Property Q

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
270910
Posts: 2437
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 9:51 pm

Re: Property Q

Postby 270910 » Sun Apr 18, 2010 5:27 pm

mistergoft wrote:
disco_barred wrote:
mistergoft wrote:
disco_barred wrote:See my post above. C has a duty to check title from the time the deed was EXECUTED and not the time the deed was RECORDED which makes this question neither interesting nor probing of policy questions and efficiency with respect to title search.

Well, that clears up that question.

But remember, that a deed must be duly recorded to provide constructive notice, and the deed from A to B was not duly recorded because there was not a valid chain of title.


In the abstract, courts are split on whether or not a deed can be 'first duly recorded' if the deed isn't within the chain of title. The better view is probably, as you said, that a deed not connected to the chain of title imparts no notice.

The problem is that to be a wild deed one must be a stranger to the title. That isn't the case in your hypo. When I walked through the example, it became clear (as mud?) that the deed WAS in the chain of title... that's why it is discovered in a proper title search! Your hypo involved a failure to RECORD an otherwise completely valid conveyance. The issue only gets complicated with respect to wild deeds - to reiterate once more - when a stranger to the title attempts conveyance.

I don't know where you're coming up with this "stranger to title" terminology, I've never heard it before.

In the example in the E&E on wild deeds, O conveys to A, who does not record. A year later, A conveys to B, who promptly records. One year later, O conveys to C, who has no actual knowledge of Os deed to A or A's deed to B, and C records.

In this example C wins in every jurisdiction, race, notice, or race notice, because B has a wild deed, despite the fact that had A recorded it would have been a valid chain of title. Does that result not directly contradict what you just said?


*pained*

Write these things out, it will all become clear. Your example shows another way to have a wild deed. You're right that my stranger to the title language was under inclusive. Same result though:

County recorder: God -> O
O -> A
A -> B
B records (County recorder: God -> O; A->B)
O -> C
C records (County recorder: God -> O; A->B; O->C)

The A to B deed is a wild deed because A when C looks through the books, there is no way that he will encounter that information.

That's what the wild deed terminology is getting at: the subsequent purchaser winds up in a position where there is no way to encounter that information.

In the original post, that is not the case - no deeds get lost in the chain of title, because chain of title is constructed from date's of conveyance not dates of recording.

User avatar
98234872348
Posts: 1547
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 3:25 pm

Re: Property Q

Postby 98234872348 » Sun Apr 18, 2010 5:34 pm

disco_barred wrote:*pained*

Write these things out, it will all become clear. Your example shows another way to have a wild deed. You're right that my stranger to the title language was under inclusive. Same result though:

County recorder: God -> O
O -> A
A -> B
B records (County recorder: God -> O; A->B)
O -> C
C records (County recorder: God -> O; A->B; O->C)

The A to B deed is a wild deed because A when C looks through the books, there is no way that he will encounter that information.

That's what the wild deed terminology is getting at: the subsequent purchaser winds up in a position where there is no way to encounter that information.

In the original post, that is not the case - no deeds get lost in the chain of title, because chain of title is constructed from date's of conveyance not dates of recording.

My apologies, I'd completely forgotten that in my original hypo that it was the subsequent purchaser who had conveyed title and not the original grantor, which obviously makes all the difference in analysis.

My entire knowledge of this subject stems from about an hour and a half of lecture and subsequent research after learning that my prof almost always puts a wild deed question on the multiple choice section of her exams, so I apologize, you've obviously studied the subject more in more depth.

270910
Posts: 2437
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 9:51 pm

Re: Property Q

Postby 270910 » Sun Apr 18, 2010 5:36 pm

mistergoft wrote:My apologies, I'd completely forgotten that in my original hypo that it was the subsequent purchaser who had conveyed title and not the original grantor, which obviously makes all the difference in analysis.

My entire knowledge of this subject stems from about an hour and a half of lecture and subsequent research after learning that my prof almost always puts a wild deed question on the multiple choice section of her exams, so I apologize, you've obviously studied the subject more in more depth.


It's all good. Shit is complex. Glad we're on the same page.

The most important thing is to 'show your work' because it will prove when things are / aren't in the chain of title or are/aren't wild deeds. Trying to remember some over-arching rule for how something gets to be a wild title will get confusing, because you can set the hypo up in any number of (stupid) ways. God help us all when the questions involve people (repeatedly) giving away property that they don't own.

nickwar
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 1:03 pm

Re: Property Q

Postby nickwar » Sun Apr 18, 2010 5:37 pm

o to a b records
a to b a records
o to c c records


Pure Race: B owns (first to record). I don't think any jurisdictions do pure race anymore.

Notice: It depends on who had notice. The last bona fide purchaser wins. If C had no notice, C would win. If C knew it was a wild deed (maybe if one was quitclaimed -- inquiry notice -- or had actual notice), C would lose. C would likely win with this hypo.

Race/Notice: That first person to record + "link" deed back to original owner. If C checked the records and it showed O was the actual owner (since a didn't record until later), C would win. B checking the record could not have seen that A actually owned the property, so it wouldn't be linked to the original owner. C wins.

A can't win here because he had no right to record after he transferred whatever interest he had to B. I don't know what to call that.

I may have left a few hypo facts off, but that's the general idea.

User avatar
98234872348
Posts: 1547
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 3:25 pm

Re: Property Q

Postby 98234872348 » Sun Apr 18, 2010 5:46 pm

betasteve wrote:
mistergoft wrote:Interesting. The hypo that originally started my inquiry was as follows:
This is set in a notice jurisdiction:

O to A, who does not record. O to B, who is without notice of the conveyance to A, who does not record. B then sells to C, who is without notice of the conveyance to A, who then records. Afterward, A sells to D who is without actual notice of the conveyance to B or C.

My prof says the answer is D, because D is without notice and C's deed is not duly recorded. My prof claims that D can't be said to have constructive notice of the B to C transaction, which is recorded, because it was not recorded properly (i.e. it was recorded in a defective chain of title). My original question was merely what happened if, prior to the transfer to D, if B recorded his conveyance, would that put D on constructive notice since now the deed WAS duly recorded... Well, actually, it was whether C's deed WOULD be duly recorded if B recorded subsequent to him recording, which I think it would be but I am not 100% sure.

ok.. so O to A, then O to B, both BFP w/o notice, neither of which record. then B to C, BFP w/o notice, who does record. Then A to D w/o notice of B to C.
So if you are in D's place, and you begin a title search on grantor/grantee, here is what you are going to see: D is going to look up his grantor, A, and he's not going to find anything. He can't get to O because O to A was never recorded. Thus, O to B (not recorded), then B to C, which is recorded. The only record in the whole index that could counter D's claim is the recorded B to C. But, there is no way that he could know who B or C where to look them up. He can't find O because O to A isn't recorded. And even past that, assuming he could find O, he'd still not be able to find B because O to B wasn't recorded. Thus B and C are strangers to D's chain of title.

So if your hypo is that B recorded his O to B conveyance, then would D be on constructive notice. No, because D can't find O because O to A was never recorded. Thus D wouldn't be able to find the O to B. And so I still think that D takes as the subsequent BFP without notice.


Yeah, I think the fact that it's essentially a clusterfuck of wild deeds with no possible way for D to obtain who has conveyed what to what, that he wins because he is a BFP and there is no way for him to know about the B to C conveyance, since O to B was never recorded.

God, the funny part is all this work is really only going to get me about 5% of my final grade. Wonderful.

270910
Posts: 2437
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 9:51 pm

Re: Property Q

Postby 270910 » Sun Apr 18, 2010 5:51 pm

mistergoft wrote:
betasteve wrote:
mistergoft wrote:Interesting. The hypo that originally started my inquiry was as follows:
This is set in a notice jurisdiction:

O to A, who does not record. O to B, who is without notice of the conveyance to A, who does not record. B then sells to C, who is without notice of the conveyance to A, who then records. Afterward, A sells to D who is without actual notice of the conveyance to B or C.

My prof says the answer is D, because D is without notice and C's deed is not duly recorded. My prof claims that D can't be said to have constructive notice of the B to C transaction, which is recorded, because it was not recorded properly (i.e. it was recorded in a defective chain of title). My original question was merely what happened if, prior to the transfer to D, if B recorded his conveyance, would that put D on constructive notice since now the deed WAS duly recorded... Well, actually, it was whether C's deed WOULD be duly recorded if B recorded subsequent to him recording, which I think it would be but I am not 100% sure.

ok.. so O to A, then O to B, both BFP w/o notice, neither of which record. then B to C, BFP w/o notice, who does record. Then A to D w/o notice of B to C.
So if you are in D's place, and you begin a title search on grantor/grantee, here is what you are going to see: D is going to look up his grantor, A, and he's not going to find anything. He can't get to O because O to A was never recorded. Thus, O to B (not recorded), then B to C, which is recorded. The only record in the whole index that could counter D's claim is the recorded B to C. But, there is no way that he could know who B or C where to look them up. He can't find O because O to A isn't recorded. And even past that, assuming he could find O, he'd still not be able to find B because O to B wasn't recorded. Thus B and C are strangers to D's chain of title.

So if your hypo is that B recorded his O to B conveyance, then would D be on constructive notice. No, because D can't find O because O to A was never recorded. Thus D wouldn't be able to find the O to B. And so I still think that D takes as the subsequent BFP without notice.


Yeah, I think the fact that it's essentially a clusterfuck of wild deeds with no possible way for D to obtain who has conveyed what to what, that he wins because he is a BFP and there is no way for him to know about the B to C conveyance, since O to B was never recorded.

God, the funny part is all this work is really only going to get me about 5% of my final grade. Wonderful.


Concur with Betasteve, M.

Clusterfuck of wild deeds is a good way to put it.

D has no inquiry notice of the B to C deed, but he has "you're a moron" notice of accepting a deed for which he cannot find root title.

Example: At the end of your hypo D records, then O conveys to E. E beats D because now in E's eyes there's no way to trace the title to D OR to B or C.

Notice statutes RULE.

User avatar
98234872348
Posts: 1547
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 3:25 pm

Re: Property Q

Postby 98234872348 » Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:09 pm

disco_barred wrote:Concur with Betasteve, M.

Clusterfuck of wild deeds is a good way to put it.

D has no inquiry notice of the B to C deed, but he has "you're a moron" notice of accepting a deed for which he cannot find root title.

Example: At the end of your hypo D records, then O conveys to E. E beats D because now in E's eyes there's no way to trace the title to D OR to B or C.

Notice statutes RULE.

Yeah, that is rather ridiculous. I hate thinking about this stuff abstractly because obviously there are serious issues with breaching the warranty of seisin here, or the implied warranty of merchantability, or just fucking fraud and misrepresentation. Though I always wonder if you just go around issuing quitclaim deeds what would happen.

270910
Posts: 2437
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 9:51 pm

Re: Property Q

Postby 270910 » Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:13 pm

mistergoft wrote:Yeah, that is rather ridiculous. I hate thinking about this stuff abstractly because obviously there are serious issues with breaching the warranty of seisin here, or the implied warranty of merchantability, or just fucking fraud and misrepresentation. Though I always wonder if you just go around issuing quitclaim deeds what would happen.


Very smart, and you are absolutely correct about the warranties being a major issue in a real as opposed to alphabetic hypo. That's why God invented quitclaim deeds, which in a majority of jurisdictions provide notice of nothing except the purchasers impending comical misfortune! (Outside of law casebooks there are apparently uses for quitclaim deeds other than 'hilarious land hypos designed for fry 1L brains' - who knew?)

Marketable record title acts make it even weirder. If I conveyed all property in America to mistergoft via quitclaim deed(and what the hell, mother hubbard clauses are supposed to be valid, right?) then record and wait 40 years we could make a killing 8-) Right? RIGHT?

MODELS AND BOTTLES, BABY.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: esrom55 and 15 guests