Help

[season7]

I have a deed to some land and need to clarify what it mean. My mother-in-law says that Sco---- signed these papers when he was not in his right mind, and still is not at times. He was deemed incompetent. Please help clarify what this means: To have and to hold the aforesaid lot or parcel of land all priveleges and appurtenances therto belonging to the Grantee in fee simple:
And the Grantors covenants with the Grantee, that Grantors is seized of the premises in fee simple, has the right to convey the same in fee simple, and title is marketable and free and clear of all encumbrances, and that Grantors wil warrant and defend the title against the lawful claims of all persons whomsever exvept for the exceptions hereinafter stated.
Title to the property herin above described is subject to the following exceptions:
a. General utility easements for phone and power purposes.
b. Roadways and rights- of-way of record and those visible by inspection of the premises.
c. Such facts as an environmental study on the subject property by an envirnmental engineer would reveal.

I am Sco----'s power of Attorney. And I am so confused as to what all of this means. Please help Clarify. Being that he was deemed incompetent, does his signature on this deed have any value--or withstanding? He does not remember signing it.

Thank You

 

[dee_dub]

I am assuming that Sco--- is the grantor? And you are the grantee?

What the papers mean, and whether they are valid, are two entirely different things.

The papers essentially mean that the grantee is the owner of the land, subject to some exceptions. (One of the exceptions, (c), is exceptionally unclear.)

Whether they are invalid because they were executed while the grantor was not of sound mind is impossible to say without more information.

 

[season7]

Does reference a and b in my question mean that the grantor has some rights to the property or NO rights. I am not sure. And as far as the papers being valid, I am not sure, because Sco----, is incomptent and was when the papers were signed..And he did not have legal rep. when he was supposed to have done so. Is this a case that could hol up in court, for Sco---- to recover ownership of his land. In other words, does he have anything to do with the land? From what I asked.

 

[dee_dub]

a) and b) probably don't confer rights on the grantor - they provide that ownership is subject to the rights of third parties (utilities, etc.).

If Sco--- didn't have legal representation and was of questionable competence, you bet your boots there could be a court case about whether the transfer is valid.