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
Property Question - Notice Jurisdiction Forum
-
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 5:57 pm
Re: Property Question - Notice Jurisdiction
Any Ideas?
- DocHawkeye
- Posts: 640
- Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 11:22 am
Re: Property Question - Notice Jurisdiction
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.
- TTRansfer
- Posts: 3796
- Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 12:08 am
Re: Property Question - Notice Jurisdiction
This is a really stupid question on my part, but does the protected purchaser get the property or are they just able to sue?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.
- DocHawkeye
- Posts: 640
- Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 11:22 am
Re: Property Question - Notice Jurisdiction
The protected purchaser gets title.TTRansfer wrote:This is a really stupid question on my part, but does the protected purchaser get the property or are they just able to sue?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.
- TTRansfer
- Posts: 3796
- Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 12:08 am
Re: Property Question - Notice Jurisdiction
So make sure to record otherwise you will lose the property to a bona fide purchaser who records before you.DocHawkeye wrote:The protected purchaser gets title.TTRansfer wrote:This is a really stupid question on my part, but does the protected purchaser get the property or are they just able to sue?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.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login