Still exists, since the owners of the mortgage now are the owners of the property There appears to have been some question as to whether Ina S~' mortgage obligation Ina S~, therefore, validly reserved a life estate. S~, a life estate in and to the real estate," the grantor's intentions are certainlyĬlear. As the deed says "reserving to the grantor, Ina Some part of the conveying instrument, the creation of a life estate will be upheld.Ģ8 American Jurisprudence Second, Estates § 64 (1966) First & American Nat. So long as the intent of the grantor is plainly manifest in Nothing in Minnesota law suggests that a quitclaim deed cannot reserve a lifeĮstate in the grantor. However, this clause should still be considered Therefore, the deed is not testamentary and mayĪs mentioned, the insertion of the life estate reservation deviates from the formįound in the annotated Minnesota statutes. According to the deed here, Ina S~ had no right to recall The grantor is not testamentary so long as the grantor retains no right to recall The deed was recorded with the county on October 21, 1992, as Minnesota state law Of the property which reserves a life estate in and to the real estate for Ms. Noticeable difference is that Ina S~' deed includes a statement in the description The deed which Ina S~ executed comported almost exactly with the Minnesota form 27-M,įor individual to individual quitclaim deeds. The total consideration paidįor the transfer of that property was less than $500. Ina reserved a life estate in and to the real estate. Purported to grant her interest in the said property to LeRoy and Audrey S~. On October 21, 1992, Ina S~ executed an individual to individual quitclaim deed which Upon default is at the option of the legal holder of the note. The amount of $10,744 at twelve percent interest per annum compounded annually fromĪnd after January 1, 1980. On that date, Ina S~ signed a promissory note for Since 1982, her two children have heldĪ mortgage against the property. Ina S~ owned property in Hoffman, Minnesota. That the deed did in fact create a valid life estate. For the reasons set out below, we believe S~ created a valid life estate for Ina S~. You asked for our opinion on whether the quitclaim deed from Ina S~ to LeRoy and Audrey Therefore, a valid life estate was created by the quitclaim deed. Of the conveying instrument, the creation of a life estate will be upheld. So long as the intent of the grantor is plainly manifest in some part Nothing in Minnesota law suggests that a quitclaim deed cannot reserve a life estate Therefore, the deed is not testamentary and may reserve a valid life estate. In the deed in question, the individual has no right to recall or control the property'sĭestiny. Long as the grantor retains no right to recall or control the property's destiny. A deed that reserves a life estate to the grantor is not testamentary as Is postponed, the grantor may reserve in himself a life estate in which the fee is It is a well-settled rule that if a deed is not testamentary in character, and passesĪ present interest in the property even though possession and enjoyment of the fee The deed was recorded with theĬounty in October 1992, as Minnesota State law requires. The only difference is that thisĭeed includes a statement in the description of the property which reserves a lifeĮstate in and to the real estate for the individual. The deed executed by the individual comported almost exactly with the Minnesota formĢ7-M, for individual-to-individual quitclaim deeds. However, she reserved a life estate in and to the real estate. Quitclaim deed which purported to grant her interest in the said property to her twoĬhildren. In October 1992, the individual executed an individual-to-individual The issue is whether a quitclaim deed created a valid life estate.Īn individual owned property in Minnesota.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |