&quot;subject to&quot; clause on the warranty deed
<p>What is the effect of the following language on the deed?</p>
<blockquote>
<p>subject to all permitted exceptions raised in the title commitment ABC</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Here, title commitment ABC is the title commitment associated with the transaction.</p>
<p>In the area of the transaction, the customary practice for title insurance is that a title commitment with broad standard exceptions is first issued. These standard exceptions include things like they won't cover claims of parties in possession that are not on public record, etc. Later, an extended coverage policy will be issued, and these exceptions will be removed through endorsement. In summary, it is this extended coverage endorsement that covers all the 'unknown' problems, the very problems we want the title policy to cover.</p>
<p>The problem here is that the title commitment has more exceptions than the later-issued extended coverage policy.</p>
<p>I have several questions:</p>
<ol>
<li>Is this subject to clause a warranty disclaimer or grant exception?</li>
<li>Assuming that part of or all the property rights are not granted by the deed by the interpretation of the language in it, can the buyer still have a valid claim against the title policy?</li>
</ol>

<p>The narrowest plausible intent of the this language would be to exclude easements and encumbrances (e.g. liens, mortgages) represented by documents in the public record which were revealed by a title search, although usually the language of the warranty deed would be more carefully drafted to be limited in this fashion.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Is this subject to clause a warranty disclaimer or grant exception?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This feels like a distinction without a difference in practice almost all of the time.</p>
<p>Normally, the &quot;subject to&quot; would be more in the nature of a warranty disclaimer, but depending on the circumstances if it made more sense to construe it is a grant exception (e.g. &quot;subject to the rights of Ycel Energy taken in the eminent domain condemnation proceeding in Lucky County Court Case No. XXX&quot;).</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Assuming that part of or all the property rights are not granted by
the deed by the interpretation of the language in it, can the buyer
still have a valid claim against the title policy?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In this context, it probably doesn't make sense to consider these as property rights not granted by the deed. Extended coverage items typically involve matters not of record, so treating them as items not actually conveyed wouldn't make sense.</p>

legal-terms real-estate definition