Quick Notice Statute Question (Real Property)

Discussions related to the bar exam are found in this forum
musashino

New
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2016 1:51 am

Quick Notice Statute Question (Real Property)

Postby musashino » Sun Jan 22, 2017 12:49 pm

Source: https://youtu.be/ohatV3pVMYs?t=10m24s

"No conveyance is valid against a subsequent bona-fide purchaser (BFP)
who has no notice of the original conveyance (Redundant)
unless the conveyance is first recorded." (Redundant)

I thought this was a Race-Notice Statute, but apparently it's a Notice Statute.

The 2nd line is obviously redundant since it's part of the definition of a BFP to not have received notice.

However, I don't get why the 3rd line is redundant.

jir92

Bronze
Posts: 155
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2016 12:22 am

Re: Quick Notice Statute Question (Real Property)

Postby jir92 » Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:03 pm

I think because if "the conveyance is first recorded" then the BFP would not be a BFP since he would have taken the property with notice of a conveyance recorded before he bought the land.

At first I was equating the conveyance is first recorded with the conveyance is recorded first. Perhaps you're doing the same?

musashino

New
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2016 1:51 am

Re: Quick Notice Statute Question (Real Property)

Postby musashino » Sun Jan 22, 2017 11:47 pm

jir92 wrote:I think because if "the conveyance is first recorded" then the BFP would not be a BFP since he would have taken the property with notice of a conveyance recorded before he bought the land.

At first I was equating the conveyance is first recorded with the conveyance is recorded first. Perhaps you're doing the same?


Christ, that's it. Sonuva#*&$. LOL. :o

Thanks a lot. Wasted 1/2 my time studying recording statutes on this one stupid line.

No wonder they said it was redundant. the entire 3rd line is just saying that the bona-fide purchaser in the 1st line is indeed subsequent to the conveyance in question.

jir92

Bronze
Posts: 155
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2016 12:22 am

Re: Quick Notice Statute Question (Real Property)

Postby jir92 » Tue Jan 24, 2017 8:45 pm

musashino wrote:
jir92 wrote:I think because if "the conveyance is first recorded" then the BFP would not be a BFP since he would have taken the property with notice of a conveyance recorded before he bought the land.

At first I was equating the conveyance is first recorded with the conveyance is recorded first. Perhaps you're doing the same?


Christ, that's it. Sonuva#*&$. LOL. :o

Thanks a lot. Wasted 1/2 my time studying recording statutes on this one stupid line.

No wonder they said it was redundant. the entire 3rd line is just saying that the bona-fide purchaser in the 1st line is indeed subsequent to the conveyance in question.


Haha no problem. I hate the way the mind operates during these questions :-(, but it was nicely reassuring to be able to (correctly) crack the code here!

dchunny614

New
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Quick Notice Statute Question (Real Property)

Postby dchunny614 » Tue Jan 31, 2017 12:18 am

Mind blowing!! Lol..thanks guys..I was definitely making the first recorded recorded first mistake..



Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum�

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests