Property Q Forum

[98234872348]

I am wondering if we have any resident experts on the subject of recording statutes. My property prof gives multiple choice exams so I am trying to solidify my knowledge of the shelter rule. Okay, here goes: O conveys Blackacre to A, who fails to record. A then conveys to B, who records. So essentially this is a wild deed. After, A records the original deed. (my study partner and I made this hypo up, I am not sure if you can record a deed after conveying the property). Anyways, afterward, A transfers to C, who records. C had no knowledge of the conveyance to B and purchased the property for valuable consideration. Who owns Blackarce in a notice or race notice jurisdiction?

[rando]

I am wondering if we have any resident experts on the subject of recording statutes. My property prof gives multiple choice exams so I am trying to solidify my knowledge of the shelter rule. Okay, here goes: O conveys Blackacre to A, who fails to record. A then conveys to B, who records. So essentially this is a wild deed. After, A records the original deed. (my study partner and I made this hypo up, I am not sure if you can record a deed after conveying the property). Anyways, afterward, A transfers to C, who records. C had no knowledge of the conveyance to B and purchased the property for valuable consideration. Who owns Blackarce in a notice or race notice jurisdiction?

Yes, A can still record. But that is not really an issue. A actually had title to the property when A conveyed to B, who recorded. End of story. B records and the recording statute kicks in, so long as B is a BFP. And it would work the same in either notice or race-notice because B records before C.
C's claim against A for breach of title warranties etc. notwithstanding.

Forgive me, I am a little intoxicated, I disclaim all information set forth above.

Edit: That all depends on whether B is a BFP or not because the fact that A never recorded may put B on notice...
In which case it is C because B is not a BFP under either Race or Race-Notice. so tired....

[98234872348]

I am wondering if we have any resident experts on the subject of recording statutes. My property prof gives multiple choice exams so I am trying to solidify my knowledge of the shelter rule. Okay, here goes: O conveys Blackacre to A, who fails to record. A then conveys to B, who records. So essentially this is a wild deed. After, A records the original deed. (my study partner and I made this hypo up, I am not sure if you can record a deed after conveying the property). Anyways, afterward, A transfers to C, who records. C had no knowledge of the conveyance to B and purchased the property for valuable consideration. Who owns Blackarce in a notice or race notice jurisdiction?

Yes, A can still record. But that is not really an issue. A actually had title to the property when A conveyed to B, who recorded. End of story. B records and the recording statute kicks in, so long as B is a BFP. And it would work the same in either notice or race-notice because B records before C.
C's claim against A for breach of title warranties etc. notwithstanding.

Forgive me, I am a little intoxicated, I disclaim all information set forth above.

But B's recording wasn't valid because it was a wild deed when he received it, since A hadn't recorded, is that not correct?

[rando]

I am wondering if we have any resident experts on the subject of recording statutes. My property prof gives multiple choice exams so I am trying to solidify my knowledge of the shelter rule. Okay, here goes: O conveys Blackacre to A, who fails to record. A then conveys to B, who records. So essentially this is a wild deed. After, A records the original deed. (my study partner and I made this hypo up, I am not sure if you can record a deed after conveying the property). Anyways, afterward, A transfers to C, who records. C had no knowledge of the conveyance to B and purchased the property for valuable consideration. Who owns Blackarce in a notice or race notice jurisdiction?

Yes, A can still record. But that is not really an issue. A actually had title to the property when A conveyed to B, who recorded. End of story. B records and the recording statute kicks in, so long as B is a BFP. And it would work the same in either notice or race-notice because B records before C.
C's claim against A for breach of title warranties etc. notwithstanding.

Forgive me, I am a little intoxicated, I disclaim all information set forth above.

But B's recording wasn't valid because it was a wild deed when he received it, since A hadn't recorded, is that not correct?

It wasn't a wild deed when B received it from A. Because he can clearly search title from O's conveyance to A. That would not be hard to find at all. A Wild deed is when there is one more party removed. For instance A to B who fails to record, but then conveys to C. No one would ever know that C was the property holder because there is no way to find the conveyance from A to B.

But in the above hypo, there is no wild deed issue because even though A had not recorded, he is the one selling to B. All B has to do is go find O's conveyance to A to verify.

[270910]

I am wondering if we have any resident experts on the subject of recording statutes. My property prof gives multiple choice exams so I am trying to solidify my knowledge of the shelter rule. Okay, here goes: O conveys Blackacre to A, who fails to record. A then conveys to B, who records. So essentially this is a wild deed. After, A records the original deed. (my study partner and I made this hypo up, I am not sure if you can record a deed after conveying the property). Anyways, afterward, A transfers to C, who records. C had no knowledge of the conveyance to B and purchased the property for valuable consideration. Who owns Blackarce in a notice or race notice jurisdiction?

Yes, A can still record. But that is not really an issue. A actually had title to the property when A conveyed to B, who recorded. End of story. B records and the recording statute kicks in, so long as B is a BFP. And it would work the same in either notice or race-notice because B records before C.
C's claim against A for breach of title warranties etc. notwithstanding.

Forgive me, I am a little intoxicated, I disclaim all information set forth above.

But B's recording wasn't valid because it was a wild deed when he received it, since A hadn't recorded, is that not correct?

It wasn't a wild deed when B received it from A. Because he can clearly search title from O's conveyance to A. That would not be hard to find at all. A Wild deed is when there is one more party removed. For instance A to B who fails to record, but then conveys to C. No one would ever know that C was the property holder because there is no way to find the conveyance from A to B.

But in the above hypo, there is no wild deed issue because even though A had not recorded, he is the one selling to B. All B has to do is go find O's conveyance to A to verify.

Rando you wasted! B can't search title for the deed to A, the hypo explicitly says that A failed to record. When B searches title, he would look up A's name and find nothing with respect to blackacre in the index.

[jp0094]

IIRC, shelter doctrine would not apply in your hypo. Shelter doctrine applies when an innocent seller conveys a property to a non-innocent buyer. Even though the buyer knows about the record problem, since the seller is BFP the shelter doctrine kicks in to protect the seller.

Example from wikipedia

This rule comes into play in situations under a number of circumstances. For example, where a bad actor agrees to convey the same real property to multiple other parties. For example, if Oscar conveys Blackacre by deed to Andrew on Monday; before Andrew records the conveyance, Oscar conveys Blackacre to Bob, who is a bona fide purchaser and who is unaware of Oscar's previous conveyance of the same property. Bob then conveys Blackacre to Charles, but before the conveyance, Andrew notifies Charles of the deed conveyed from Oscar to Andrew. Since Charles has notice of the prior conveyance, Charles does not qualify to be a bona fide purchaser. However, under the shelter rule, Charles will receive the same treatment as Bob, and will prevail over Andrew in a legal contest over the ownership Blackacre.

[rando]

I am wondering if we have any resident experts on the subject of recording statutes. My property prof gives multiple choice exams so I am trying to solidify my knowledge of the shelter rule. Okay, here goes: O conveys Blackacre to A, who fails to record. A then conveys to B, who records. So essentially this is a wild deed. After, A records the original deed. (my study partner and I made this hypo up, I am not sure if you can record a deed after conveying the property). Anyways, afterward, A transfers to C, who records. C had no knowledge of the conveyance to B and purchased the property for valuable consideration. Who owns Blackarce in a notice or race notice jurisdiction?

Holy crap I was drunker than I thought and boy am I feeling it today. Dear god.

I wasn't completely off though. Even though C can't verify O's conveyance to A until his later recordance, some jurisdictions put the duty on the title searcher to look for any conveyances by A in previous years prior to A's recording. this is the "late-recorded" deed issue from what I recall and Jur's are roughly split?

Owwwww, headache.

[rando]

I am wondering if we have any resident experts on the subject of recording statutes. My property prof gives multiple choice exams so I am trying to solidify my knowledge of the shelter rule. Okay, here goes: O conveys Blackacre to A, who fails to record. A then conveys to B, who records. So essentially this is a wild deed. After, A records the original deed. (my study partner and I made this hypo up, I am not sure if you can record a deed after conveying the property). Anyways, afterward, A transfers to C, who records. C had no knowledge of the conveyance to B and purchased the property for valuable consideration. Who owns Blackarce in a notice or race notice jurisdiction?

Diagramming for me: O to A, A to B, B records, A records, A to C, C records
First, I think if A records the O to A before A to C transfer, then I think if you are doing a grantor/grantee index search, C would still be able to find the O to A, then A to B, thus would have constructive notice. C would first look at the grantee/grantor index and see the O to A recordation; he'd be able to map A back to O because A recorded before then. Then, doing a proper title search, C would look then need to look grantor/grantee, so would start at O, which would be O to A, then would look at A as grantor and find the A to B that B recorded. I mean, it's gotta be constructive notice to look up your own grantor in the grantor/grantee index to see if there are any other recorded interests.
I think this taints C as a BFP.

I have a feeling Goft as already gotten this question answered but I am still sore about last night's inebriation hampered answer.

The problem with above analysis is that when C is looking through the grantor/grantee indexes he will traditionally not find a conveyance from A to B if A records after that because traditionally a title searcher will assume that a party records at the time of transaction from previous party. But obviously there is a gap here where A did not record and is acting nefariously in transferring to B before C. This also assumes that B is not in possession of the property at the time A sells to C.

Jurisdictions differ on how to treat this situation and who is blameworthy because it can go either way. Either C's title searcher should have checked the records before A's recording to make sure that he wasn't acting fraudulently; or B should have made A record before going through the transaction because B knew he was getting title from someone who had not recorded the property.

[98234872348]

I am wondering if we have any resident experts on the subject of recording statutes. My property prof gives multiple choice exams so I am trying to solidify my knowledge of the shelter rule. Okay, here goes: O conveys Blackacre to A, who fails to record. A then conveys to B, who records. So essentially this is a wild deed. After, A records the original deed. (my study partner and I made this hypo up, I am not sure if you can record a deed after conveying the property). Anyways, afterward, A transfers to C, who records. C had no knowledge of the conveyance to B and purchased the property for valuable consideration. Who owns Blackarce in a notice or race notice jurisdiction?

Diagramming for me: O to A, A to B, B records, A records, A to C, C records
First, I think if A records the O to A before A to C transfer, then I think if you are doing a grantor/grantee index search, C would still be able to find the O to A, then A to B, thus would have constructive notice. C would first look at the grantee/grantor index and see the O to A recordation; he'd be able to map A back to O because A recorded before then. Then, doing a proper title search, C would look then need to look grantor/grantee, so would start at O, which would be O to A, then would look at A as grantor and find the A to B that B recorded. I mean, it's gotta be constructive notice to look up your own grantor in the grantor/grantee index to see if there are any other recorded interests.
I think this taints C as a BFP.

This is sort of the issue we were running into, as to whether C would be able to locate the recorded deed from A to B since it was recorded prior to the deed from O to A. While I don't know exactly how records actually look, I presume they have the entire deed and that if C saw the deed recorded from A, that he would be on notice that while the deed was recorded subsequent to B's, that he would be on notice to search through the grantor index from the time that the deed was given to A, as opposed to the time that A recorded his deed.

I'm not sure if this question has a concrete answer, but I am sort of worried because our property teacher gives multiple choice exams as opposed to an exam where I could explain my reasoning and partially redeem myself if I eventually derived the wrong answer.

Thanks everyone! I appreciate it.

[rando]

I have a feeling Goft as already gotten this question answered but I am still sore about last night's inebriation hampered answer.

The problem with above analysis is that when C is looking through the grantor/grantee indexes he will traditionally not find a conveyance from A to B if A records after that because traditionally a title searcher will assume that a party records at the time of transaction from previous party. But obviously there is a gap here where A did not record and is acting nefariously in transferring to B before C. This also assumes that B is not in possession of the property at the time A sells to C.

Jurisdictions differ on how to treat this situation and who is blameworthy because it can go either way. Either C's title searcher should have checked the records before A's recording to make sure that he wasn't acting fraudulently; or B should have made A record before going through the transaction because B knew he was getting title from someone who had not recorded the property.

I don't think what you are suggesting is right. OK, the flow is: O to A, A to B, B records, A records, A to C, C records
B is the first recording. So in that case, the recording office (in grantor/grantee jx) will record a conveyance of blackacre with A as grantor and B as grantee.
Then, A records his transaction. Recording office will record O as grantor, A as grantee.
So this is what is on the books prior to A transferring to C.
So now A is going to attempt to sell to C. C, if he wants to be BFP will do a title search in the grantor/grantee index properly. This includes making sure that he goes backwards and forwards through the requisite chain of title for the JX.
So if I am C, the first thing I do is pull the grantee/grantor and look up A's name. OK, since A recorded before this point, I will see that A is grantee, then will find his grantor, O, and let's assume O has title back to sovereign. Thus, I (as C) have completed half of what I need to do.
Now, I pull the grantor/grantee index. First name I look at is O. Ok, because A did record, the record is going to have O as grantor, and then A as grantee. But, because the ultimate issue is to determine whether or not I, as C, am getting a title free of defect, I must check A as grantor. Now, because B recorded, we are going to find a record of A as grantor and B as grantee for Blackacre. Thus, C is on constructive notice that there is an interest from B. Because the grantor/grantee is organized by name first, then time, there isn't going to be an issue with a recording being "out of place." Indexes are grantor/grantee or tract first, then chronological.

I am honestly not sure what you mean by organized name first, then time. The way that I learned it (long ago - maybe I didn't learn it like this...?) is that name-indexing is done chronologically by year (or 2 yrs in backwoods jxs). Within those years you look to see names.

The above looks to be a title search. A title search is not the same thing as searching for a deed through recorder's indexes

[98234872348]

I have a feeling Goft as already gotten this question answered but I am still sore about last night's inebriation hampered answer.

The problem with above analysis is that when C is looking through the grantor/grantee indexes he will traditionally not find a conveyance from A to B if A records after that because traditionally a title searcher will assume that a party records at the time of transaction from previous party. But obviously there is a gap here where A did not record and is acting nefariously in transferring to B before C. This also assumes that B is not in possession of the property at the time A sells to C.

Jurisdictions differ on how to treat this situation and who is blameworthy because it can go either way. Either C's title searcher should have checked the records before A's recording to make sure that he wasn't acting fraudulently; or B should have made A record before going through the transaction because B knew he was getting title from someone who had not recorded the property.

I don't think what you are suggesting is right. OK, the flow is: O to A, A to B, B records, A records, A to C, C records
B is the first recording. So in that case, the recording office (in grantor/grantee jx) will record a conveyance of blackacre with A as grantor and B as grantee.
Then, A records his transaction. Recording office will record O as grantor, A as grantee.
So this is what is on the books prior to A transferring to C.
So now A is going to attempt to sell to C. C, if he wants to be BFP will do a title search in the grantor/grantee index properly. This includes making sure that he goes backwards and forwards through the requisite chain of title for the JX.
So if I am C, the first thing I do is pull the grantee/grantor and look up A's name. OK, since A recorded before this point, I will see that A is grantee, then will find his grantor, O, and let's assume O has title back to sovereign. Thus, I (as C) have completed half of what I need to do.
Now, I pull the grantor/grantee index. First name I look at is O. Ok, because A did record, the record is going to have O as grantor, and then A as grantee. But, because the ultimate issue is to determine whether or not I, as C, am getting a title free of defect, I must check A as grantor. Now, because B recorded, we are going to find a record of A as grantor and B as grantee for Blackacre. Thus, C is on constructive notice that there is an interest from B. Because the grantor/grantee is organized by name first, then time, there isn't going to be an issue with a recording being "out of place." Indexes are grantor/grantee or tract first, then chronological.

So I assume you'd suggest that if A recorded his deed after he sold the property to C, for instance, in the hypo, O to A, A to B, B records, A to C, A records, C records, would that change the hypo and would C be entitled to to property or would B still have it?

[rando]

I am honestly not sure what you mean by organized name first, then time. The way that I learned it (long ago - maybe I didn't learn it like this...?) is that name-indexing is done chronologically by year (or 2 yrs in backwoods jxs). Within those years you look to see names.

The above looks to be a title search. A title search is not the same thing as searching for a deed through recorder's indexes

The above image I guess is not very helpful. A grantor/grantee index is organized by name. So the primary records are names. For each unique name, the records of that name are listed chronologically. Most jurisdictions do have one-year volumes (or 2 year volumes) for a period of time until they are consolidated into the normal decade books [all of this assuming non-digital records]. But, it would most definitely by the duty of the purchaser to check their potential grantor under every single book applicable. You would definitely be on constructive notice

For practical purposes, I think you are indeed correct. For classroom purposes maybe it is taught differently in different places but that consolidation was not taught (and definitely not digital recording). Either way, constructive notice is going to be based on how a record search is completed in your jurisdiction. Goft, I would suggest you take a look at the way the hypo is constructed as it relates to a title search.
Compare what each of us have said for the different types of searches and that will let you know if there should be constructive notice based on the way a search is done in your class.

[rando]

I am honestly not sure what you mean by organized name first, then time. The way that I learned it (long ago - maybe I didn't learn it like this...?) is that name-indexing is done chronologically by year (or 2 yrs in backwoods jxs). Within those years you look to see names.

The above looks to be a title search. A title search is not the same thing as searching for a deed through recorder's indexes

The above image I guess is not very helpful. A grantor/grantee index is organized by name. So the primary records are names. For each unique name, the records of that name are listed chronologically. Most jurisdictions do have one-year volumes (or 2 year volumes) for a period of time until they are consolidated into the normal decade books [all of this assuming non-digital records]. But, it would most definitely by the duty of the purchaser to check their potential grantor under every single book applicable. You would definitely be on constructive notice

For practical purposes, I think you are indeed correct. For classroom purposes maybe it is taught differently in different places but that consolidation was not taught (and definitely not digital recording). Either way, constructive notice is going to be based on how a record search is completed in your jurisdiction. Goft, I would suggest you take a look at the way the hypo is constructed as it relates to a title search.
Compare what each of us have said for the different types of searches and that will let you know if there should be constructive notice based on the way a search is done in your class.

Yeah.. my prof didn't teach about consolidation or anything. It's just shit I am getting from Dukeminer.

Be really careful with that. Because as shown by this thread, the outcomes for constructive notice can be very different.

[270910]

Consolidation, books, decades, electronic recording, etc. is irrelevant.

This problem isn't complex at all, it just gets messy if you skip steps or aren't explicit. I'll lay it out below:

O conveys Blackacre to A, who fails to record. A then conveys to B, who records. So essentially this is a wild deed. After, A records the original deed. Afterward, A transfers to C, who records. C had no knowledge of the conveyance to B and purchased the property for valuable consideration. Who owns Blackarce in a notice or race notice jurisdiction?

Here's what happens:

(County recorder has: God -> O )
O -> A (Time I)
A -> B (Time II)
B records (Time III) (County recorder has: God -> O, A->B)
A records (Time IV) (County recorder has: God -> O, A -> B, O -> A)
A -> C (Time V)
C records (Time VI)

It's worth pointing out that as a matter of analysis, you should always start with "Under the first in time rule, B owns blackacre" because what we're looking for is a potential EXCEPTION to that rule based on the recording statutes.

Because of that, the one and only question we need to ask ourselves is: was C a subsequent purchaser in good faith who duly recorded and took without notice?

As gotten to above, the issue collapses into: does C have notice (actual, constructive, or inquiry) of the conveyance to B? No suggestion of actual or inquiry, so we have to see if the record provides notice to C.

To answer that, we have to look at the time line. The most important thing here are the times references above. At time V, C (constructively or otherwise) looks up A's name in the grantee index. He finds it at time IV as listing O-> A. He then looks up O's name in the grantee index, and notices it is a root title from God himself. He switches over to the grantor index, and finds the deed from God to O. Then he finds the deed from O to A recorded at time IV but executed at time II. Dukeminier makes this explicitly clear in an example on Page 562, 3rd full paragraph:

This deed you find is a deed from Anderson to Barker executed in 1934 and recorded in 1939. You then [...] run Barker's name in the grantor index from 1934 (the date of execution)

As a result, this question becomes a no-brainer. Proper title search protocol would involve C searching A's name in the grantor index from Time II (execution) and discovering the recorded deed to B, meaning C has notice of A's prior conveyance and cannot win in a race-notice jurisdiction.

[rando]

Yeah.. my prof didn't teach about consolidation or anything. It's just shit I am getting from Dukeminer.

Be really careful with that. Because as shown by this thread, the outcomes for constructive notice can be very different.

Meh... Our prof didn't treat them as books that are separate or together whatsoever. So, to that extent, you assume it's one giant index. The only way to alter from that would be if a prof explicitly stated otherwise. That, and regardless of the number of books, I still don't see how it a subsequent purchaser wouldn't be found to have constructive notice if their grantor is in some recording book that is searchable. I mean this isn't an undue burden, it's not like trying to search for every possible spelling of a name or anything like that.

It wouldn't just be one person. It would be every conveyance searching through all time. Certainly can be done. Just annoying and time consuming. So courts go both ways, either putting burden on title searcher or burden on person accepting a title from a party who failed to record. All of this may be a moot point in modern times with title search companies.

[270910]

Yeah.. my prof didn't teach about consolidation or anything. It's just shit I am getting from Dukeminer.

Be really careful with that. Because as shown by this thread, the outcomes for constructive notice can be very different.

Meh... Our prof didn't treat them as books that are separate or together whatsoever. So, to that extent, you assume it's one giant index. The only way to alter from that would be if a prof explicitly stated otherwise. That, and regardless of the number of books, I still don't see how it a subsequent purchaser wouldn't be found to have constructive notice if their grantor is in some recording book that is searchable. I mean this isn't an undue burden, it's not like trying to search for every possible spelling of a name or anything like that.

It wouldn't just be one person. It would be every conveyance searching through all time. Certainly can be done. Just annoying and time consuming. So courts go both ways, either putting burden on title searcher or burden on person accepting a title from a party who failed to record. All of this may be a moot point in modern times with title search companies.

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.

[rando]

Consolidation, books, decades, electronic recording, etc. is irrelevant.

This problem isn't complex at all, it just gets messy if you skip steps or aren't explicit. I'll lay it out below:

O conveys Blackacre to A, who fails to record. A then conveys to B, who records. So essentially this is a wild deed. After, A records the original deed. Afterward, A transfers to C, who records. C had no knowledge of the conveyance to B and purchased the property for valuable consideration. Who owns Blackarce in a notice or race notice jurisdiction?

Here's what happens:

(County recorder has: God -> O )
O -> A (Time I)
A -> B (Time II)
B records (Time III) (County recorder has: God -> O, A->B)
A records (Time IV) (County recorder has: God -> O, A -> B, O -> A)
A -> C (Time V)
C records (Time VI)

It's worth pointing out that as a matter of analysis, you should always start with "Under the first in time rule, B owns blackacre" because what we're looking for is a potential EXCEPTION to that rule based on the recording statutes.

Because of that, the one and only question we need to ask ourselves is: was C a subsequent purchaser in good faith who duly recorded and took without notice?

As gotten to above, the issue collapses into: does C have notice (actual, constructive, or inquiry) of the conveyance to B? No suggestion of actual or inquiry, so we have to see if the record provides notice to C.

To answer that, we have to look at the time line. The most important thing here are the times references above. At time V, C (constructively or otherwise) looks up A's name in the grantee index. He finds it at time IV as listing O-> A. He then looks up O's name in the grantee index, and notices it is a root title from God himself. He switches over to the grantor index, and finds the deed from God to O. Then he finds the deed from O to A recorded at time IV but executed at time II. Dukeminier makes this explicitly clear in an example on Page 562, 3rd full paragraph:

This deed you find is a deed from Anderson to Barker executed in 1934 and recorded in 1939. You then [...] run Barker's name in the grantor index from 1934 (the date of execution)

As a result, this question becomes a no-brainer. Proper title search protocol would involve C searching A's name in the grantor index from Time II (execution) and discovering the recorded deed to B, meaning C has notice of A's prior conveyance and cannot win in a race-notice jurisdiction.

Yes. This is exactly the issue discussed. It depends on the search "protocol." That is the point in dispute.

[98234872348]

So I assume you'd suggest that if A recorded his deed after he sold the property to C, for instance, in the hypo, O to A, A to B, B records, A to C, A records, C records, would that change the hypo and would C be entitled to to property or would B still have it?

A is still your divisive grantor. A to B and A to C. The question would still be whether C was on constructive notice of A to B. C would still be looking through grantors index for A (obviously wanting to know if A has been grantor to this property already), and would still find the A to B transfer because B recorded. There would be constructive notice by C, so under both notice and race-notice, B is still the winner.

Interesting. The hypo that originally started my inquiry was as follows:
This is set in a notice jurisdiction:

O to A, who does not record. O to B, who is without notice of the conveyance to A, who does not record. B then sells to C, who is without notice of the conveyance to A, who then records. Afterward, A sells to D who is without actual notice of the conveyance to B or C.

My prof says the answer is D, because D is without notice and C's deed is not duly recorded. My prof claims that D can't be said to have constructive notice of the B to C transaction, which is recorded, because it was not recorded properly (i.e. it was recorded in a defective chain of title). My original question was merely what happened if, prior to the transfer to D, if B recorded his conveyance, would that put D on constructive notice since now the deed WAS duly recorded... Well, actually, it was whether C's deed WOULD be duly recorded if B recorded subsequent to him recording, which I think it would be but I am not 100% sure.

[98234872348]

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.

[rando]

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.

That's great. I'm just not convinced that is a universal rule. If that is the rule, then absolutely correct. If not, then different outcome. Your commercial outline apparently says one thing, from what I recall my book said another. Consider property jurisdictions vary across the board I am hardly convinced that this is a universal rule. Either way. The question has been flushed out. And practically speaking it is not interesting because this issue will never come up again IRL

[270910]

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.

[270910]

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.

That's great. I'm just not convinced that is a universal rule. If that is the rule, then absolutely correct. If not, then different outcome. Your commercial outline apparently says one thing, from what I recall my book said another. Consider property jurisdictions vary across the board I am hardly convinced that this is a universal rule. Either way. The question has been flushed out. And practically speaking it is not interesting because this issue will never come up again IRL

I'm not quoting my commercial outline, I am quoting the most commonly (damn near universally) used property book in the country -.-

[rando]

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.

That's great. I'm just not convinced that is a universal rule. If that is the rule, then absolutely correct. If not, then different outcome. Your commercial outline apparently says one thing, from what I recall my book said another. Consider property jurisdictions vary across the board I am hardly convinced that this is a universal rule. Either way. The question has been flushed out. And practically speaking it is not interesting because this issue will never come up again IRL

I'm not quoting my commercial outline, I am quoting the most commonly (damn near universally) used property book in the country -.-

Ok, well i'm going back to evidence, but the passage you quoted does not state a universal rule, it explains a hypo. I am not rebuking your book, just the universality of that procedure.

[270910]

Ok, well i'm going back to evidence, but the passage you quoted does not state a universal rule, it explains a hypo. I am not rebuking your book, just the universality of that procedure.

Then you're not thinking about the procedure!

let's say you want to buy blackacre from A. O conveyed the property to A in 1914, and A recorded in 2000.

No court in the world would say that because the recording happened in 2000 there is no need to search the grantee index for O's name back to 1914. It would be totally irrational. A proper chain of title must connect THE DATES OF CONVEYANCE and not the DATES OF RECORDING.

And the casebook isn't explaining a hypo, it's using names to describe the default procedures for searching title.

Again, it's not the nuance of a title search - it's the FUNDAMENTAL of a title search, which has to show the chain of conveyances and not the chain of dates of recording.

[98234872348]

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?