I am purchasing a home in Arizona on a Contract for Deed and Purchase and currently have collectors trying to collect a debt. Am I legally an owner on this property and can they attach a lien to this property, and if so, can I Quit claim this property to my family?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mkhalid

I am purchasing a home in Arizona on a Contract for Deed and Purchase and currently have collectors trying to collect a debt. Am I legally an owner on this property and can they attach a lien to this property, and if so, can I Quit claim this property to my family?

---

Tons of other answers to quit claim questions - check them out.

I would say, yes, they can attach the property IF they get a Judgment against you.

Actually, I have to disagree with Judy here. If you are purchasing on a Contract for Deed you don't actually own the property yet. The deed is still in the seller's name.

Even if the deed has been transferred to you, it may be exempt as a personal residence. And, if you tried to transfer the property to relatives, there could be fraud charges and would be tax implications in doing so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

Actually, I have to disagree with Judy here. If you are purchasing on a Contract for Deed you don't actually own the property yet. The deed is still in the seller's name.

Even if the deed has been transferred to you, it may be exempt as a personal residence. And, if you tried to transfer the property to relatives, there could be fraud charges and would be tax implications in doing so.

---

I'm not sure - I found (and relied) on this: "The contract for deed is a contract and many of the rights and remedies of the parties are based solely on the provisions contained in it. Such provisions as time, place, and amount of payment indicate the continuing contractual relationship between the parties. Under a contract for deed, the purchaser acquires an equitable estate in the land. Although it is generally accepted that the seller retains legal title to the land, courts have consistently held that the seller has only a security title and the buyer is the equitable owner of the property. As such, the relationship is the same as that created by a deed and a mortgage."

That's always been my understanding - which, granted, doesn't mean much.

Calling Lisa, calling Lisa!

Excon agrees: Oh, it's LISA you call during an emergency. I see... You're right, though. I don't know the answer.


Right. I didn't realize I had typed her name out loud. Anyway, that's why I called on Lisa. Now if it would have been something in YOUR area of expertise I would have called on you.

Hmm, lets see what Lisa Or Chuck has to say. What you find may be the case, but I suspect it's there only to protect the buyer from malfeasance by the seller. If the buyer defaults there would be no transfer of ownership. If the seller claims a default where none exists, such rulings will help the buyer.

But in the OP's case, since the seller retains legal title, then the buyer's creditor would (probably) not be able to file a lien against the property.