Deed Types – What Are The Differences?

On November 19, 2014   /   Blog, Title Insurance  
Signing a Deed

What is a Deed?

Signing a DeedA deed is a legal instrument used to grant a right. The deed is best known as the method of transferring title to real estate from one person to another, often using a description of its “metes and bounds, by lot, block and subdivision, or by parcel/lot and short plat.” However, by the general definition, power of attorneys, commissions, patents and even diplomas conferring academic degrees are also deeds.

Download This Article

Deed-Types-t

Download a pdf copy of this article: Deed Types – What Are The Differences?

For an Instrument to be a Valid Deed:

  • Deeds must be in writing. Under the Statute of Frauds, interests in real property must be conveyed by written deed.
  • Deeds must evidence consideration. The consideration may be nominal, conveyed as a “gift”, for “love and affection”, or for “$1.00 and other good valuable consideration”.
  • Deeds must contain a legal description, which identifies the real property being conveyed.
  • Deeds must be signed by the grantor (old owner) and the title officer and escrow closer must confirm the grantor’s identity and authority.
  • Deeds must be acknowledged “by the party [signing the deed]…before some person authorized by [the Real Property Conveyance Act]… to take acknowledgments of deeds”.
  • Deeds must be delivered. Delivery occurs when the grantor parts with physical control over the deed with intent “that the deed should presently pass title.”

Deed Conditions

Conditions attached to the acceptance of a deed are known as conditions. In the transfer of real estate, a deed conveys ownership from the old owner (the grantor) to the new owner (the grantee), and can include various warranties. The precise name of these warranties differ by jurisdictions. However the basic difference between them is the degree to which the grantor warrants the title.

Types of Deeds

Types and examples of Real Estate Deeds
Types of Deeds
Download PDF
Special Warranty Deed This warranty may be limited only to claims which occur after the grantor obtained the real estate.
Warranty Deed The grantor (grantor name) for and in consideration of (insert consideration) in hand paid, conveys and warrants to (grantee name) the following described real estate (insert description), situated in the county of , state of Washington. Dated this — — day of — —, 20___.
Bargain and Sale Deed The grantor (grantor name), for and in consideration of (insert consideration) in hand paid, bargains, sells and conveys to (grantee name) the following described real estate (insert description) situated in the county of __ , state of Washington. Dated this — day of , 20___.
Quitclaim Deed The grantor (grantor name) for and in consideration of (insert consideration) conveys and quitclaims to (grantee’s name) all interest in the following described real estate (legal description), situated in the county of , state of Washington. Dated this — — day of _, 20__.
Deed of Trust Used as an equivalent to a mortgage. A trust deed isn’t like the other types of deeds; it’s not used to transfer property directly. It is commonly used in some states (Washington, for example) to transfer title to land to a “trustee,” usually a trust or title company, which holds the title as security (“ in escrow”) for a loan.
Grant Deed Used for the transfer of property from one person to another person. Each party is required to sign it. Then the document must be notarized, or marked accordingly to show that it was signed before a Notary public. The reason the document must be notarized is that these transactions are frequently forged.
Sheriff’s Deed A deed issued to the buyer of property (grantee) that was sold under court order to pay off a debt.
Tax Deed Sale The forced sale, conducted by a governmental agency, of real estate for nonpayment of taxes. It is one of two methodologies used by governmental agencies to collect delinquent taxes owed on real estate, the other being the tax lien sale. Real estate taxes are considered delinquent if not paid within a specified period of time. If the taxes are not paid, after notice is given to the property owner (as well as others holding an interest in the property, such as a mortgage company), the property is sold at public auction to the highest bidder.
Back to Top

Celebrating the Completion of the New Raft Island Bridge

On October 23, 2014   /   Blog, Title Insurance  
The New Raft Island Bridge

The New Raft Island BridgeOn Sunday, June 29, the community of Raft Island celebrated the opening of a new bridge that replaced the original 1958 bridge. Ticor Title would like to congratulate the Raft Island community for this major milestone. We are grateful to have provided title insurance for this project.

Construction of the New  Bridge

For the first six months of 2014, residents of Raft Island  watched the construction of the new bridge unfold adjacent to the original 57-year old bridge.  On Sunday, June 29 they celebrated its completion with the boom of a cannon, a picnic, live music, and a crossing by a car from the LeMay car museum.

The Infrastructure Assistance Coordinating Council awarded RIIA first place for Community Facilities projects in 2014.   This category includes projects like hospitals, health clinics and public safety facilities. In an October 1 ceremony, RIIA was cited by 300 IACC members.   The island was commended for facing up to the difficult choices and tasks inherent in replacing an aging bridge over a navigable coastal area.

Bridge History

In 1957 Raft Island was purchased for $80,000 by Archie Matthew Sr. Who initiated construction of the original bridge in 1958.  Matthew then sold the majority of the island in 1959 for the sum of $348,000. In 1995, after nearly 40 years of service, engineers determined that the original raft island bridge had a projected lifespan of approximately 20 years.  Below is a timeline leading up to the construction of the new bridge.

  • 1958 Matthew constructs 2-Lane 788-ft x 20-ft Timber Bridge with Concrete Decking
  • 1977 RIIA purchases the Bridge and Access Road (off Kopachuck) for $50,0000.  RIIA is a taxable  non-profit home owners association (HOA).
  • 1995 Engineers Inspection reveals on-going deterioration with remaining bridge life of approx 20 years (to 2016) **
  • 1996 Membership approves Annual Special Assessment called the Bridge Replacement Fund (BRF)
  • 1996 Each lot assessed $130 BRF with 8.04% added each year thereafter (BRF will be $610 in 2016)
  • 2005 Updated construction estimates reveal BRF falling behind projected bridge replacement construction costs.  Board initiates full review of bridge condition and options.
  • 2007 Board studies many options including possibility to get a Road Improvement District approved by Pierce County.
  • 2009 Volunteer Bridge Committee formed to review Bridge Options
  • 2010 membership approves preliminary design of new bridge in order to compete for low interest Federal Stimulus loan.    State and Federal agencies give favorable pre-screenings of plan.
  • 2011-2012 in a series of votes, RIIA voters overwhelmingly approve replacing bridge (75%+)
  • Though taxed at 33% rate, the BRF is able to cover 25% of the cost of new bridge
  • USDA offers 80% guarantee to any bank that will provide RIIA with long term loan
  • 33 banks pursued for loan.  All report a 30 yr. bridge loan is outside their expertise
  • USDA agrees to provide 30 yr. loan at fixed interest (no construction financing offered.)
  • More banks pursued until Northwest Farm Credit Services agrees to provide construction line of credit under an ARC bond.

Insuring Title for the Raft Island Bridge Project

We are pleased and honored that Ticor Title provided the title insurance policy for the Raft Island bridge project.  An unusual project such as this brings unusual challenges.

To explain, we have provided a brief Q&A with our Sr. Commercial Title Officer, David Watson:

Q: What role did Ticor Title play in the development of the new Raft Island Bridge?

A: Ticor Title provided a lender’s title policy to NW Farm Credit Services for approximately 5.7 million in coverage to complete the financing package for this project. Initially the residents of Raft Island spent 20 plus years raising money for the construction of a new bridge and the NW Farm Credit Services loan was the last piece of the puzzle.

Q: What is involved in a title search for a project like this?

A: This was a fun search completed by Miriam Hatcher a veteran of over 30 years examining Pierce County properties. This was her first bridge. The interesting thing about this is that since Raft Island Improvement Association had an existing bridge and had been conveyed the property, we didn’t have to deal with the State of Washington or Pierce County. Our contacts were for the most part the Raft Island Improvement Association Board.

We had typical issues you see when dealing with waterfront property, however for the most part, the title exam process was not terribly difficult which was a pleasant surprise going into the project. Since the Raft Island Association had been working on the project for so long, much of the heavy lifting, permits, and approvals had already been put in place and were recorded for our review.

The biggest issue for us was ensuring that we were getting a full picture of the documents recorded which affected the bridge and the land around the bridge. Miriam had to spend a lot of time reviewing documents that had no real effect on the bridge project due to the inconsistency in how recorded documents were posted in the plant for property such as this. This was truly a “round peg in a square hole” type of title exam.

Late Afternoon Traffic on the Raft Island Bridge – [Hyperlapse Video]

Q: Why was Ticor chosen as the title insurer for this project and what unique skills or expertise did your team bring?

A: We were chosen for this project by way of a recommendation. Lee Smith an agent at Windermere Gig Harbor was asked by the Raft Island Board to recommend a title company and he provided them with Lucy Ritchie’s contact information. This is a prime example of the importance of word of mouth and maintaining a good reputation in the real estate community and the opportunities this brings for future business.

Q: What was the biggest challenge with this project from the title insurance perspective?

A: From a title insurance prospective this wasn’t as daunting a challenge as we initially thought when we first started looking at the project. The construction for the new bridge had already begun when we started on the project, bringing up potential lien priority issues. But NW Farm Credit Services didn’t need coverage to shield them from this potential lien liability so that ended up being a non-issue. This ended up being a pretty routine construction loan transaction due in large part to the preparation of the Raft Island Improvement Association and the years they had spent getting the project permitted, financed and approved.

Back to Top

NEW! Buyer & Seller Resources for Smoother Transactions

On August 4, 2014   /   Blog, Escrow, Title Insurance  

Buyer-Seller-Guide-1New Buyer/Seller Guides

Check out the freshly updated Buyer and Seller resource library on myTicor.com! The new guides and booklets are free to download and can improve the client experience with every real estate transaction.

Read more...

Educating & Communicating for Greater Success!

buyer-seller-resourcesClear communication, knowledge, and mutual understanding can make all the difference in a real estate transaction. Read more →

Back to Top

Third Quarter 2013 – A Strong Quarter with a Shift Toward Purchase

On November 11, 2013   /   Blog, Escrow, Title Insurance  

The third quarter was another strong quarter for our title insurance business. We generated a 14.2% adjusted pre-tax title margin, nearly equal to the 14.4% title margin in the third quarter of 2012, despite a 15% decline in closed orders. The expected transition from a refinance driven market to a purchase driven market accelerated in the third quarter, marked by 56% of open orders and 50% of closed orders being purchase related in the third quarter. Our commercial title insurance business revenue grew by 25% compared to the third quarter of 2012.

Click here to download a PDF copy of this report.

Back to Top

Title Reviews Get a Facelift

On September 23, 2013   /   Title Insurance  

This month we’re rolling out an improved look and feel for our ‘Title Reviews.’ The handsome, new format provides a title review summary that is easier to read, and easy to share with your clients if you choose to. With any preliminary title ordered on your listings with Ticor, you’ll receive an email that includes a link or PDF to the new ‘at a glance’ report. Look for your Title Review within a few days of receipt of your initial title report.

Detect red flags early

Clouds on Title to a property have the potential of slowing the closing process if they are not identified and addressed early in the process. Our Title reviews will help you identify these potential red flags in order to set proper expectations with parties involved and save time in the long run.

Examples of red flags to look for

  • Seller not vested in title
  • Judgments and/or liens against seller
  • Pending law suits
  • Real estate contracts
  • Recorded housing code violations
  • Statement of Identity / I.D. Affidavit

Our specialists are part of your team

Your Ticor Property Information specialists are preparing these specifically for you for every listing transaction you place. This brings the added benefit of our team’s vast experience in virtually any item that may appear on your reports. Of course, we’re always glad to help you understand what these terms mean. And, most importantly, we’ll work closely with you, to help address and resolve these matters early in the course of the transaction.

Please take a moment to flip (scroll) through the handy new title review following your next (preliminary title) order with Ticor. If you have questions regarding your report, please contact us. We’re here to help.

Questions or comments? Please share below

Back to Top

Ticor Title Mid-Year Company Fact Sheet

On August 15, 2013   /   Blog, Title Insurance  

Ticor Title Mid-Year-2013 Fact SheetTicor Title is a member of the Fidelity National Financial family of companies and part of the nation’s largest group of title companies and title insurance underwriters – Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, Chicago Title Insurance Company, Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company and Alamo Title Insurance. As a group, our underwriters issue more title insurance policies than any other title company in the United States.

Residential Purchases Shift Upward

The second quarter results continue to highlight the earnings power of our title business. With an improving residential purchase market and strong refinance order closings, we were able to generate a 16.5% pre-tax title margin, nearly equal to that of full-year 2003 when adjusted for the difference in the provision for title losses between the time periods. Our mix of business shifted toward purchase transactions during the quarter, with April at 39%, May at 40%, and June at 48% of total transactions.

Highlighting our Financial Strength

The second quarter results continue to highlight the earnings power of our title business. The LPS acquisition will create an even larger, broader, more diversified and recurring
revenue base for FNF going forward.

Questions or comments? Please share below!

Back to Top

6 Infographics that Answer Commonly Asked Real Estate Questions

On May 21, 2013   /   Blog, Escrow, Title Insurance  
Property tax annual cycle

Sometimes a picture can communicate information much more clearly and quickly than words.  With that in mind, we’ve used diagrams and infographics here to answer common questions that our Escrow Officers, Title Officers, and Property Information Specialists receive.

The six infographics below answer tough questions relating to real estate probate situations, property taxes, REO transactions, and bankruptcy.

 

1. Probate Path – Single at Death

This flow chart illustrates who now owns the property when an owner of record is deceased and single at death. Click the following link for more information: Probate Path – Single at Death

Probate path - Single at death

 

2. Probate Path – Married or Domestic Partner Community Property

This flow chart illustrates the process of identifying who now owns the property in a situation where one partner is deceased and the real estate is considered community property.  Click the following link for more information: Probate Path – Married or Domestic Partner Community Property

Probate path - Married at death

 

3.  Probate Path – Married or Domestic Partner Separate Property

This flow chart illustrates the process of identifying who now owns the property when one or both partners is deceased and the real estate is owned as a separate estate.  Click the following link for more information: Probate Path – Married or Domestic Partner Separate Property

 

probate path married separate property

 

4. The Property Tax Annual Cycle

This infographic answers common questions relating to property taxes in Washington state, including how are taxes calculated, when they are due, and how taxes are prorated for buyers and sellers.  Click the following link for more information: Property Tax Annual Cycle

Property tax annual cycle

 

5. The REO Transaction Process

This infographic illustrates the timelines in escrow for purchases of bank owned properties.  Click the following link for more information: REO Transaction Process

 

REO Transaction Process Infographic

 

6.  The Lifecycle of Bankrupcty

This flowchart depicts the complex process of filing for bankruptcy and includes the most common paths for chapters 7, 11, and 13.  Click the following link for more information: The Lifecycle of Bankruptcy

 

Life Cycle of Bankruptcy infographic- Chapters 7, 11, and 13

 

Back to Top

Zero Demand Statements & Why We Utilize Them

On April 23, 2013   /   Blog, Escrow, Title Insurance  

Recently, one of our sister offices opened a For Sale by Owner transaction with a sale price of $495,000. The escrow assistant, Debbie N., ordered a title report. The title report reflected two deeds of trust on title, each with a reconveyance recorded with a side note that read, “Said deed of trust appears to be reconveyed by the above recorded instrument. An inquiry must be made with the lender confirming payment prior to close.”

Debbie requested loan numbers from the seller, an unmarried woman. The seller responded that the loans were paid in full and she had a new loan that just recorded. Debbie requested payoff information for the new loan as well as the prior two loans. The seller reluctantly provided the loan numbers and contact information for all three lenders. Debbie then ordered an updated title report to reflect the new deed of trust, which had recently recorded.

A private lender was used

The new loan was through a private lender, Ronald V. Cupp. Debbie ordered the payoff information and at the same time contacted the former lien holders to verify they had, in fact, received payment in full. Neither lender would confirm payment in full to Debbie without a signed third–party authorization from the seller.

Debbie tried another tactic; she ordered payoff statements from both lenders in writing. Neither lender responded immediately to her request. Debbie printed copies of the recorded reconveyances and found they were signed by none other than the new private lender Ronald V. Cupp!

Cupp signed as attorney–in–fact on both reconveyances. The documents were notarized. Debbie looked up the notary information only to discover the notary worked at a Mail Boxes, Etc., not at the financial institution purportedly releasing the lien.

“Debbie looked up the notary information only to discover the notary worked at a Mail Boxes, Etc.”

Debbie tried calling the first lienholder one more time. Lo and behold the first lien holder confirmed their loan had been fully paid and stated it would take 21 days to research the validity of the reconveyance. In the meantime the second lienholder finally responded to Debbie’s payoff request and faxed a demand for more than $95,000.

Buyers and seller had been waiting for loan documents to arrive for closing. There had been a long delay due to appraisal issues and both were very anxious to sign, especially the seller. Debbie allowed the signing to proceed with payoff to the second lien holder in the amount of $95,000 showing, as well as the payoff to Ronald V. Cupp in the amount of $137,000.

For the first lienholder, Debbie estimated reconveyance fees and explained to the seller the Company would not close until the first lienholder provided a zero demand and/or a reconveyance executed by one of their corporate officers.

THE MORAL OF THE STORY

When a lien is extinguished with no new money or conveyance, title examiners are trained to add the note requiring verification of an actual payoff. It is imperative the settlement agent exhausts all avenues to obtain proof of payment in full through a zero demand or other lender–provided statement.

The industry can no longer rely solely on the recorded release document, since so many of them have been forged and recorded. The proof of payment in full must be provided to the title officer prior to closing the new transaction. If proof cannot be obtained, then the transaction should not close.

Surprise! Another lienholder was found

After much persistence, Debbie learned the first lienholder’s loan number the seller had provided was for a previous loan that was paid in full. However, there was a current loan with an outstanding balance of more than $358,000.

The escrow officer called the seller and asked her about the loans, but the seller quickly got off the phone and said she was going to talk to her attorney. The file was put on hold, since there were not enough sale proceeds to pay all three loans:

1st Loan Payoff = $358,000
2nd Loan Payoff = $ 95,000
3rd Loan Payoff = $137,000
TOTAL $590,000

No sale…

The buyer was devastated to learn they were not going to be moving into their dream home. They were holding out for some reasonable explanation from the seller, but the seller refused to talk to them or anyone else involved in the transaction.

Debbie’s diligence in following Company procedures is commendable. Had she not unraveled the mystery of the forged reconveyances, the buyer would have closed and most certainly the 1st and 2nd lienholders would be foreclosing for the prior owner’s unpaid loans.

The Company’s potential liability would have been $453,000 plus legal fees. For her expertise and effort Debbie was rewarded and recognized by our company.

Questions or comments? Please share below!

Back to Top

Alert Escrow Officer Foils Forgery

On March 27, 2013   /   Escrow, Title Insurance  
signature examination in escrow

signature examination in escrowTraci F., an escrow officer out of our sister office in Vancouver, Wash. was handling a short sale transaction. According to the listing agent, the property owner was unavailable to sign his closing documents because he was in the Ukraine.

The agent also said the owner was not going to be able to come back to the U.S. to sign his documents, so Traci began making preparations to have the documents executed internationally. Days later the agent called to tell Traci the seller was suddenly able to catch a flight back to the U.S. and was on his way to her office to sign a Power of Attorney (POA), giving his brother the power to sign on his behalf. The agent was extremely excited and insisted the owner would be at her office in the next 15 minutes.

Synopsis

A seller located in the Ukraine suddenly appears in our Vancouver, Wash. office to sign a Power of Attorney, granting his brother the authority to sign on his behalf. A few days later, the supposed brother appears for the signing as attorney-in-fact. Guess what – it’s the same guy, and no, these guys are not twins!

Something seems fishy…

Traci thought it odd the seller was able to find a flight to the U.S. so quickly, however. She drew the POA document as instructed and it was executed, thus granting the ability for the owner’s brother to sign. A few days later the brother came in to sign on behalf of the owner. Something didn’t seem right, as Traci was fairly sure this was the same gentleman who had come in to sign the POA – representing himself as the seller – a few days before. The two were said to be brothers, so Traci thought similarities seemed possible and the “brother’s” ID photo matched his appearance. After the signing, Traci asked the opinion of the office receptionist, who also thought it was the same individual who had come in to sign a few days previously.

After further examination…

Traci had a gut feeling something was wrong with the situation and conducted more research. The printing and signature from the POA and seller’s newly signed closing documents appeared to be very similar. Traci examined the copy of the ID she had taken from the individual who signed the POA (representing himself as the seller) and the signature did not appear to match the one she had received on the POA. Traci brought the signed documents and ID copies first to her branch manager and then the county manager. The signatures on the seller’s ID did not appear to match up with the seller’s signature on the POA. But Traci was still certain that the seller and the brother were the same individual, posing as separate individuals.

As a result of her suspicions, Traci and her manager contacted the listing agent to let him know we would not be able to accept the POA. Traci expected the agent would be at least slightly irritated, however no questions were asked and no arguments were made. Traci made arrangements to contact the seller directly to execute the documents in the Ukraine.

Moral of the story

Traci did the right thing by not confronting the parties with her suspicions. Instead, she contacted her manager and together they denied the use of the POA, thus protecting the Company from insuring a deed with a possible forgery. If we had accepted and insured a forged deed, the owner could have come back to the buyer laying claim to the property. We are expected to protect the buyer’s ownership interest under the owner’s policy of title insurance issued through this transaction, since protection against forgery is the cornerstone of any of our policies.

Back to Top

A Wrap-Around Mortgage Gone Bad…

On November 6, 2012   /   Blog, Escrow, Title Insurance  
HUD Seal

Early on in Allen Clussive’s career he agreed to close a transaction wrapping around an existing loan. The sale price on the transaction was $185,000. The buyer could not qualify for new financing and asked the seller to carryback a new loan in the amount of $180,000. The seller agreed, with the understanding that without the buyer obtaining a new loan he would not have the financial means to pay off his existing first loan in the amount of $157,000. The buyer and seller agreed to wrap the existing $157,000 loan with the new seller carryback loan. The underlying loan was an FHA loan originated after 1989.

Then the payments stopped

HUD SealAt closing, the buyer brought in $5,000 for his down payment plus his closing costs. Allen closed the transaction. After closing, the buyer paid the seller and the seller paid the FHA loan on time every month. Upon receipt of the buyer’s payment the seller paid the monthly principal, interest, taxes and insurance (PITI) payments to the lender servicing his FHA loan, and pocketed the balance. Everything was working perfectly until the 13th month when the buyer suddenly stopped making his monthly payments and abandoned the property.

The seller panicked and started to look for an attorney to start foreclosure in order to take the property back and put a renter in the house. In the meantime, the seller kept fronting the payments to the FHA loan to keep the payments current. The seller was making two house payments — one on his old home and one on his new home. Eventually the seller ran out of money and stopped making payments on the FHA loan.

The lender servicing the FHA loan started foreclosure and took the property back. The lender listed the property as an REO — bank–owned property – and resold it. They resold the property for $107,000, which was $50,000 less than they were owed. The lender filed a claim with FHA to be reimbursed the loss of $50,000. FHA sent the lender the $50,000 to cover their claim and the loan file was turned over to an investigator at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the agency who regulates FHA loans.

An unlawful act was found

The new owner was not qualified

The HUD investigator discovered Clussive had facilitated a closing where title was transferred – yet the new owner’s credit did not qualify for the existing FHA loan. The investigator deemed the act unlawful and debarred Clussive from closing another FHA or VA insured loan transaction.

The HUD investigator discovered the property was transferred to a new buyer, but the buyer’s funds were not used to pay off the FHA loan. The investigator was curious how that could happen and sent a subpoena for Clussive’s file.

The HUD investigator discovered Clussive had facilitated a closing where title was transferred – yet the new owner’s credit did not qualify for the existing FHA loan. The investigator deemed the act unlawful and debarred Clussive from closing another FHA or VA insured loan transaction.

Now, to be honest with you, the action by HUD did not damage Clussive’s career. He lived and worked in an affluent community where FHA and VA loans were not prevalent due to their low loan limits. Sure, every once in a while one of Clussive’s customers would present a contract reflecting new FHA or VA financing and he would have to steer the customer to one of his associates to close the transaction, but for the most part it had little to no effect on his career. However, Clussive would be the first to tell you it definitely had a psychological effect on him.

Never again

Had Clussive known HUD issued a directive in 1990 (see below) banning the wrap of an FHA loan by any means — a land contract, a deed of trust, mortgage — he would have never accepted the transaction and agreed to close it. Unfortunately Clussive’s ignorance of the HUD rules did not exempt him from action by HUD.

In order to ensure Clussive never closed another FHA or VA loan, they placed his name on the Excluded Parties List System (EPLS) and Limited Denial Participation list. By placing his name on the list it ensured Clussive would never be able to close another FHA or VA loan or any other transaction involving the Federal Government, such as a HUD or VA REO sale.

Below is a letter from the U.S. Department of Urban Development issued back in 1990 addressing the ramifications of circumventing the credit qualifying process.

HUD letter

 

Questions or comments?  Please share below.

Back to Top