Talk:Quitclaim

Rename or Merger

There is another article quit claim deed which should be merged unless they happen to be different things. Davumaya 19:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

As an attorney, I agree. The correct phrase is quit claim deed. I suggest keeping the "Quit Claim Deed" article and then re-directing Quitclaim Deed" to "Quit Claim Deed". 18:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

From my understanding of this issue, the term is sometimes hyphenated (quit-claim), sometimes written as one word (quitclaim) and is sometimes written as two words (quit claim). The actual legally preferred term varies from state to state and country to country, but most jurisdictions would honor any of these spelling variations. It is also often mistakenly spoken or written as quick-claim, quickclaim and quick claim. My suggestion is that all six terms point to a single, merged article, entitled something like "Quitclaim or Quit Claim Deed (often mistakenly pronounced quick claim)". NashvilleKit 20:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Quit Claim Deed and Quitclaim Deed are the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.184.65.186 (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to add to your claim that it is sometimes stated as one word, the los angeles recorder's office has it as one word. http://www.lavote.net/recorder/Document_Recording.cfm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.242.79 (talk) 17:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Inaccurate information

"It fails to meet all five traditional tests of a true deed found in common law. " This sentence needs to be expanded or deleted to make sense 151.207.240.4 22:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This statement is incorrect. Quit claim deeds contain no warranties, but they include all five elements required for a deed (see Wikipedia article for deed) under the common law.

Grant and warranty deeds

The article treats warranty deeds as secondary to grant deeds by saying it is used in "some U.S. States". As an aside, states shouldn't be capitalized. Also, there is no evidence that states using the term "warranty deed" are in the minority, so I am changing the sentence. -Rrius (talk) 05:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Alternate Use for Quitclaim

Another increasingly common use for a quitclaim deed is to transfer legal title of real property from elderly people, generally those in failing health, with increasingly restricted mobility, or just those taking a long-term view, to their children or another person who either has legal power of attorney and/or a health proxy for the elderly person, or is anticipating having such decision-making power in the future. This may be done due to current regulations surrounding nursing home fees. If an elderly person is admitted to a nursing home (or similar type of facility), whatever real property that person owns could be used by the facility in payment of fees. Also, in order to have Medicare pay for the nursing home care, the elderly person cannot have substantial resources, either in property or financial instruments. In other words, as part of estate planning, an elderly person may register a quitclaim deed upon his/her (legally responsible) child, so that if s/he needs to move to a nursing home at some point, the family home cannot be taken by the facility as payment, as legal title to the home would rest in the grantee child. 207.229.186.97 (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Page with inacurate, spammy information has been edit protected

Wikipedia has edit protected a page that gives inacurate legal advice and promotes spammy commercial websites. By rendering the page uneditable wikipedia could be seen as being the provider of inacurate legal advice and possibly held liable for damages caused by that inacurate information as they have removed the veil of protection that they enjoyed under the assumption that they can not be held liable for editable user generated content. Hopefully no one is harmed by wikipedia providing this inacurate information HOWEVER, if you have been harmed please feel free to contact me, I'd be happy to discuss you case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.11.159 (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is for informative purposes only. and this is clear in Wikipedia's disclaimer, a link to which is available at the bottom of every single page. Further, legal advice is defined as "...interpreting the law and applying it to a specific situation." Since this article neither interprets the law nor applies it to any one given situation, it does not constitute legal advice, nor should you accept it as such.

Also, please note that making legal threats on Wikipedia could lead to being temporary blocked from editing until the legal matter has been resolved.

Should you need a legal professional, please contact a qualified attorney in your area -- Wikipedia is not and never has been a substitute for legal advice. JerseyGirlMedia (talk) 05:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

misleading info and bad citation

the first paragraph of this article states: "is a legal instrument by which the owner of a piece of real property..." This is an incorrect and misleading statement. It suggests that if someone is offering a quitclaim deed that they are the owner of the property however nothing in a quitclaim deed guarantees or warrants that the grantor is the owner of the property. The citation noted is also questionable, seems to be more advertising than correct information on lectlaw.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.10.10.203 (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a general explanation for a quitclaim deed, which describes the intended and most-commonly used purpose for using a quitclaim deed. Since this is to transfer a piece of real property from an owner to a buyer/receipient, the information is accurate and stands.

You have already been notified that LectLaw is a reputable, acceptable source. If you believe you have a more reputable resource that would benefit this article, then please feel free to include it, provided that it does not violate Wikipedia's linking policy, as your previous reference did. JerseyGirlMedia (talk) 05:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Another Alternate use of Quit Claim Deed

As explained by my lawyer, in NJ a newly marries spouse immediately gains an interest in the marital home, regardless of the fact that the other spouse already owns it. Therefore, in addition to the prenup, I have to have her sign the quit claim deed or the prenup may be considered invalid. Halnwheels (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Does not have to be the owner to quitclaim

I have to agree with one of the previous posters, being a grantor on a quitclaim deed has nothing to do with ownership. I think that quitclaimdeed.com is the authority when it comes to quitclaims and they make it clear that that grantor on a quitclaim deed makes no warranties, it even says that in this wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.119.50.22 (talk) 17:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Different States may treat Quitclaim Deeds differently.

For example in Rhode Island,

34-11-17 Effect of quitclaim deed. – A deed substantially following the form entitled "Quitclaim Deed" shall,
when duly executed, have the force and effect of a deed in fee simple to the grantee and his or her heirs and assigns,
to his, her, and their own use, with covenants on the part of the grantor, for himself or herself and for his or her
heirs, executors, and administrators, with the grantee and his or her heirs and assigns, that he or she will, and his
or her heirs, executors, and administrators shall, warrant and defend the granted premises to the grantee and his
or her heirs and assigns forever against the lawful claims and demands of all persons claiming by, through, or under the
grantor.

http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/TITLE34/34-11/34-11-17.HTM <

Wmtdude (talk) 18:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

lawful claims and demands of all persons claiming by, through, or under the grantor

That's the key section of the Rhode Island statute, nothing in the statute requires the grantor to have an interest in the property or actually own the property being quitclaimed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.10.17.7 (talk) 01:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Quick claim deed is a misnomer

The article stated that quitclaim deeds are sometimes incorrectly referred to as "quick claim deeds." That needs support. Why would we ever include the error? That's like saying "Obama is sometimes erroneously referred to as a muslim." in the article about him (we don't for obvious reasons). I've removed it. Toddst1 (talk) 12:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Reference no. 8 suggests that the misnomer "quickclaim" "is likely the result of the relative ease and simplicity of the deed compared to a general or special warranty deed." I suspect that the cause is more likely the result of mishearing the word, coupled with unfamiliarity with "quit" used in this sense. Terry Thorgaard (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

From a linguistic point of view, the pronunciation "quick claim" is legit: it's fairly standard in English, even if native speakers don't know they're doing it, for an alveolar consonant to be assimilated to a following velar consonant, so that "flatcake" might be pronounced with a glottal stop and end up sounding more like "flack-cake". It is only an error if you write it that way. --Doric Loon (talk) 09:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Quitclaim deeds are standard in some places.

"Because of this lack of warranty, quitclaim deeds are most often used to transfer property between family members, as gifts, placing personal property into a business entity (and vice versa) or in other special or unique circumstances.[citation needed] Quitclaim deeds are rarely used to transfer property from seller to buyer in a traditional property sale; in most cases, the grantor and grantee have an existing relationship, or the grantor and grantee are the same person." emphasis added

This statement is far too general. We need to remember that real estate laws vary substantially from state to state and even more so from country to country. My wife and I have bought, lived in, and sold five single family residences in Massachusetts and all ten transactions were on quitclaim deeds. None involved related parties or any other special circumstances. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 11:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done So revised, after talking to a Massachusetts title examiner and citing a reference. Perhaps it should be weakened even further. jhawkinson (talk) 05:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Rights of lifetime estate tenant.

Can they restrain any from coming on the property? Phillip shepeard (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Consideration

My layman's understanding was that a quitclaim was a one-sided arrangement, and to that extent a little like a covenant: the grantor unilaterally passes land rights to the grantee. However I see from the text of the 1871 example (image to the right in the history section) that a consideration is mentioned, and indeed it is mentioned in the printed template, not just the handwritten additions, suggesting it was standard at that time and in that jurisdiction. Can anyone say if a consideration is common or even necessary? If there is a consideration, does that not make the instrument into a contract? It would be good if these points can be clarified in the article text. --Doric Loon (talk) 09:55, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Doric Loon: I haven't found a reliable source that discusses this, but in general terms you are right: a quitclaim is (or at least can be) a unilateral transfer such as a gift. Under English common law a gift without consideration isn't a contract and can't be enforced be enforced as such. Making the gift by executing a formal deed is a way of making it legally binding. But there are many situations where land is to be transferred on payment but without title guarantee, and as in the 1871 example if there is consideration there's no reason it can't be included in the instrument. I would guess that that printed form simply covers a common situation under 19th-century Missouri state law. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@MichaelMaggs: Thank you for taking time over this: that is extremely helpful. If a reliable source does turn up, perhaps that detail can go into the article. --Doric Loon (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Article rename

This article should be called Quitclaim rather than Quitclaim deed. Quitclaim is the fundamental legal concept, and has been for hundreds of years. The current names for the physical instrument that's used, whether Quitclaim deed or Quitclaim agreement should be redirects to Quitclaim. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:15, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I would support that. However, as there is already a redirect at Quitclaim, you would need admin rights to make the move. If you don't have those, you would need to solicit help. --Doric Loon (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes indeed. I'll leave it for a week or so for others to comment first. MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2021 (UTC)