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.
Quick Notice Statute Question (Real Property) Forum
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about bar exam prep. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about bar exam prep. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
-
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2016 1:51 am
-
- Posts: 155
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2016 12:22 am
Re: Quick Notice Statute Question (Real Property)
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?
At first I was equating the conveyance is first recorded with the conveyance is recorded first. Perhaps you're doing the same?
-
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2016 1:51 am
Re: Quick Notice Statute Question (Real Property)
Christ, that's it. Sonuva#*&$. LOL.jir92 wrote:I think because if "the conveyance is first recorded" then the BFP would not be a BFP since he would have taken the property with notice of a conveyance recorded before he bought the land.
At first I was equating the conveyance is first recorded with the conveyance is recorded first. Perhaps you're doing the same?
Thanks a lot. Wasted 1/2 my time studying recording statutes on this one stupid line.
No wonder they said it was redundant. the entire 3rd line is just saying that the bona-fide purchaser in the 1st line is indeed subsequent to the conveyance in question.
-
- Posts: 155
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2016 12:22 am
Re: Quick Notice Statute Question (Real Property)
Haha no problem. I hate the way the mind operates during these questions , but it was nicely reassuring to be able to (correctly) crack the code here!musashino wrote:Christ, that's it. Sonuva#*&$. LOL.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?
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.
-
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:50 pm
Re: Quick Notice Statute Question (Real Property)
Mind blowing!! Lol..thanks guys..I was definitely making the first recorded recorded first mistake..
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login