CHAPTER 7: BCHD records the court judgment, which becomes the deed to the land upon which BCHD sits.
What did BCHD do with the court order?
We now know that BCHD filed a lawsuit to take the land it sits on by force; that by invoking eminent domain the public use specified in the lawsuit is, by statute, “irrevocable”, thus binding BCHD to forever use the land for a hospital. We also know that BCHD agreed to these terms in writing, and asked and obtained a court judgment ordering the public use as a hosptial only.
But, to make sure that the land transfer for public use as a hospital was known to the world and binding on the world, BCHD did what is called “recording” the court judgment. That fact creates the deed of title to the land upon which BCHD sits, cementing the public purpose, in perpetuity, as a hospital.
We see on the document that BCHD, at the request of its title company, recorded the “Final Judgment of Condemnation” as the deed, which in fact they must know it was and is still.
That recording occurred on December 26, 1957 at 8:00 A.M. At that time, BCHD received the land upon which it now sits for “operation of a hospital”, and for no other purpose.
Why is the “Quitclaim” BCHD says is the deed NOT the actual deed?
Honestly, the BCHD assertion that the quitclaim, not the court judgment, is the real deed is absurd. But to review all the details, here is the sequencing which reinforces the point: The deed is the recorded court judgment, and the agreements on which it is based, limiting BCHD’s use of the land to a hospital.
On the same December 26, 1957 day at the same 8:00 A.M. time, BCHD’s title company recorded the quitclaim and the Judgment of Condemnation.
We know the quitclaim was recorded as a “clean up” document to make sure BCHD had easement rights to access the main property. But, as BCHD raised this false issue, here is again a review of the actual, documented facts.
A. Both documents are recorded at the same time (8:00 A.M.), on the same date (December 26, 1957); and, both are recorded at the request of "Title Insurance and Trust Co.".
B. But, the quitclaim bears tne number, "536". The court judgment bears the number "537". The recording order was no doubt deliberate; the court judgment is the most recent recording. The most recent recording controls.
C. The words and abbreviations on the quitclaim appear to say, "Price- Terms- T.&A.- R&R". The only reasonable conclusion one can reach is that to understand the quitclaim, one must refer to another recorded document (here, the court judgment). Note that the quitclaim contains no "terms" or "price" of the transfer; all of that is in the stipulation, followed by the judgment upon which the stipulation is based.
D. There is an exchange of letters before the recording and judgment. One, referenced above, reiterated that the transfer was to be per the Judgment; i.e., for the “operation of a hospital”.
E. Also, the stipulation (agreement) signed by all parties contradicts BCHD’s idea that the quitclaim does anything but transfer easement rights. The stipulation agrees to the signing of the court judgment and to use only as a hospital.
F. The quitclaim tells us exactly what limited purpose it serves: "The purpose and intent of this Quitclaim Deed is to convey to Grantee any easements for ingress and egress over the aforesaid Parcels....”
The truth is out, and BCHD is bound by their agreements and the law: Land taken is to be used for the specified public purpose, here a hospital, not to be transferred to a private party for another use.
_____
Tune in on Sunday for the series conclusion, Chapter 8: “It is up to you to write the ending to BCHD’s story.”
