not guilty wrote:Property/Contract land sale questions seemed different.....How did the Con law questions treat you guys? I can't seem to recall most of them.
Land sale contracts are always weird. You have the contract element and the deed element and neither work together coherently. The contract could be totally messed up but delivery and acceptance could mean the land was delivered while the deed can have all sprts of issues but the seller could escape liability because of the closing.
True. Even if it's a general warranty deed, and the seller delivered unmarketable title, once the deal is done the buyer is limited to damages, and can no longer rescind. But in certain cases, the buyer is obligated to not rescind, and the seller can cure the defects (by paying off a mortgage) after the sale. So weird.
I feel like land sale contracts on the MBE are kind of like that stereotypical swindling-hustler that you see in old 90's movies. You know, the one who rips the guys money off by doing the cups trick... which of the three cups is the ball under?
It's always something like: A devises to her son B, but B never records. B gets a mortgage on the land, and mortgagee does record. In the meantime, A sells to a purchaser who we will call C. At the same time, B gets tired of the upkeep and sells the property to D, who mortgages through Mortgagee 2 (M2). M2 contains a valid acceleration, due on notice, clause. D then gifts the property to E, but does not assign the mortgage. D defaults on his mortgage, and M2 then initiates foreclosure proceedings.
Who has a valid claim on the land... in other words... which Goddamned cup is the ball under?! (damn you to hell for this question swindling-huster!)