Question

Sacramento artist S.C. Heet has transferred a portion of her property, via a grant deed, to Cameron Dulle. However, this deed did not set forth in writing the two primary warranties. Cameron should have on the property: first, that S. C. has not already transferred the title to another person; and, second, that the estate is free of any encumbrances, other than what has been disclosed to the grantor. Which of the following is true of this situation?
A) Cameron must file a quiet the title law suit in order to alter the transfer to include these warranties.B) Cameron must accept the situation as is, unless he can convince S.C. to alter the transfer willingly.C) Because this transfer has occurred with a grant deed, the two necessary warranties, as explained, are implied in the deed. However, under the Statute of Limitations, contracts must be in writing to be enforceable; so Cameron’s coverage in this situation will not stand up in court.D) Under a grant deed, the two warranties — that S. C. has not already transferred the title to another person, and that the estate is free of any encumbrances, other than which has been disclosed — are implied within the grant. These implied warranties do not need to be stated in the deed, but are still present.

Answer 1

Answer:

The Correct Option is D

Explanation:

One of the peculiarities of a grant deed is that even though it does not state or set forth in the deed the two warranties, they still very present. It does not have to be stated in the deed because as long as the deed has been transferred to Cameron, it is already implied that S.C Heet has not transferred to grant deed to anyone. Secondly, a deed must contain all encumbrances and issues that must be known by the grantor. Hence, even though these warranties were not stated in the grant deed because they are implied warranties and do not need to there for it to be present.