Top-Law-Schools.comTLS
Home
Law School
Admissions
Law
Schools
Law
Students
TLS
Forums
 
Forum Index     Latest Posts     Forum Search     Mobile (on/off)     Forum Archives     See Also: Rankings/Profiles   Interviews   LSAT Prep   TLS Stats

TLS would like to remind its users that it is unlawful to share or distribute copies of copyrighted materials. Click here for copyright infringement notification information.


All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Property Question - Notice Jurisdiction
PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 9:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 5:57 pm
Posts: 15
Blackacre is located in a notice jurisdiction, and a lease is an interest in land governed by the recording act.

If O1 and O2 are tenants in common and O2 signs a 3-year lease with M without O1's knowledge. But then one week later O1 and O2 sell the property to S, without telling S about the lease to M. S then records her deed. Two weeks later M records thier lease.

Does S' recording of her deed have any affect on M's lease? Or does the common law rule that a purchaser of a property with a lease takes the property with the lease hold true?

Thanks


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Property Question - Notice Jurisdiction
PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 5:57 pm
Posts: 15
Any Ideas?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Property Question - Notice Jurisdiction
PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 11:22 am
Posts: 729
The order of recording doesn't make any difference in pure notice jurisdiction. We will assume that S had not actual notice and there was no reason for inquiry notice (M was not, for example, in possession of Blackacre). Since the lease was not recorded, S took with no notice of M's lease, and is bona fide purchaser for value. Since A took without notice, he is the owner under a notice act. The result would be different under a race or a race/notice act.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Property Question - Notice Jurisdiction
PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 12:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 12:08 am
Posts: 646
DocHawkeye wrote:
The order of recording doesn't make any difference in pure notice jurisdiction. We will assume that S had not actual notice and there was no reason for inquiry notice (M was not, for example, in possession of Blackacre). Since the lease was not recorded, S took with no notice of M's lease, and is bona fide purchaser for value. Since A took without notice, he is the owner under a notice act. The result would be different under a race or a race/notice act.


This is a really stupid question on my part, but does the protected purchaser get the property or are they just able to sue?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Property Question - Notice Jurisdiction
PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 1:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 11:22 am
Posts: 729
TTRansfer wrote:
DocHawkeye wrote:
The order of recording doesn't make any difference in pure notice jurisdiction. We will assume that S had not actual notice and there was no reason for inquiry notice (M was not, for example, in possession of Blackacre). Since the lease was not recorded, S took with no notice of M's lease, and is bona fide purchaser for value. Since A took without notice, he is the owner under a notice act. The result would be different under a race or a race/notice act.


This is a really stupid question on my part, but does the protected purchaser get the property or are they just able to sue?


The protected purchaser gets title.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Property Question - Notice Jurisdiction
PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 12:08 am
Posts: 646
DocHawkeye wrote:
TTRansfer wrote:
DocHawkeye wrote:
The order of recording doesn't make any difference in pure notice jurisdiction. We will assume that S had not actual notice and there was no reason for inquiry notice (M was not, for example, in possession of Blackacre). Since the lease was not recorded, S took with no notice of M's lease, and is bona fide purchaser for value. Since A took without notice, he is the owner under a notice act. The result would be different under a race or a race/notice act.


This is a really stupid question on my part, but does the protected purchaser get the property or are they just able to sue?


The protected purchaser gets title.


So make sure to record otherwise you will lose the property to a bona fide purchaser who records before you.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bronte, flyingmantis, Jsa725, manutd19, Tiago Splitter and 11 guests



Princeton Review LSAT

Search for:
Jump to:  
Login     Contact     Copyright Notice

copyright 2003-2013 top-law-schools.com • all rights reserved • powered by phpBB