OTS 3.8


Problem A:

When shall a variance between the name of the grantor in a deed and the name of the grantee in the next preceding deed be considered a defect of title?

Standard A:

A slight variance shall not be considered a defect when the variance is not so material as to render the deed outside the chain of title:

(a) when the name of the grantee agrees with the name of the grantor as the latter appears of record in the granting clause, or in the signature, or in the certificate of acknowledgment;

(b) when the variance consists of a commonly recognized abbreviation or derivative;

(c) when the identity of a corporation, partnership, or limited liability company can be inferred with reasonable certainty from the names used and other circumstances of record in the chain of title to the property, even if the exact name of the entity is not used and slight variations in the name exist from instrument to instrument. Among other variances, addition or omission of the word "the" preceding the name; use or nonuse of the symbol "&" for the word "and"; use or nonuse of abbreviations for "company," "limited," partnership,” "corporation" or "incorporated"; and inclusion or omission of all or part of a place or location ordinarily may be ignored. Affidavits and recitals of identity may be used and relied upon to provide evidence of title concerning variances too substantial or too significant to be ignored (Note: This standard pertains to name variations only and Ohio case law should be reviewed and considered to determine whether the particular facts and circumstances of record are such that the variance should not be considered a defect);

(d) when the difference is trivial or the error is apparent on the face of the instrument;

(e) when a middle name or initial is used in one instrument and not in another, unless the examiner is otherwise put on inquiry that the individuals are different people;

(f) when both instruments have been of record for more than 21 years.

(Originally effective November 1, 1952; amended and supplemented at various times, including May 11, 1967 with additional revisions April 27, 2018)

Problem B:

Should an objection be made because a grantor or grantee is designated by a spouse’s given name, as "Mrs. John Doe"?

Standard B:

Yes. Evidence as to the person intended by such designation should be required.

(Effective as amended May 11, 1967 and as amended April 27, 2018; originally effective May 21, 1953)

Problem C:

Should an examiner rely upon a recital purporting to cure an error in the name of a person or entity in the chain of title?

Standard C:

Yes, unless the variance is so great or unless the other circumstances are such as to create a reasonable doubt of the truth of the recital.

(Effective May 21, 1953; Revised April 27, 2018)​



Staff Directory

Contact Information


8 A.M. - 5 P.M.
Monday - Friday