Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hello, this question will be a shot in the dark, but here goes. I am researching a house built in 1882. I have managed to dissect a large part of the house's early history using records of deeds (though I haven't pulled physical deeds because of the cost). Below you can see the early history of the house. It starts with Henry P Pulling who buys lot 17 (the house I'm researching) and its neighbor lot 16 (another house) in 1881. He already has a house and these are investments, so he has the houses built and markets them for sale. Lot 17 house, hereby known as 88 Edmund, sells in 1883 on land contract. The contract is never recorded with the county. The same happens with lot 16, hereby 86 Edmund, which is also sold under contract. This is all fine and dandy.
*EDIT* I uploaded the wrong files. Ignore the first uploaded file, that is for a lot 9. The first record is in the reply, the second record is the second file in this post. Sorry. I don't know how to edit my attachments.
The trouble comes in the late 1880s. In 1890 Pulling died. In 1889 Pulling is said by a newspaper article to have sold off his land contracts via deed to either those living in the homes or new owners. Thus in 1889 88 Edmund is sold to a new buyer, a judge. What concerns me about this is that this transaction is not recorded. If the new occupants of 88 Edmund were to get a deed as the newspaper says, then why isn't it recorded? Furthermore, as the pages below show you, Pulling's heirs retained interest in 88 Edmund after his death, despite this presumed sale in 1889. And with 86 Edmund, his daughter's husband bought out the occupant's interest in the land contract after Pulling's death. Then it becomes a mess, tied up in court, and as you can see the widow of Pulling (who also just married him 3 months prior to his death and who had signed an anti-nuptial agreement which went into probate), retained interest in 88 Edmund throughout the 1890s. Despite this, the judge who 'bought" the house is shown as occupying the house in 1891. And after that a series of renters (whose names are not mentioned anywhere here) until finally title was given to Mabley, as shown.
So, if I have not confused you yet, my question is essentially this. The newspaper says the 1889 sale of 88 Edmund to the judge should be (there's a small chance it wasn't) a sale of deed, except the vendor died. Why then do the heirs and widow retain interest in 88 Edmund throughout the 1890s, and how is the judge living there in 1891? All I can think is that the 1889 sale was a second land contract sale on a house already under land contract, but the newspapers say Pulling was getting rid of his contracts in exchange for deeds shortly before his death.
Wow--what a tangled tale you weave. But, first of all, Saginaw County has these old files available online? That seems surprising. I've always enjoyed looking up old records (I owned a house that was built in the 1880s), but sometimes it's just not possible to figure out everything from solely what's recorded in the Register of Deeds office.
Anyhow, even though your screenshots didn't show the category headings, it seems that the columns in the register are, from Left to Right:
- Grantor
- Grantee
- Instrument recorded (e.g. Deed, Mortgage, Lis pendens, Warranty Deed, Quit Claim Deed, etc.)
- Consideration (even though some notes are included as well; "1 &c" is likely "$1 and other valuable consideration", since many old deeds in Michigan used to have that wording)
- Date executed
- Date recorded
- Liber & Page numbers (where you'll find the recorded documents)
- Description of the property, including notes
The main transactions that can be discerned from the record include:
Aug. 22, 1881 - Henry P. Pulling bought Lots 16 & 17 from an estate
Dec. 19, 1893 - heirs to Henry P. Pulling transferred their interest in Lot 17 (and more) to Jean W. Pulling
(find this in Liber 427, Page 83 of the County records)
July 19, 1899 - Jean W. Pulling granted a mortgage to Florence M. Bates
Aug. 26, 1901 - Mortgage foreclosed, property lost to Florence M. Bates
May 21, 1902 - Florence M. Bates granted a Warranty Deed to James M. Farley for $7,000
There also seems to be a number of lawsuits surrounding these two lots. You can see the Lis pendens notice (LisP), and you can also note that a lawsuit regarding Lot 16 was appealed to the Supreme Court on Nov. 13, 1895. You'd actually need to look up those cases to find what this was all about.
What is missing, of course, is any record of a Land Contract transaction. It could be that the newspaper was not correct...or it could be that a Land Contract was entered into, but that the Contract was never paid off. He could have walked away from it or whatever. If the Land Contract, or notice of it, hadn't been recorded in the first place, they may have felt that there was little need to record that the purchaser forfeited their rights under the Land Contract.
Anyhow, that's my take after a relatively quick read of the information you provided. If you want to dig deeper, you really need to read the actual deeds and other instruments that were recorded for the property. It is most likely that you can look up those records without a charge, but you would need to pay a copying fee if you wanted to keep a copy of any document.
Last edited by jackmichigan; 04-08-2014 at 10:48 AM..
Jackmichigan, thank you for that break down. I was trying to figure out what was going on in 1901 and 02 and that makes sense. These are actually in Wayne County, and since I live in Saginaw I haven't been able to get down there to get physical deed copies.
I have researched many of the cases. Some are rather interesting, such as whether estate property is real or personal property, which was a case heard by the Supreme Court in 1893. The newspapers documented the cases pretty extensively, except they never mentioned the particular parcels. A mandamus was filed to disclose the parcels but it was denied. The papers state that the houses were sold around 1883 on land contract, 70,000 worth among eleven parcels of which 55,000 remained outstanding at the time of Pulling's death.
But what I just can't get my head around is that in 1889 the house, which was under land contract to Pulling, was sold to a Judge Stevenson who lived across the street. But then in 1893 Pulling's heirs and widow all of sudden have interest again in the property. From the paper one would think the 1889 sale was a sale with deed, because it said Pulling was trying to get rid of the contracts. But this can't be the case because Stevenson's name is not recorded anywhere. From what I can gather, shortly before his death Stevenson was sold the house under a second land contract, which then he must have paid off in 1893 when the heirs transferred their interest, and then Jean M. Pulling rented the house until she sold it to Bates. Does that make sense? I've heard it's dangerous to take out two land contracts on one property like that.
But what I just can't get my head around is that in 1889 the house, which was under land contract to Pulling, was sold to a Judge Stevenson who lived across the street. But then in 1893 Pulling's heirs and widow all of sudden have interest again in the property. From the paper one would think the 1889 sale was a sale with deed, because it said Pulling was trying to get rid of the contracts. But this can't be the case because Stevenson's name is not recorded anywhere. From what I can gather, shortly before his death Stevenson was sold the house under a second land contract, which then he must have paid off in 1893 when the heirs transferred their interest, and then Jean M. Pulling rented the house until she sold it to Bates. Does that make sense? I've heard it's dangerous to take out two land contracts on one property like that.
Oh, do you know what "Chy" stands for?
Perhaps you mis-wrote, but in 1889 the property was not under Land Contract to Henry Pulling. Pulling received a Deed to the Property in 1881. From the entry, it wasn't a Warranty Deed, but it was likely a Covenant Deed or a similar deed with limited warranties. This is typical for deeds received from estates.
If the property was sold by Pulling on a Land Contract, Pulling (and later the heirs) would still have retained title since a Deed does not transfer under a Land Contract until the entire contract has been paid off. If the contract permits, a Land Contract can be assigned to another party (so, theoretically, Stevenson could have purchased under that scenario). In that case, the Deed still remains with the original owner--they never lose their interest in the property. If none of the Land Contract transactions got recorded, it gets rather difficult to tell for certain what transpired all those many years ago. It seems that the lawsuits are the key to figuring that out.
As for the abbreviation "Chy", I am not sure what that stands for. Since it is noted in relation to court filings, my guess is that it might be for "Chancery". If you ever get to read the original documents, you may be able to confirm whether or not that is correct. (I certainly don't hear that term used very often nowadays.)
Also, there's a slight possibility that if multiple parcels were involved in a given Land Contract sale, then the recording of that contract could have been made in connection with another parcel. That doesn't seem too likely, given the record for this lot, but it's a possibility.
Thanks for giving me my daily challenge. I hope this helped.
Perhaps you mis-wrote, but in 1889 the property was not under Land Contract to Henry Pulling. Pulling received a Deed to the Property in 1881. From the entry, it wasn't a Warranty Deed, but it was likely a Covenant Deed or a similar deed with limited warranties. This is typical for deeds received from estates.
If the property was sold by Pulling on a Land Contract, Pulling (and later the heirs) would still have retained title since a Deed does not transfer under a Land Contract until the entire contract has been paid off. If the contract permits, a Land Contract can be assigned to another party (so, theoretically, Stevenson could have purchased under that scenario). In that case, the Deed still remains with the original owner--they never lose their interest in the property. If none of the Land Contract transactions got recorded, it gets rather difficult to tell for certain what transpired all those many years ago. It seems that the lawsuits are the key to figuring that out.
As for the abbreviation "Chy", I am not sure what that stands for. Since it is noted in relation to court filings, my guess is that it might be for "Chancery". If you ever get to read the original documents, you may be able to confirm whether or not that is correct. (I certainly don't hear that term used very often nowadays.)
Also, there's a slight possibility that if multiple parcels were involved in a given Land Contract sale, then the recording of that contract could have been made in connection with another parcel. That doesn't seem too likely, given the record for this lot, but it's a possibility.
Thanks for giving me my daily challenge. I hope this helped.
Yes, excuse me, I meant to say that Pulling owned property that was under land contract already, and then sold it again on land contract. I've been told that can be dangerous.
Thank you for your help, BTW. I continue to try to research the cases. I definitely have a better understanding of what happened even if I don't understand everything. Such is the fun of trying to reconstruct the past through limited documentation!
After all of this discussion, I thought it might interest you the houses in question. So I've attached the photo below which shows you Lot 17 (88 Edmund) and Lot 16 (86 Edmund) in Detroit. Nether exist today, in fact the entire block is grass. 86 Edmund was the last house to be torn down, having been stripped of most of its details for several decades, it met the wrecking ball in the late 90s. The rest met the wrecking ball in the 60s.
Yes, excuse me, I meant to say that Pulling owned property that was under land contract already, and then sold it again on land contract. I've been told that can be dangerous.
Well, there are at least a couple of possibilities. If he sold it on Land Contract, it's possible that he regained possession from the purchaser prior to it being paid off. He still retained title. He then would have been free to sell the property again on a different Land Contract (provided he felt comfortable that the original purchaser wasn't going to come back and claim an interest).
Or...if he sold it on Land Contract, that purchaser could have assigned their interest in the Land Contract to someone else. That's not a second Land Contract--but merely an assignment of the original contract. Of course, this is all supposition since there are no supporting documents on record. Again, the court cases may hold the key as to what transpired.
Yes, that was a remarkable area of Detroit. I'm very familiar with the area since I went to grad school up the street. As a student, I was involved in some of the historic preservation efforts in the area. Unfortunately, the City wasn't inclined to preserve much of anything--they've always been for tearing stuff down whenever possible, it seems. At the time, about 30+ years ago, there were still a significant number of historic houses in the neighborhood that were salvageable. The City even got a multi-million dollar federal grant to start restoration efforts, but most of it was wasted by sand-blasting exterior bricks (not a good idea to begin with) instead of repairing the roofs which were the number one priority. A side note was that the Mayor's girlfriend was in charge of over-seeing the grant. It was quite the scandal.
It's just a shame that this neighborhood of incredible historic houses was left to deteriorate, not only from benign neglect but from active incompetence.
May I ask why you're even interested in researching the history of a vacant lot?
Well, there are at least a couple of possibilities. If he sold it on Land Contract, it's possible that he regained possession from the purchaser prior to it being paid off. He still retained title. He then would have been free to sell the property again on a different Land Contract (provided he felt comfortable that the original purchaser wasn't going to come back and claim an interest).
Or...if he sold it on Land Contract, that purchaser could have assigned their interest in the Land Contract to someone else. That's not a second Land Contract--but merely an assignment of the original contract. Of course, this is all supposition since there are no supporting documents on record. Again, the court cases may hold the key as to what transpired.
Yes, that was a remarkable area of Detroit. I'm very familiar with the area since I went to grad school up the street. As a student, I was involved in some of the historic preservation efforts in the area. Unfortunately, the City wasn't inclined to preserve much of anything--they've always been for tearing stuff down whenever possible, it seems. At the time, about 30+ years ago, there were still a significant number of historic houses in the neighborhood that were salvageable. The City even got a multi-million dollar federal grant to start restoration efforts, but most of it was wasted by sand-blasting exterior bricks (not a good idea to begin with) instead of repairing the roofs which were the number one priority. A side note was that the Mayor's girlfriend was in charge of over-seeing the grant. It was quite the scandal.
It's just a shame that this neighborhood of incredible historic houses was left to deteriorate, not only from benign neglect but from active incompetence.
May I ask why you're even interested in researching the history of a vacant lot?
Thanks again for the information, even though it is supposition!
I'm glad you know the neighborhood! I've been quite involved with that neighborhood for some time now, mostly in the capacity of researching the various houses on Edmund and Alfred streets. You'll be glad to know some of the few remaining houses have been restored or are in the process. The city is trying as well to properly off load the ones they own. Hopefully the new development in the area and in downtown and midtown Detroit will serve as a catalyst to saving what's left. Yes in the 70s there were quite a few houses left. I have always wanted to know how so many disappeared. I'll have to look up that grant. There was a census undertaken of the properties in Brush Park in the 70s and many look to be solid and inhabited. Then a decade later, gone, with no explanation. Even more houses fell in the early 60s. There must have been some anti-blight campaign in Brush Park in the 60s but I have never been able to find documentation of it.
It's the house that interests me. I fell in love with it as soon as I saw that photo several years ago. I loved it so much I commissioned an architect in Baton Rouge to render a front elevation of the house (link below) using the old photo as a guide. This led to many more renderings of neighborhood houses. Anyway, the house is so unique. It is designed in a very rare style, neo-baroque, and modeled after the Palais des Tuileries in Paris, which forms part of the Louvre today. It's just a lovely house, absolutely perfect. Unfortunately, I do not know who the architect is. I have been unable to find any record, even after hours spent manually searching through building permits. I've been trying to decipher the house's history. I have amassed a large file of documents on the house and its inhabitants, but it's still far from me being able to understand its complete history.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But, first of all, Saginaw County has these old files available online? That seems surprising. I've always enjoyed looking up old records (I owned a house that was built in the 1880s), but sometimes it's just not possible to figure out everything from solely what's recorded in the Register of Deeds office.
