Top Law Schools

Source: https://youtu.be/ohatV3pVMYs?t=10m24s

"No conveyance is valid against a subsequent bona-fide purchaser (BFP)
who has no notice of the original conveyance (Redundant)
unless the conveyance is first recorded." (Redundant)

I thought this was a Race-Notice Statute, but apparently it's a Notice Statute.

The 2nd line is obviously redundant since it's part of the definition of a BFP to not have received notice.

However, I don't get why the 3rd line is redundant.

I think because if "the conveyance is first recorded" then the BFP would not be a BFP since he would have taken the property with notice of a conveyance recorded before he bought the land.

At first I was equating the conveyance is first recorded with the conveyance is recorded first. Perhaps you're doing the same?

jir92 wrote:I think because if "the conveyance is first recorded" then the BFP would not be a BFP since he would have taken the property with notice of a conveyance recorded before he bought the land.

At first I was equating the conveyance is first recorded with the conveyance is recorded first. Perhaps you're doing the same?

Christ, that's it. Sonuva#*&$. LOL.

Thanks a lot. Wasted 1/2 my time studying recording statutes on this one stupid line.

No wonder they said it was redundant. the entire 3rd line is just saying that the bona-fide purchaser in the 1st line is indeed subsequent to the conveyance in question.

musashino wrote:

jir92 wrote:I think because if "the conveyance is first recorded" then the BFP would not be a BFP since he would have taken the property with notice of a conveyance recorded before he bought the land.

At first I was equating the conveyance is first recorded with the conveyance is recorded first. Perhaps you're doing the same?

Christ, that's it. Sonuva#*&$. LOL.

Thanks a lot. Wasted 1/2 my time studying recording statutes on this one stupid line.

No wonder they said it was redundant. the entire 3rd line is just saying that the bona-fide purchaser in the 1st line is indeed subsequent to the conveyance in question.

Haha no problem. I hate the way the mind operates during these questions , but it was nicely reassuring to be able to (correctly) crack the code here!

Mind blowing!! Lol..thanks guys..I was definitely making the first recorded recorded first mistake..