body"

Words of purchase: "A.B. grants and conveys to C.D."

Words of limitation: "and the heirs of his body"

**************************

The words of purchase tell who the property goes to.

The words of limitation tell what kind of estate he has.

You do not read the words of limitation as a grant to the literal heirs ... they are interpreted as describing the type of estate that individual has.

And please, I've forgotten more property law than you've ever learned.

[rottweiler]

You mix fact with fiction Red Rookard.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=466&invol=198

[rottweiler]

If what you say is true, RED COMMIE ROOKARD, how did Summa Corp. get a land patent "assigned" to it from people who lived in 1839? The original patentees are not alive today, how can the patent still exist?



Petitioner's title to the lagoon, like all the land in Marina del Rey, dates back to 1839, when the Mexican Governor of California granted to Augustin and Ignacio Machado and Felipe and Tomas Talamantes a property known as the Rancho Ballona. 2 The land comprising the Rancho Ballona became part of the United States following the war between the United States and Mexico, which was formally ended by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. 9 Stat. 922. Under the terms of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo the United States undertook to protect the property rights of Mexican landowners, Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, Art. VIII, 9 Stat. 929, at the same time settlers were moving into California in large numbers to exploit the mineral wealth and other resources of the new territory. Mexican grants encompassed well over 10 million acres in California and included some of the best land suitable for development. H. R. Rep. No. 1, 33d Cong., 2d Sess., 4-5 (1854). As we wrote long ago: [466 U.S. 198, 203]
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=466&invol=198

[B Rookard]

Originally Posted by rottweiler

If what you say is true, RED COMMIE ROOKARD, how did Summa Corp. get a land patent "assigned" to it from people who lived in 1839? The original patentees are not alive today, how can the patent still exist?

The title dates back to the patent.

They don't have the patent.

Please show me where the word "assign" even appears in the case. (I already know you can't by the way).

Are you making up words that aren't there?

[B Rookard]

Originally Posted by rottweiler

You mix fact with fiction Red Rookard.

Have you figured out the difference between words of purchase and words of limitation?