May I issue a warranty deed to myself when I received title through a quitclaim deed?
It may be possible to change the original transfer to you which may have been better accomplished using a warranty deed subject to any tax liens. To change the last transfer, you may be able to use a Deed of Correction.
The purpose of a correction deed is to supersede an original deed which the grantor and grantee agree was erroneous in some respect. Upon acceptance by the grantee, "the terms of a corrective or confirmative deed are dominant and conclusive, and the title of the grantee is determined solely by the new grant" (People v. Tompkins-Kiel Marble Co., 269 N.Y. 77, 83, 199 N.E. 10 (1935); see also, Matter of City of New York v. Title Guarantee and Trust Co., 2 N.Y.2d 859, 141 N.E.2d 615, 161 N.Y.S.2d 124 (1957); Matter of Estate of Ford, 135 Misc.2d 897, 516 N.Y.S.2d 1010 (Surr. Ct., Dutchess Co., 1987); see generally, Warren's Weed New York Real Property, "Deeds", §21.01; 43 New York Jur.2d "Deeds", §11). In other words, once a correction deed has been executed and accepted, the initial deed is of no legal effect to the extent that it is inconsistent with the correction deed.
It has been said that "[i]t is clear...that there can be no valid correction or confirmation of a void deed..." (23 Am. Jur. 2d, Deeds, §287 (1965); 26 C.J.S., Deeds, §31 (1956); see also, Blevins v. Manufacturers Record Publishing Co., 235 La. 708, 105 So.2d 392 (1957)). With respect to a deed, the term "voidable" connotes "a writing that is both operative to convey the property and creative of contractual obligations unless and until set aside by the court" (23 Am. Jur. 2d Deeds, §137 (1965); Logue v. Von Almen, 379 Ill. 208, 40 N.E.2d 73 (1941)). In contrast, the word "void" implies that a deed "is invalid in law for any purpose whatsoever, such as a deed to effectuate a prohibited transaction" (23 Am. Jur.2d, Deeds, §137).
A mistake, albeit a material one, renders a deed "not void but voidable in equity" (Tilbury v. Osmundson, 143 Colo. 12, 352 P.2d 102, at 104 (1960)). If there has been a mutual mistake and it is apparent that "the instrument does not conform to or express [the parties'] intention or agreement...relief may be had in equity..." (23 Am.Jur.2d, Deeds, §155 (1965)). Further, it is an accepted rule that a deed of correction or confirmation is appropriate "[w]here there is no fraud and the rights of third persons have not intervened, and equity could have reformed the deed..." (26 C.J.S., Deeds, §31 (1956)).
Though most of the cases cited in the area of correction or confirmation deeds involve mistakes in descriptions of property conveyed, there are those in which the name of one or more of the parties was incorrect or omitted. For example, in Cox v. Tanner, 229 S.C. 568, 93 S.E.2d 905 (1956), substantial evidence was submitted to show that an original deed to one grantee was intended to be a conveyance to him and his wife as grantees. The court concluded that such a mistake was of the type for which a confirmatory deed was warranted, noting that there were "no third, innocent or disinterested parties in this case" (93 S.E.2d, at 909).