It's rare to see these old cruel restrictions in title. Normally we see them in old old deeds, but I am examining title for land in Somerset County and the deed from 2006 still has this clause:
"The occupancy of the lot shall be restricted to Caucasians only."
It dates back to the subdivision in 1949, but why the attorney left it stand is beyond me. These idiotic restrictions are to be ignored so that consumers ignore them, too. Can you imagine people thinking they had a right to follow that kind of restriction?
4 comments:
Deeds do need to be examined. There are too many sardonic possibilities here to list, but just what if this were an out-sourced search and "exam."
Anon, you are so right. Even with a human review, they have to be trained properly.
What really bugs me about this deed is that consumers might believe the words they see. I deleted the restriction in the new deed. I specifically typed the entirety of the restrictive covenants and renumbered them so it would be obvious that I deleted it.
The Supreme Court struck these kinds of restrictions down so they are not legal, however. the old documents have NOT been changed and as we report what the "record" title says, the old ones are shown as they are.
It is customary in our area when preparing new deeds in which restrictions are being re-typed for any reason, to delete the illegal restrictions. It is also customary for abstractors to NOT report these restrictions as they have no impact on title and should be ignored.
Post a Comment