Deed

[justalayman]

Could it be that he was authorized to sign (POA or so) and that was just not filed?

it was stated he signed as grantee

which in itself puts the use as the agent of a POA in, at best, a suspect position and at worst (haven't checked pertinent state laws), unable to act as the agent in a transaction which he would be the beneficiary.

 

[LdiJ]

.
Hey, guess what. banks have cleared checks without signatures. Care to know what happens when it is challenged? It is reversed unless the account holder acknowledges they simply forgot to sign the check.

I don't disagree at all. However, based on the passage of years involved here, this is not necessarily going to be a situation with a simple (or inexpensive) fix. Best case scenario for brother is that some attorney, somewhere has a copy of the quit claim deed with both signatures, and simply the wrong hard copy got recorded. Best case scenario for the estate and the other heirs is that brother's deed is completely invalid. Reality is that its going to take some legal effort to unravel, and some serious family hostility is going to be part of that.

I have a client (who was in my office today asking for some advice). For many years she was her brother's rep payee for SSDI. His children basically refused to participate in caring for him because he was mentally ill and difficult to deal with. He got a lump sum payment that was used to buy him a small house in a small town. Due to valid complications (long story, won't go into it here) the house ended up needing to be purchased in the sister's name. Due to brother's mental illness he was in and out of jail over the period that sister was the rep payee, and every time he was in jail his SSDI temporarily stopped. Sister ended up using her own money to maintain the house, pay the property taxes, and keep the utilities turned on during those periods. Their mother paid for refurbishing the house and providing appliances when it was purchased. Brother passed away recently and suddenly his children are insisting upon their "inheritance". They believe that they should
get the entire proceeds of the sale. Sister believes that she and mother should be reimbursed for the money they put into the house and that the children should split the remainder. The children already received a fairly decent amount of money from life insurance policies purchased by their grandmother many years ago.

Bottom line...legally its sister's house. Legally she doesn't have to give them squat. However, morally she feels that she should give them whatever is left over after she and mom have been reimbursed. The "children" feel that they should get it all...without even a provision for the capital gains taxes that she is going to have to pay on the gain. (the house is appraising at double it's original cost...before anybody gets too interested its a house that was bought at 30k and is now appraising for 60k)

Sister does not want to destroy the family over it, but wants to be reimbursed and even more wants her mother reimbursed. The "children" just want the money.

My opinion of the OP's case depends a great deal on what brother has done with the land since 1989...and whether or not it can be determined if this was a mistake or fraud. If brother built a house on the land or vastly improved the land in some way, then my opinion is going to be different than if father continued to maintain/work the land...and brother just claims he owns it.

 

[justalayman]

LdiJ;3298065]I don't disagree at all. However, based on the passage of years involved here, this is not necessarily going to be a situation with a simple (or inexpensive) fix. Best case scenario for brother is that some attorney, somewhere has a copy of the quit claim deed with both signatures, and simply the wrong hard copy got recorded. Best case scenario for the estate and the other heirs is that brother's deed is completely invalid. Reality is that its going to take some legal effort to unravel, and some serious family hostility is going to be part of that.

it actually should be relatively simple. The deed does not meet the requirements to be recorded nor does it meet the requirements to even be an enforceable deed. No signature means no transfer of interest. It really should not be any more difficult that proving it is defective and it should be summarily discharged.

as to cost; who knows, those dang attorneys always want blood.

but a copy being recorded? Seriously?

what got recorded was THE deed. Anything anybody else would have would be a copy and not proof of there being a signature on THE deed.

My opinion of the OP's case depends a great deal on what brother has done with the land since 1989

.the only possibility I can see would be of adverse possession. Outside of that, no signature, no transfer of interest..

the closest argument for the brother I can see:

O.C.G.A. 44-5-164 (2010)
44-5-164. When adverse possession for seven years confers title


Possession of real property under written evidence of title in conformance with the requirements of Code Section 44-5-161 for a period of seven years shall confer good title by prescription to the property against everyone except the state and those persons laboring under the disabilities stated in Code Section 44-5-170, provided that, if the written title is forged or fraudulent and if the person claiming adverse possession had actual notice of such forgery or fraud when he commenced his possession, no prescription may be based on such possession.

but that presumes brother had possession of the property and father did not live there.

..and whether or not it can be determined if this was a mistake or fraud. If brother built a house on the land or vastly improved the land in some way, then my opinion is going to be different than if father continued to maintain/work the land...and brother just claims he owns it

that would fall under the adverse under color of title and not disagreeing with you on that point.

 

[eddie001999]

.
Hey, guess what. banks have cleared checks without signatures. Care to know what happens when it is challenged? It is reversed unless the account holder acknowledges they simply forgot to sign the check.

Ok guys, this debate needs to end. I checked with a real estate lawyer and Georgia State law says no grantor signature means deed is invalid. I will take it from here. Thanks.

 

[Zigner]

Ok guys, this debate needs to end. I checked with a real estate lawyer and Georgia State law says no grantor signature means deed is invalid. I will take it from here. Thanks.

What debate?

 

[eddie001999]

What debate?

Definition: debate

verb

1.To consider something; deliberate; discussion of various points.

 

[justalayman]

Definition: debate

verb

1.To consider something; deliberate; discussion of various points.

I would consider it a discussion rather than a debate.

Regardless, the point was to discuss your situation such that you could benefit from the best information those here can provide. If you would rather not have than, then by all means, don't ask questions.

the more commonly accepted used definition:

verb
1.
argue about (a subject), especially in a formal manner.

 

[eddie001999]

I would consider it a discussion rather than a debate.

Regardless, the point was to discuss your situation such that you could benefit from the best information those here can provide. If you would rather not have than, then by all means, don't ask questions.

the more commonly accepted used definition:

It has gotten to the point where the "discussion" has veered off subject. The original question was, " Is a deed valid in the State of Georgia with out the grantor's signature?"

 

[Zigner]

It has gotten to the point where the "discussion" has veered off subject. The original question was, " Is a deed valid in the State of Georgia with out the grantor's signature?"

And there was no debate about the answer

 

[justalayman]

It has gotten to the point where the "discussion" has veered off subject. The original question was, " Is a deed valid in the State of Georgia with out the grantor's signature?"

Ok. You got the answer to that question way back in post #4. Just ignore everything after that.


I'm actually a bit surprised that the members here continued on discussing the issue through which possibilities were presented and discussed and you would have issue with it. It did nothing but provide more information than a simple; no but hey, if all you want is the answer to that one question, the:


NO


ignore everything else anybody posted.

 

[eddie001999]

And there was no debate about the answer

Thanks. Have a good day.

 

[eddie001999]

Ok. You got the answer to that question way back in post #4. Just ignore everything after that.


I'm actually a bit surprised that the members here continued on discussing the issue through which possibilities were presented and discussed and you would have issue with it. It did nothing but provide more information than a simple; no but hey, if all you want is the answer to that one question, the:


NO


ignore everything else anybody posted.

Thanks for the answers. Have a good day.

 

[eddie001999]

it actually should be relatively simple. The deed does not meet the requirements to be recorded nor does it meet the requirements to even be an enforceable deed. No signature means no transfer of interest. It really should not be any more difficult that proving it is defective and it should be summarily discharged.

as to cost; who knows, those dang attorneys always want blood.

but a copy being recorded? Seriously?

what got recorded was THE deed. Anything anybody else would have would be a copy and not proof of there being a signature on THE deed.



.the only possibility I can see would be of adverse possession. Outside of that, no signature, no transfer of interest..

the closest argument for the brother I can see:





but that presumes brother had possession of the property and father did not live there.

that would fall under the adverse under color of title and not disagreeing with you on that point.

The father maintained a 1/2 acre garden for many years on the property in question after the alledged transference of property. The father also planted trees and maintained a butchery on the property in question. The father did this until age related illnesses prevented him from doing so and then he recently passed on.