Some have been critical of my simplified explanation to Alyce of the differences between a deed and a quit-claim.  I clearly wrote that such a document "...may be read to say....".  I did not say "...must be read to say...."  I am firm in my belief that such is true, and that researchers may depend on that non-legal explanation. 

Again stating the matter:  Quit-claims do NOT represent that the person who executed that instrument owns anything atall.  That person MAY own an interest, but he/she is not representing or in any sense guaranteeing that he/she does so own a portion.  The simplest example would be where a lawyer says that perhaps you own a small undivided interest in land your Great-grandfather sold in 1885, and now the buyer of that land from his descendants wants you to sign a quit-claim.  You do that, get paid $50.00 or whatever, and then a later and thorough title search reveals that, in fact, you did not own anything.  You have done no wrong and have no obligation for having signed that quit-claim.  As is taught in law schools (now and 45 years ago when I graduated), you would not be remiss in executing and having recorded a quit-claim for your interest in the Brooklyn Bridge, the White House, or the Sir Francis Drake estate, even though surely you own nothing in those assets.  While greater and more complex aspects of quit-claims might be set forth, this website is not dedicated to legal niceties.  Paul 

> "Quit-claims" are legal instruments
> which may be read to say, "I do not represent that I
> own any interest whatever in this property, but if I
> do I hereby transfer that interest to you."  Said
> another way, a "quit-claim" says, "What that court
> and those lawyers say that I own, I hereby convey it
> to you, but I have no idea whether or not they know
> what they are talking about and you must realize
> that I may own NOTHING atall."
> 

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html