Also known as: marketable titles of record · marketable title · record title
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A title standard in real estate contracts requiring that every link in the chain of title be evidenced by recorded documents or other admissible written proof. Marketability under this standard must be determinable solely from the public records or an abstract without resort to parol evidence. Title acquired by accretion or adverse possession fails this standard because those sources cannot be verified from the record alone.
Malcolm McKinley contracted to sell land to Meredith Maxwell. The contract required marketable title of record. Malcolm's chain consisted entirely of recorded deeds and affidavits. Meredith accepted the title at closing because every link appeared in the public records.
Marcus Mitchell agreed to convey property to Michelle Murphy under a contract calling for marketable title of record. A prior mortgage remained unreleased on the record. Michelle refused to close because the defect prevented determination of marketability solely from the recorded chain.
Maria Morales contracted with Miles Montgomery to purchase acreage. The agreement demanded marketable title of record. The title company offered to insure over an old easement, but Maria rejected the tender because the easement prevented verification of the entire chain from the record alone.
Maxwell Manufacturing acquired land by long-term adverse possession. It later contracted to sell the parcel and promised marketable title of record. The buyer refused because the chain could not be established from recorded instruments or an abstract without extrinsic proof of the possession period.
Land surveying errors led to a mismatch between deed descriptions and actual occupations on the shore of Hood Canal in Mason County. As long ago as 1932, McCall resided in the house now occupied by the Kuntos under a deed describing a 50-foot-wide parcel that was adjacent to the lot where the house stood. Several property owners to the west of defendants were similarly situated. Since 1946, several conveyances occurred using the same legal description accompanied by transfer of possession to succeeding occupants. The Kuntos' immediate predecessors, the Millers, had a survey performed to build a dock which indicated conformity between deed and occupation, leading to placement of boundary stakes and construction of improvements. The Kuntos took possession of the disputed property under a deed from the Millers in 1959. In 1960, the Howards, who held land east of the Kuntos, undertook a survey to convey an undivided one-half interest to the Yearlys. The survey revealed that the Howards were record owners of land occupied by the Moyers and the Moyers held record title to land occupied by the Kuntos. In April 1960, Howard obtained a conveyance from Moyer of the land upon which the Kunto house stood in exchange for conveying the land upon which the Moyer house stood. Until that conveyance, neither Moyer nor predecessors asserted any right to the property possessed by Kunto and predecessors. Plaintiffs instituted this action to quiet title on August 19, 1960, when defendants had been in occupancy of the disputed property less than a year. The trial court denied the Kuntos' claim of adverse possession, finding a lack of continuity of possession or estate to permit tacking and that defendants' possession was not continuous because it involved only summer occupancy. Defendants appealed from the decree quieting title in the plaintiffs.
Marketable title of record imposes a stricter requirement that every link in the chain must be provable from recorded documents or admissible written evidence. Ordinary marketable title permits reliance on facts outside the record so long as a prudent purchaser would accept the title free from reasonable doubt.
…22 North, of Range 2 West of W.M. . . .” : The inordinate delay in bringing this matter to trial appears from the record to be largely inexcusable. However, neither counsel who tried the case was at fault in any way. We have intentionally declined to consider defendant’s motion (probably well founded) to…
…had acquired ownership by adverse possession of a strip of land 15 inches in width running the length of her west boundary, the record title to which strip was in the plaintiffs. The matter is now before the Court on motion by the plaintiffs for an order granting a new trial or setting aside the judgment on the grounds that the…
…of deeds of that county disclose the following pertinent facts concerning the title: For some time prior to May 7, 1946, the record title owners of this property were Caroline Messersmith and Frederick Messersmith. On that date, Caroline Messersmith executed and delivered to Frederick Messersmith a quitclaim deed to the…
…area contained within the legal description of their ocean-front property. The state asserts two theories: (1) the landowners' record title to the disputed area is encumbered by a superior right in the public to go upon and enjoy the land for recreational purposes; and (2) if the disputed area is not encumbered by the asserted…
No. Title resulting from adverse possession cannot be determined solely by review of the land records or an abstract. A contract requiring marketable title of record therefore cannot be satisfied by such title because parol evidence would be needed to establish the elements of possession.
A buyer may refuse when any link in the chain cannot be verified from the public records alone. Examples include unreleased liens, breaks in the recorded chain, or interests that require extrinsic proof, because these defects prevent the title from meeting the record standard.
No. Insurable title is a distinct and sometimes less rigorous standard. A contract demanding marketable title of record requires that marketability be established from the record itself. The insurer's commitment does not substitute for missing recorded links or admissible written evidence.