Top Law Schools

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.

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).

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.

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!

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.

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

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?

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).