Quick Notice Statute Question (Real Property) Forum

Discussions related to the bar exam are found in this 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."
musashino

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

Quick Notice Statute Question (Real Property)

Post by 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)

Post by 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)

Post by 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)

Post by 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)

Post by dchunny614 » Tue Jan 31, 2017 12:18 am

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!


Post Reply Post Anonymous Reply  

Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”