I recently purchased a tract of land that unfortunately made its way into the local newspaper, which then escalated into a major news story.
It turns out that the reporter who discovered my land purchase got this information from a county government office responsible for recording land deeds. As a matter of policy, this office allows any and everybody to walk in and rifle through files on recent and past real estate transactions and walk out with any information they want. This makes it a favorite target of not only reporters, but also telemarketers and agents for data warehouses, which then circulate the information nationally and place you on mailing lists for life. Apparently, this practice is common throughout the United States.
My question: (a) why should the general public be able to know who purchases certain pieces of real estate; and (b)why don’t county governments place some reasonable restriction on access to said information? Obviously, those with a need to know (lawsuits, complaints re: upkeep, etc.) should have reasonable access to such information. But why should Joe Sixpack and XYZ DataMiners, Unlimited know what I own and how much I paid for it? Without compelling interest, why does the public’s right to know outweigh my right to privacy?
Please stick to facts to avoid having this being kicked over to IMHO.
Deeds have to be recorded and made public. If in the future you want to sell your property, it is incumbent upon the purchaser to check the public records to ascertain who owns the property and if there are any liens or other encumbrances, defects, etc. to the title.
When you bought your property, did you get title insurance? You probably got either title insurance or an attorney’s opinion as to the state of the title. If you didn’t, you’re an idiot. If you have a mortgage on it, I’m sure they got it. The only way to ensure that you got good title is to check the public records. That’s why they exist. Of course, even then you may not have good title. There may be hidden defects. That’s why we have title insurance.
The law states that recording gives constructive notice, which in the law is the same as actual notice. Of course the office allows any one to “rifle” through the files of record and past r e transactions. That’s why the transactions are recorded.
Speaking as someone who used to help prepare title opinions, you want your deed to be public information. My dad did title opinions for oil companies so that the proper land owners could be identified and paid for oil production within the bounds of their mineral rights. Without your deed being public, there would be no way to find out that you were entitled to such money. Records are either public and available to all or confidential and for official government use only. Some records do require a fee for copying, but if land records were more restricted, you’d see a noticable increase in property value due to to the (dramatically) increased cost of title research and proeprty valuation. One right we do not have in the US is to keep hidden the ID of the entity that owns a particular piece of property. The implications of that are pretty scary. Making the purchase price public is also important since it is critical in determining the value of surrounding property.
Well, you can keep your identity secret and private and still record your deed to give notice that you own the property: set up a land trust. The land trust takes title of record, instead of you, and only the trustee and you know who really owns the land. Most banks can set themselves up as land trustees. Title will be in the bank’s name, “as trustee under trust number ***.” The public now knows only that the trustee has title, but does not know who the beneficiary of the trust is. This used to be the trick of slum landowners. It is used for more legitimate purposes too.
There are actually ways to buy property and keep your identity private. In Illinois, the best way is a land trust. Your state may not recognize land trusts, but there are other ways to accomplish the same goal.
If privacy is important to you, you should talk to a lawyer before buying your next property.
BTW, what was so interesting about your transaction that it became a news story? Routine publication of recent land sales is fairly common. (Hell, my last purchase is on the internet) Separate news stories, though, is something else.
I don’t know the real estate law in Cal., but in Illinois, where I used to examine titles to r e, the grantor-grantee index was the official “chain of title.” However, no title examiner ever used that, as the tract books were much faster. It’s really quite easy. You go to your tract of land in the tract book and see who was the last grantee. In subdivided property, as most cities are subdivided, you just go to the subdn, block no., and lot no. You have to, of course, know the legal description of the land. If the property is not subdvd, it’s a little messier, as you then have to go to the tract of land, which in Ill is the section, twp, and range.
This is getting off the subject. In any event, if you know what you are doing, looking up the owner is a snap.
It was a big tract–over 200 acres near a city. Large valuation and NIMBYism. The land became available unexpectedly and I had to make my move in a matter of hours. The local newspaper has done certain favors for me in the past and I thought this acquisition would dart under their radar screen.
My primary objection is how data miners indiscriminately sell this information to whomever comes up with the cash.
Yes, barb, I have title insurance. No, barb, I’m not an idiot.
Actually, I was looking up the history of a particular street that didn’t come into existence until a certain part of L.A. was developed and then it kept changing names and kept getting subdivided and I could never figure out who the original owners were.
Usually L.A. County properties can be traced back to a particular Spanish/Mexican rancho. Turned out I was looking at a piece of property that had been reclaimed from tidal water.
Then I just went and asked somebody who knew the answer.
I didn’t say tracing the chain of title back to the original owners is a snap. That sometimes proves to be a challenge. Most of the property east of the Mississipi was “patented” to soldiers who fought in the Revolutionary War by a grant from the USA. However, in central Illinois, and probably elsewhere, those patents were in conflict with grants made by the French government. So, you had conflicting claims made by grantees of two different governments. In some areas, I’m sure people had patents from the Spain government. All those claims had to be settled.
As far as land created by recession of waters, the “Streeter tract” on the near North side of Chicago is a famous incident of a long drawn out battle as to who owned the newly created dry land: the owner of the dry land abutting the waters before they receded or the government which still retained title to Lake Michigan. That land was accreted in the 1930s and Cap Streeter and his heirs fought a long drawn out suit that lasted into the 70s. It seems Mr. Streeter had a boat drydocked on the land and he claimed that the accretions were due to that boat, and hence belonged to him, since the accretions were not natural accretions.
There have been many intriguing title battles fought in the courts. Just for your info, the Prudential Bldg just north of Grant Park in downtown Chicago was the subject of a title suit. The Illinois Central conveyed the title to Prudential, but the State said that the IC had only an easement and could not convey the fee title. This, after the skyscraper was built. Chicago Title Insurance Company had insured the title in Prudential and had to defend the title. They won, in a suit for the first time, and perhaps the only time it will ever happen, the Illinois SC found estoppel against the state. Such was the power of CTI back in those days.