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?
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.