Quitclaim Deed
A quitclaim deed is the deed that promises nothing.
13. Quitclaim Deed
A quitclaim deed provides no assurances about the quality of title conveyed to the grantee.
- A grantee of a quitclaim deed generally has no recourse against the grantor for defects in the title, unless the deed itself was induced by fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct.
- A person who acquires title by adverse possession should convey the property by quitclaim deed.
A quitclaim deed promises nothing: it transfers whatever interest the grantor owns with no title covenants. The grantee generally has no recourse for a title defect, except where the deed was induced by misconduct, and an adverse possessor should convey by quitclaim.
A quitclaim deed is the deed that promises nothing. When a grantor signs a quitclaim deed, the grantor transfers whatever interest the grantor happens to own in the property, and makes no assurances at all about the quality of that title. There are no title covenants riding along with it. The grantor is not promising that the title is good, not promising the property is free of liens, and not promising to defend the grantee if someone else shows up with a better claim. If it turns out the grantor owned nothing, the grantee receives nothing, and that is not a breach of any promise, because the quitclaim deed never made one. That is the whole point of the instrument: it conveys the grantor's interest, no more and no less, with no warranty attached.
Because the deed carries no covenants, the grantee of a quitclaim deed generally has no recourse against the grantor for a title defect. If the title is bad, the grantee usually cannot sue the grantor to make good on it.
The scope also tells you who should use this deed, and it is a clean callback to adverse possession. A person who acquires title by adverse possession should convey the property by quitclaim deed. Why a quitclaim rather than a warranty deed? Because a successful adverse possessor holds good title by operation of law but usually has no clean paper record proving it. A quitclaim lets that owner transfer exactly the interest they hold without warranting a chain of title they cannot document, and without exposing themselves to liability on covenants they could not safely make.
There is one narrow opening, and the scope prints it exactly: the grantee can pursue the grantor where the deed itself was induced by fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct. That recourse does not come from a title covenant; it comes from the wrongdoing in how the deed was obtained. Absent that kind of misconduct, a defect in the title is the grantee's problem.
"Quit your claim, promise nothing."
A quitclaim deed conveys whatever the grantor owns and makes no assurances about title quality.
No covenants ride with it.
So the grantee generally has no recourse against the grantor for a title defect, with one printed exception: the deed itself was induced by fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct, which is a wrongdoing claim, not a title-covenant claim.
And remember the matched pair: the adverse possessor, who owns by operation of law but has no clean paper trail, should convey by quitclaim.
quitclaim transfers the grantor's interest with no warranty; bad title is the grantee's problem unless the deed was procured by misconduct.
An aunt signs a quitclaim deed transferring a cabin to her nephew. The aunt sincerely believes she owns the cabin, but a years-earlier recording error means a cousin actually holds the title. The nephew records the deed, later discovers the cousin's superior claim, and loses the cabin. The nephew sues the aunt for breach.
Suppose the aunt knew the cousin owned the cabin and lied about it to get the nephew to take the deed and pay her. Now the deed was induced by misrepresentation, and the nephew has recourse, not on a title covenant the deed never contained, but on the grantor's misconduct in procuring the deed.
An option that has the grantor “warrant good title” or breach a covenant of title on a quitclaim, or that reads an implied promise (e.g., easement-free title) into the deed.
A quitclaim deed makes no assurances about title quality and carries no covenants, express or implied; there is nothing to breach.A sympathetic “grantee recovers” resting on a true-but-irrelevant fact: the grantee paid value, the title turned out bad, or the defect cost value.
Payment, a defective title, and lost value do not create recourse where the deed warranted nothing; the defect is the grantee's problem absent misconduct.An absolute: the grantee NEVER has recourse, a quitclaim conveys NO interest, or a quitclaim ALWAYS conveys complete title.
There is the printed fraud/misrepresentation/misconduct exception, and a quitclaim conveys exactly the interest the grantor actually owns, which may be partial.Importing a warranty-deed covenant (seisin, against encumbrances, quiet enjoyment, to defend title) into a quitclaim transaction.
Those covenants belong to warranty deeds; a quitclaim deed has none of them.the stem hands you a deed described as a quitclaim (or a grantor who conveyed "whatever interest" they had with no promises), then surfaces a title defect, a missing interest, a lien, or a competing claimant, and asks whether the grantee can go back against the grantor.
The instant you see "quitclaim," run the no-assurances check: the deed conveyed only what the grantor owned and warranted nothing, so the grantee generally has no recourse for the defect.
Then look for the one escape hatch: was the deed itself induced by fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct?
If yes, recourse lies on the misconduct.
If the facts are just an honest mistake or a bad title, the grantee loses.
And if the grantor took title by adverse possession, the quitclaim is exactly the right instrument to use.
A seller conveyed a parcel to a buyer by quitclaim deed in exchange for the full asking price. Neither party realized that a recording mistake made years earlier left the seller without good title, and a third person actually owned the parcel. After the buyer recorded the deed and moved in, the third person came forward and established her superior claim, and the buyer was forced off the land. The buyer then sued the seller, arguing that by giving a deed and taking the price the seller had assured the buyer of good title.
Is the buyer likely to recover from the seller on a title-assurance theory?
An owner who knew that a bank held a large unpaid lien on her lot wanted to unload the property quickly. She told a buyer that the lot was completely free of any liens, and on the strength of that statement the buyer paid her and accepted a quitclaim deed. The buyer soon learned of the bank's lien and faced losing the lot unless he paid it off. The buyer sued the owner, who responded that a quitclaim deed makes no promises about title.
Is the buyer likely to have recourse against the owner?
A woman acquired title to a strip of land by adverse possession after occupying it for the full statutory period. Her title was good, but no recorded chain of title reflected her ownership, so she could not document a clean paper record. She wished to sell the strip to a neighbor and asked which kind of deed to use. She was unwilling to take on any risk of being sued over the quality of the title she was transferring.
Which deed is the appropriate one for this seller to use?
A man received a quitclaim deed to a lakefront lot from a relative as a gift, and the relative made no statements of any kind about the title. Years later the man discovered that a utility company held an easement across the lot that predated the gift and reduced the lot's value. The relative had been entirely unaware of the easement when she signed the deed. The man sued the relative to recover the lost value, claiming she should have given him clear title.
Is the man likely to recover from the relative?
A grantor signed a quitclaim deed transferring “all of my right, title, and interest” in a parcel to a buyer. At the time, the grantor in fact owned a one-half interest in the parcel as a co-owner, and the other half belonged to someone else. The buyer paid for the deed believing he was getting the entire parcel. After recording, the buyer learned he held only a one-half interest and sued the grantor, arguing the quitclaim conveyed nothing because the grantor did not own the whole parcel.
Is the buyer correct that the quitclaim conveyed nothing?