Top Law Schools

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

Any Ideas?

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 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.

This is a really stupid question on my part, but does the protected purchaser get the property or are they just able to sue?

TTRansfer wrote:

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.

This is a really stupid question on my part, but does the protected purchaser get the property or are they just able to sue?

The protected purchaser gets title.

DocHawkeye wrote:

TTRansfer wrote:

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.

This is a really stupid question on my part, but does the protected purchaser get the property or are they just able to sue?

The protected purchaser gets title.

So make sure to record otherwise you will lose the property to a bona fide purchaser who records before you.