Keep confusing notice and race act language-help! 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."
victortsoi

Bronze
Posts: 450
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 7:51 pm

Keep confusing notice and race act language-help!

Post by victortsoi » Wed Jul 22, 2015 10:38 am

So I'm getting a lot of questions wrong because I keep confusing between the language used in notice and race statutes when theyre quoted in questions. I get the concepts but keep getting confused on the statutory language. please help!

"Unless the same be recorded according to law, no conveyance shall be good against subsequent purchasers for value and without notice"

This is a notice act- does that mean that unless a conveyance is recorded, giving constructive notice, then a bfp without notice is good? I got tripped up by the language in the first clause.

Neff

Bronze
Posts: 320
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:29 am

Re: Keep confusing notice and race act language-help!

Post by Neff » Wed Jul 22, 2015 11:18 am

victortsoi wrote:So I'm getting a lot of questions wrong because I keep confusing between the language used in notice and race statutes when theyre quoted in questions. I get the concepts but keep getting confused on the statutory language. please help!

"Unless the same be recorded according to law, no conveyance shall be good against subsequent purchasers for value and without notice"

This is a notice act- does that mean that unless a conveyance is recorded, giving constructive notice, then a bfp without notice is good? I got tripped up by the language in the first clause.
Anytime you see the word "unless," it is a notice act (imagine the 'u' in unless being turned upside down to the 'n' in notice). Under a notice act, all that matters is whether or not the BFP had notice. If he had notice, he's not protected. Notice may be established either by recording of the original conveyance (constructive notice), actual notice (e.g. being told about the earlier conveyance), or inquiry notice (e.g. should have known because someone is on the property).

User avatar
robinhoodOO

Silver
Posts: 876
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:08 pm

Re: Keep confusing notice and race act language-help!

Post by robinhoodOO » Wed Jul 22, 2015 11:20 am

victortsoi wrote:So I'm getting a lot of questions wrong because I keep confusing between the language used in notice and race statutes when theyre quoted in questions. I get the concepts but keep getting confused on the statutory language. please help!

"Unless the same be recorded according to law, no conveyance shall be good against subsequent purchasers for value and without notice"

This is a notice act- does that mean that unless a conveyance is recorded, giving constructive notice, then a bfp without notice is good? I got tripped up by the language in the first clause.
Unless the recorded deed is a "wild deed," then yes.

victortsoi

Bronze
Posts: 450
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 7:51 pm

Re: Keep confusing notice and race act language-help!

Post by victortsoi » Wed Jul 22, 2015 11:47 am

Neff wrote:
victortsoi wrote:So I'm getting a lot of questions wrong because I keep confusing between the language used in notice and race statutes when theyre quoted in questions. I get the concepts but keep getting confused on the statutory language. please help!

"Unless the same be recorded according to law, no conveyance shall be good against subsequent purchasers for value and without notice"

This is a notice act- does that mean that unless a conveyance is recorded, giving constructive notice, then a bfp without notice is good? I got tripped up by the language in the first clause.
Anytime you see the word "unless," it is a notice act (imagine the 'u' in unless being turned upside down to the 'n' in notice). Under a notice act, all that matters is whether or not the BFP had notice. If he had notice, he's not protected. Notice may be established either by recording of the original conveyance (constructive notice), actual notice (e.g. being told about the earlier conveyance), or inquiry notice (e.g. should have known because someone is on the property).

Thanks...I'm good on what the acts do but i just can't seem to tell what act applies from the language. Thanks for your explanation!

stronitsing

New
Posts: 75
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2015 1:12 pm

Re: Keep confusing notice and race act language-help!

Post by stronitsing » Wed Jul 22, 2015 11:51 am

victortsoi wrote:
Neff wrote:
victortsoi wrote:So I'm getting a lot of questions wrong because I keep confusing between the language used in notice and race statutes when theyre quoted in questions. I get the concepts but keep getting confused on the statutory language. please help!

"Unless the same be recorded according to law, no conveyance shall be good against subsequent purchasers for value and without notice"

This is a notice act- does that mean that unless a conveyance is recorded, giving constructive notice, then a bfp without notice is good? I got tripped up by the language in the first clause.
Anytime you see the word "unless," it is a notice act (imagine the 'u' in unless being turned upside down to the 'n' in notice). Under a notice act, all that matters is whether or not the BFP had notice. If he had notice, he's not protected. Notice may be established either by recording of the original conveyance (constructive notice), actual notice (e.g. being told about the earlier conveyance), or inquiry notice (e.g. should have known because someone is on the property).

Thanks...I'm good on what the acts do but i just can't seem to tell what act applies from the language. Thanks for your explanation!

The easiest way for me is: If you see the words "first recorded" it's race notice. If not, it's notice.

Want to continue reading?

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Absolutely FREE!


jamesm722

New
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 3:21 pm

Re: Keep confusing notice and race act language-help!

Post by jamesm722 » Wed Jul 22, 2015 11:57 am

Also be careful of the questions that don't provide a recording statute. I've seen them on a few different MBEs now.

victortsoi

Bronze
Posts: 450
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 7:51 pm

Re: Keep confusing notice and race act language-help!

Post by victortsoi » Wed Jul 22, 2015 12:31 pm

jamesm722 wrote:Also be careful of the questions that don't provide a recording statute. I've seen them on a few different MBEs now.
what do you do in that case?

jamesm722

New
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 3:21 pm

Re: Keep confusing notice and race act language-help!

Post by jamesm722 » Wed Jul 22, 2015 12:43 pm

An uncle owned a lot in fee simple. During this time, the uncle’s nephew executed a warranty deed that purported to convey the uncle’s lot from the nephew, who was not the true owner of the lot,to a buyer. The deed was promptly and duly recorded.
Thereafter, the uncle conveyed the lot to his nephew by a warranty deed that was promptly and duly recorded.
Later, the nephew conveyed the property to his friend by warranty deed and the deed was promptly and duly recorded. The friend paid the fair market value of the lot and had no knowledge of any claim of the buyer.
In an appropriate action, the friend and the buyer contested title to the lot of land.
For whom will the court find?

(A) For the buyer, because his deed is senior to the friend’s.
(B) For the friend, because he paid value without notice of the buyer’s claim.
(C) For the buyer or the friend, depending on whether a subsequent grantee is bound, at common law, by the doctrine of estoppel by deed.
(D) For the buyer or the friend, depending on whether the buyer’s deed is deemed recorded in the friend’s chain of title.

Reasoning: The buyer would clearly prevail at common law, since his deed was received first and is valid under the doctrine of estoppel by deed. Rather, the question involves the effect of estoppel by deed under a modern recording statute. Since the friend purchased the lot without any actual notice of the deed to the buyer, he is entitled to the status of a protected bona fide purchaser, unless he is held to have constructive notice of the deed to the buyer. Since the deed from the ’nephew to the buyer was recorded before the ’nephew received title, the buyer’s deed would not be within the normal chain of title. Thus, the friend will be held to have constructive notice of the buyer’s deed only if the jurisdiction holds that a prior-recorded deed is constructive notice - answer choice (D).

Want to continue reading?

Register for access!

Did I mention it was FREE ?


Post Reply Post Anonymous Reply  

Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”