Recording Acts Practice Problems???? Forum

[Frm312]

Does anyone have any recording act practice problems with answers? I understand the difference between race, notice, and race/notice but I would love some extra practice.

If nobody has access to any pre-made problems but would like some additional practice practice, maybe we could use this thread to ask and answer hypos?

Here is a hypo to start: O conveys Blackacre to A, A does not record, O dies and H inherits Blackacre. Without notice, H conveys Blackacre to B. A records then B records. Who prevails under each of the three different types of jurisdictions?

[Jsa725]

.

[Frm312]

Race: protects 1st purch to rec. in COT
Parties : A v. B
A wins b/c B did not rec 1st in COT
can B seek shelter from H? NO, H is not a purchaser: A wins

you're right that A has superior title.

However, and I'm not to sure about this yet, I think B may have a claim against H (assuming H conveyed a warranty deed). Disclaimer: everything that follows is what I think. If anybody can verify or correct the following statements, please do -

Under the common aw rule of "first in time, first in right", A had title as soon as O conveyed. The Recording acts do not change the common law, they just upset the common law results. Therefore, when H conveyed to B, H violated the present convenants of Seisin and Right to Convey because H had no interest in the land. For these reasons, I think B would have a claim against H.

Notice: protects sub BFP
Parties: A v. B
B = sub.. is B a BFP? yes, @ time of purchase B is BFP. B is protected
B wins; A cannot seek shelter from O

You are right again that B wins. I also believe that you are correct to say that A cannot recover from O. As far as I know, the covenants described above, particularly the future covenants of general warranty and quiet enjoyment, only proetct from defects that existed at at the time of delivery. Therefore, since there were no defects when O conveyed to A, I don't think A has a claim.

RaceNotice: protects sub BFP rec 1st in COT
Parties: A v. B
B = sub, B = BFP, B recorded but not in the COT
A wins b/c B breached his duty to record in the COT; B is not protected by §
B seek shelter from H? H did not purchase.. A still wins

Once again, spot on with the superior title analysis. However, for the same reasons that I articulated under the race jurisdiction analysis, I think that B does have a claim against H.

Any thoughts about the relationship between the deed covenants and the different race jurisdictions?

Any practice hypos?

[Jsa725]

.

[Frm312]

i found this one online:
O owns property, A--> B, B record, O-->A, B re-records, A records, O --> C, C records, C --> D, D records, B --> E.

Race:

Does recording a non-existent interest still prevail under race?
If yes - -> E prevails through shelter rule because B Recorded first
If No - -> A prevails because A was first to record an actual interest
Assuming all general warranty deeds, E has a claim against B and A for violation of future covenants. B as a claim against A for violation of both present an future covenants. (Minority rule -> causes of action arising from breach of present covenants are impliedly assigned to successor interests, therefore, E would also have a claim against A for violation of present covenants)
D would have claims against C and O for the same reasons just mentioned.

Notice
A prevails because when b purchased, he had constructive notice that A did not own property. Then, after A recorded, all future purchasers were put on constructive notice

Race/Notice
A prevails again because B had notice and was was first to record



I'm not too confident about this answers because I really wasn't sure how to treat A's conveyance to B before A actually had any interest in the land. Even after B rerecorded, what was it that he was rerecording - the conveyance of A's nonexistant interest to B?

[Jsa725]

.

[Frm312]

Why didn't B have notice when A --> B? Wouldn't a COT searched have shown that A did not have title?

[Jsa725]

.

[Frm312]

ahhh ok I understand. So if the jurisdiction used a tract index instead of a grantor/grantee index, then B would have been on notice (assuming that O had recorded)

[Jsa725]

.

[paulshortys10]

I wish there was a huge list of property hypos of all types, with their answers...