The inability to show a complete chain of title and ownership of a promissory note from Lender A to Lender B to Lender C, etc . has become a major impediment in mortgage servicers ability to foreclose on properties in judicial foreclosure states and in relief of stays in Federal Bankruptcy Court.
42.
This is the doctrine of " constructive notice " and it is nearly universal in the various states of the U . S . So, for example, after a deed or mortgage has been recorded by someone in the chain of title, no subsequent purchaser will be protected against it.
43.
Even an exhaustive title search of the chain of title would not give the purchaser complete security, largely because of the principle, " nemo dat quod non habet " ( " no one gives what he does not have " ) and the ever-present possibility of undetected outstanding interests.
44.
Years of uncertainty ensued for the Connecticut settlers in the Wyoming Valley, until in April 1799, Pennsylvania passed the Compromise Act allowing settlers ( in those townships which had been created and settled before the Trenton Decree of 1782 ) to prove their chain of title and pay a fee in return for certification of their title.
45.
In United States law, typically evidence of title is established through title reports written up by title insurance companies, which show the history of title ( property abstract and chain of title ) as determined by the recorded public record deeds; the title report will also show applicable encumbrances such as easements, liens, or covenants.
46.
Widespread lack of clarity in chain of title results from a 1995 decision by many lenders to rely on a third entity often, a specific company, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems ( MERS )-- to hold title nominally, in an effort to enable the buying and selling of mortgage liabilities without registration of changes of ownership with local governments.
47.
Jolly wrote that no evidence had been introduced to support the first two arguments, and as to the second, he considered their counterproductivity significant . " The mailings, by introducing a secondary chain of title into state records, are more likely to alert an investigator to the fraud than to somehow delay its detection . . . [ I ] t is counterintuitive to conclude that a defendant who knew enough about TDOT procedures to envision an inter-office mailing as part of his fraud would not realize the fraud-revealing implication of such a mailing on title records ."
48.
Vernor contends that our decision ( 1 ) does not vindicate the law s aversion to restraints on alienation of personal property; ( 2 ) may force everyone purchasing copyrighted property to trace the chain of title to ensure that a first sale occurred; and ( 3 ) ignores the economic realities of the relevant transactions, in which the copyright owner permanently released software copies into the stream of commerce without expectation of return in exchange for upfront payment of the full software price . eBay contends that a broad view of the first sale doctrine is necessary to facilitate the creation of secondary markets for copyrighted works, which contributes to the public good by ( 1 ) giving consumers additional opportunities to purchase and sell copyrighted works, often at below-retail prices; ( 2 ) allowing consumers to obtain copies of works after a copyright owner has ceased distribution; and ( 3 ) allowing the proliferation of businesses.
