In late 2001 the Ohio legislature passed a bill which included statutory forms of conveyance that contained a new acknowledgment clause.  Within a few months, prior to the effective date of the former bill, it introduced and passed a new bill making further changes.  There was some language related to the acknowledgments that was proposed, but never passed, that made its way in to subsequently recorded deeds.  Some seem to question the validity of these acknowledgments.  Whether they are valid or not depends on the precise language used, but they may be perfectly fine.

This may be of little interest to most of you.  Dower is only recognized by about half a dozen states; Ohio is one of them.  To briefly explain the concept of dower, it is a one-third life estate interest that a spouse has in the real property of the other.  It is for this very important reason that all conveyances of interests in real property include the marital status of the grantor, along with a release of dower by the spouse if the grantor is married.  This is so even if the property is only in the name of the grantor.

There are usually only two ways to extinguish dower, aside from the spouse signing away dower rights by joining in the execution of the grant document by the title-holding spouse.  Those would be divorce and death.  However, there is another little known statute that can extinguish dower - I'm blogging about this today because I have never seen it used and until very recently, I was unaware of it.  By statute in Ohio, adultery can be a bar to dower.

The Ohio Senate, after 6 hearings in the Senate Judiciary - Civil Justice Committee, voted on HB 292 in favor of a complete ban on private transfer fee covenants.  The bill was widely supported by several Ohio organizations, including the Ohio Bar Association, the Ohio Land Title Association, the Ohio Association of Independent Title Agents, the Ohio League of Bankers, and the Ohio Realtors Association.  The only opponents of the bill were Freehold Capital Partners, the organization promoting them nationally, and the Ohio Builders Association. 

As you know, Ohio has proposed legislation to ban private transfer fee covenants.  This past week, a Senate committee held a second hearing on the bill and I was able to make it to the Statehouse to attend.  In favor of the bill was the Ohio State Bar Association and the Ohio Land Title Association.  In opposition, a representative from Freehold Capital Partners.  The interesting thing was that the issues addressed have all been debated here on the Source of Title Blog.  I guess you could say that we have been ahead of the curve!

Recently, I have had numerous problems searching titles because relevant information has been removed from probate files pursuant to Ohio law which makes it "confidential."  While I can certainly understand the need to protect individuals privacy, this creates a real problem for title professionals, and potentially homeowners.  If omitted confidential information could result in a lien on someone's home, there is a real hazard waiting for a title searcher.

The transfer on death designation is a relatively new concept in Ohio real estate law.  It provides a powerful estate planning tool, but the Ohio law is rather specific and limiting.  In a May 2007 blog, Avoid The Use of the Transfer on Death Deed, I pointed out what can happen when the transfer on death interest is not properly created.  The current Ohio law is a trap for the unwary.  Proposed Senate Bill 124 will broaden the transfer on death statutes and remove some of the pitfalls associated with creating transfer on death beneficiary interests. 

In early 2008, I wrote a series of blogs about Transfer Fee Covenants.  Basically, it is the practice of including a covenant in a deed that purportedly requires each successive seller to pay a 1% transfer fee to the original owner who added the covenant to the property.  It's the gift that keeps on giving; not only does the declarant of the covenant get paid when he sells the property, but each time the property is sold thereafter he gets another 1% of the purchase price.

To me, and many others, this practice seems a bit shady.  It has been referred to as a "scam."  Several states have proposed legislation to ban these types of covenants - Ohio is the latest to propose such a ban.