No I'm not.

Post #333,035 by beepster 9/24/10 10:30:01 AM Reply	No I'm not. I'm requiring that, in matters where government records are the controlling document, and a plaintiff is operating un-opposed, that the claim be validated. Courts make judgement on admissibility of evidence in every case every day. And no, this is not about contract disputes, verbal contracts, or any other area that you can come up with as a red herring. This is about physical home/property ownership. Deeded, surveyed, tracked, recorded and taxed by the government. I'm asking they do their job correctly. I guess I'm asking too much. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,045 by Another Scott 9/24/10 11:18:44 AM Reply	You're waving your hands around about a perfect world. I'm requiring that, in matters where government records are the controlling document, and a plaintiff is operating un-opposed, that the claim be validated. No, you're not. You're introducing a new mandate for people to do things that are not their job. You're introducing a new system to government in an attempt to fix a problem that was caused by a bank and their agents. I'm not the one waving my hands around and introducing red herrings. Courts make judgement on admissibility of evidence in every case every day. In civil cases, they rule on evidence submitted and objections by the other party. If the other party doesn't object, the court doesn't introduce its own judgment. And no, this is not about contract disputes, verbal contracts, or any other area that you can come up with as a red herring. I served on a jury in a civil case regarding a highway fatality. It was a dispute between 2 parties. The state was not a party. The evidence introduced was from the 2 sides - not the state. For instance, we had no access to the police report on the accident because it wasn't introduced into evidence. It was he said/he said along with the evidence they presented. We couldn't say - "well the police report said it happened this way..." - there was no state involvement. Millions of dollars, a family's financial future, and someone's business were at stake. Tell me how your principle of the state verifying evidence presented in a civil case shouldn't apply there as well? It's a civil case with BoA, here. Those are civil cases. It's the same principle. This is about physical home/property ownership. Deeded, surveyed, tracked, recorded and taxed by the government. It's about a dispute between two parties regarding who has claim to a property. The bank is there as a result of a claimed contract. I'm asking they do their job correctly. If by "they" you mean the banks and their agents, we're in agreement. ;-) Otherwise, you continue to be wrong. Cheers, Scott.
Post #333,046 by beepster 9/24/10 12:09:26 PM Reply	Re: You're waving your hands around about a perfect world. >You're introducing a new mandate for people to do things that are not their job< and by this not existing, allowing certified >legal< ownership to be subverted by other parties, unopposed. Yes, I am advocating that a branch of government (courts) have access to records from another branch of government (appraisers) in a specific circumstance (litigation about ownership where plaintiff is unopposed). In other words, I'm advocating a solution to the situation you brought forward as a problem. Gee, sorry. Didn't think you would be so ready to tell me that it isn't the government's job to protect its citizens. <I served on a jury in a civil case regarding a highway fatality> Sorry to hear about that. Sounds to me like both parties were present (at least someone there was arguing for the deceased). Additionally, final proof was not to be established by an official government record. Apples/Oranges. <It's about a dispute between two parties regarding who has claim to a property. The bank is there as a result of a claimed contract. > A contract that by law must be recorded in the same location and to the same authority that issues title. GA for example.. <44-14-33. In order to admit a mortgage to record, it must be attested by or.... In order to admit a mortgage to record, it must be attested by or acknowledged before an officer as prescribed for the attestation or acknowledgment of deeds of bargain and sale; and, in the case of real property, a mortgage must also be attested or acknowledged by one additional witness. In the absence of fraud, if a mortgage is duly filed, recorded, and indexed on the appropriate county land records, such recordation shall be deemed constructive notice to subsequent bona fide purchasers. 44-14-34. When executed outside this state, mortgages may be attested,.... When executed outside this state, mortgages may be attested, acknowledged, or probated in the same manner as deeds of bargain and sale. 44-14-35. Mortgages on realty shall be recorded in the county where the land is.... Mortgages on realty shall be recorded in the county where the land is located. Where a mortgage upon realty is executed to secure the payment of money or other thing of value and the same is not recorded as provided by law but the mortgage is renewed or reexecuted, the mortgage shall operate as a lien upon the property of the mortgagor only against the mortgagor himself and those having actual notice of the mortgage except from the date of the record of such mortgage. 44-14-36.> So, all records related to ownership are held in one place. By law. Who controls that place? Its a one word answer. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,047 by Another Scott 9/24/10 12:48:35 PM Reply	You're still not getting it. Yes, I am advocating that a branch of government (courts) have access to records from another branch of government (appraisers) in a specific circumstance (litigation about ownership where plaintiff is unopposed). You're not advocating that they have access. You're advocating that the courts do their own investigation. That's not the court's role. Especially not in a civil case. If you say the courts should independently investigate the quality of evidence in real estate cases, there's no logical reason why it shouldn't do the same in all civil cases (your objection noted but rejected). "But it's the appraisers responsibility!" Make up your mind. Is the court responsible or not? In my jurisdiction, the following PDF summarizes the various legal documents for land records - http://www.fairfaxco.../pdf/CCR-A-61.pdf (8 page .pdf). Not the columns Grantor and Grantee. The County isn't a party - it simply collects and stores documents presented as a result of agreement between 2 other parties. They don't investigate anything. It's not their job. Your excerpt above talks about "attested by" and similar. They take a sworn statement. Just like courts do. They don't investigate anything. "But they should!" No, they shouldn't. People who submit legal documents have a responsibility to get them right - the system doesn't have a responsibility to check their work. Rather than advocating destroying our civil court system, why not advocate that the banks and their agents do their jobs when presenting information to the courts? Cheers, Scott.
Post #333,052 by beepster 9/24/10 1:46:35 PM Reply	Simple question. You still didn't answer. Who is the responsible legal authority to maintain records related to property ownership? Is the answer to above a branch of government? Are the Courts a branch of government? Is it the government's role to offer some measure of protection to its citizenry? So where in this do I advocate destroying our civil court system? Ah, I see. We need to trust the banks and/or any other plaintiff to get their information correct before they file or have some penalty imposed upon them. (as opposed to carving out unopposed property ownership disputes) and which one of us is advocating destruction of the civil court system? Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,054 by drook 9/24/10 2:09:45 PM Reply	We already have a system, if we would use it Who is the responsible legal authority to maintain records related to property ownership? I'll assume you mean real-estate. My TV is property, too. If someone takes that, I go to the police and we end up in court. Then the two of us present evidence to support our claims of ownership. It's exactly the same with real-estate. Yes, there is a system for recording ownership of real-estate. As you like to point out, how else would they collect taxes on it? But as Box has pointed out, the records used for collecting taxes are frequently wrong, and only updated annually. And if a tax bill is sent to the wrong person, they can present evidence of that, and get things changed. Your pie-in-the-sky system seems to depend on keeping bad data from ever getting into the system. "Refuse or delay ... not accept ... exclude evidence ..." All those ideas are saying you rely on a strong gatekeeper function. The stronger the gatekeeper is, the more rigid it is. The only way to allow flexibility is to make it slower. The system is breaking down now because it's overloaded. So where in this do I advocate destroying our civil court system? Where you suggest that the court research ownership and reach a conclusion before evidence is presented. Ah, I see. We need to trust the banks and/or any other plaintiff to get their information correct before they file or have some penalty imposed upon them. Not trust: Demand. Show me another area of law where you can knowingly submit false documentation and not face severe penalties? -- Drew
Post #333,060 by beepster 9/24/10 2:39:11 PM Reply	Re: We already have a system, if we would use it as opposed to not reviewing any evidence and issuing orders, like they do now in FL. I like my idea for government better than yours. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,063 by drook 9/24/10 3:23:19 PM Reply	Your idea, right "Government, which I am convinced can't be trusted to do anything right, should just start magically operating the most efficient, flawless system imaginable. I don't care that people who know what they're talking about say it's not that easy, after all I pay my taxes so I get to demand whatever ridiculous bullshit I want. And if they don't do it, that's further proof that government can't be trusted to do anything right." -- Drew
Post #333,065 by beepster 9/24/10 3:29:01 PM Reply	Getting there. and I'm glad that 20 yr old tech that I've seen manage hundreds of thousands of documents per year and eliminate rekeying and feed automatically into massive ERP systems that control multibillion dollar organizations can't be applied to a local country appraisers office because >that< would be too fucking complicated. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,078 by boxley 9/24/10 4:29:48 PM Reply	no, charge 3k for recording fees and they would have it instant internet lookup and smiley faces. Dont hold yer breath Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #333,070 by Another Scott 9/24/10 3:51:56 PM Reply	Your question doesn't matter. Who is the responsible legal authority to maintain records related to property ownership? I haven't answered because it doesn't matter who is the legal authority over the paperwork. What if it were a private entity? Would that make the court situation different? No, it wouldn't. Civil cases are about disputes between 2 parties before an impartial judge. Full stop. That is the issue. It doesn't matter if a perfect database of perfect information exists somewhere in some county office, or some UN agency in Ulan Bator, or in an office park at One Infinte Loop. What matters is what information is presented by the 2 parties to the court. We need to trust the banks and/or any other plaintiff to get their information correct before they file or have some penalty imposed upon them. Yes, that's how the civil court system works and has for hundreds or thousands of years. It's an adversarial system - the truth comes out in a battle between the two sides before an impartial judge. The system depends on the 2 sides presenting factual information. Not on the court deciding, on its own, what is or is not a fact. You continue to want to make this issue a failure of some government entity. It's not. It's a failure of the banks and their agents to do their jobs. They cut corners, bamboozled the system, and deserve to be held accountable. HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #333,073 by beepster 9/24/10 4:04:34 PM Reply	No it isn't. You are expanding the scope. Not I. This is a dispute about a very specific item where the controlling legal authority is clearly defined. It certainly matters. Or are you saying that if I show up with pretty paperwork claiming your house and you aren't there..the judge should give me your house without question...because thats the way the system has worked for thousands of years? Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,076 by Another Scott 9/24/10 4:27:26 PM Reply	This is hilarious. You've been given several concrete examples of how you're wrong, by people who have worked in the industry. Yet you still won't back down and continue to rely on pie-in-the-sky "solutions" that put the costs on someone else. This is a dispute about a very specific item where the controlling legal authority is clearly defined. The "controlling legal authority" [Why do you keep bringing that term up? Some sort of residual dig at Al Gore or something?] isn't a party to the dispute. Again, it's irrelevant. Or are you saying that if I show up with pretty paperwork claiming your house and you aren't there..the judge should give me your house without question...because thats the way the system has worked for thousands of years? What does that have to do with the topic at hand? Your strawman about what "should" happen isn't relevant. What actually happens in the US civil court system is that people win default judgments all the time. The US civil court system <GIANT FLASHING BOLD TEXT WITH SPRITES AND GONGS> relies on evidence presented by the two parties </GFBTWSAG>. It relies on the 2 parties being truthful. Your wishing for some government authority to independently investigate and certify documentation <GFBTWSAG> provided by the parties to the government recording offices </GFBTWSAG> puts the onus on the wrong entity. If someone shows up at my house claiming ownership, they can expect a lawsuit. Under your system, of perfect data, that somehow has a mistake even after being certified by the Grand Certification and Verification Poohbah of Land Records, the party bringing the claim and winning a judgment in court can also expect a lawsuit. (I'm sure you're aware that most government entities have immunity from suits in the performance of their duties.) Your magical, free, "perfect" data system wouldn't change that. Nobody is arguing that land records shouldn't be accurate. Yes, they should be accurate. (Happy?) Where we differ is that you seem to think that some magical efficiency fairy will make all land records error-free and cost-free for someone else to do a plaintiff's job. What happened to personal responsibility? Why shouldn't the bank and its agents be called to account and punished for causing this problem? Sheesh. Cheers, Scott.
Post #333,079 by drook 9/24/10 4:34:07 PM Reply	Hmmm ... A single person mentioned in the article admits to signing 10,000 documents per month. Let's take Box's round number of 30 pages (which I can confirm is normal for simple deals with clear title). That's 300,000 pages per month to review. From one agent at one bank. Other than, "Here's what they gave me, at 4:32 p.m. on September 24th," what is the person at the county recorder's office supposed to do, that he doesn't do now? -- Drew

Welcome to IWETHEY!