Recording System

Question 1

Common Law Rule

Answer 1

When a grantor conveys the same interest in land to 2 different grantees, the 1st grantee chronologically prevails UNLESS statute say otherwise.

This rule governs when recording acts do not apply.

Limitation: It fails to protect subsequent innocent purchasers when a prior interest is unrecorded.

Question 2

Purpose of Recording Acts and Bona Fide Purchasers [BFPs]

Answer 2

• Enacted to correct shortcomings of common law rule.
• Incorporate the equitable principle of bonafide purchaser protection.

Protects subsequent purchasers who:
1. Pay value (must be purchasers, not donees)
2. Lack notice (actual/ constructive/inquiry) of a prior claim, AND
3. In some jxs– record first.

Question 3

Who is NOT Protected by Recording Acts?

Answer 3

• Donees/heirs/ anyone who is not a purchaser for value
• Purchaser with notice
  > Actual- they actually knew
  > Constructive - Prior deed was recorded
  > Inquiry - Circumstances require further investigation

Adverse Possessors: Their rights are not reflected in the public records unless reduced to a recorded judgment.

Question 4

Recording acts=

Answer 4

laws that determine how property interests (like ownership or mortgages) are recorded in public land records, and who has priority when there are conflicting claims to the same property.

Question 5

Main goal of recording acts =

Answer 5

to protect good-faith purchasers and to provide public notice of property interests.

Question 6

Legal Effect of Recording

Answer 6

• Recording a deed does not transfer title; Title passes upon proper execution and delivery.
• However, failure to record risks losing title to a later bona fide purchaser.
• Recording encourages complete public land records and confidence in real estate markets.

Question 7

What can be recorded?

Answer 7

Recordable instruments: Any written document affect real estate interest (eg deeds, mortgages)

Excluded items: Wills, leases under 3 years, sale contracts, powers of atty

Question 8

Recordation is the act of

Answer 8

filing a deed or other property interest document in the local government office (often a county recorder).

Notice is critical—buyers are deemed to have notice of whatever is properly recorded.

Question 9

Types of Recording Acts:
1. Race Statute

Answer 9

First person the record wins, regardless of notice of prior unrecorded claims.

Only a few states.

Text example: “No conveyance is valid unless it is recorded first”

Question 10

Types of Recording Acts:
2. Notice Statute

Answer 10

A subsequent bona fide purchaser (BFA), who has no notice, wins, even if not first to record.

Many states follow this.

Eg: “A conveyance is not valid against a subsequent purchaser without notice.”

Question 11

Types of Recording Acts:
3. Race-Notice Statute

Answer 11

Subsequent BFP wins only if they record first and had not notice of prior interest,

Majority of states use this.

Eg. “A conveyance is not valid against a subsequent purchaser without notice, unless it is first recorded.”

Question 12

Types of Notice

Answer 12

Actual Notice: The buyer actually knows of the prior interest.Direct knowledge

Constructive Notice: The interest is recorded in the public record.Dead in the public record

Inquiry Notice: Circumstances would lead a reasonable person to investigate (e.g., someone visibly living on the land)
Suspicious facts that would cause a reasonable person to investigate
E.g. a tenant on the property → Investigate tenancy

Question 13

Shelter Rule

Answer 13

A transferee of a BFP takes shelter under their grantor’s protected status (gets the same protection) AKA a person who buys from a protected party “shelters under” their status.

But: The original wrongdoer [e.g. someone who conveyed twice] cannot use it

Question 14

Indexing Systems:
1. Grantor-Grantee Index

Answer 14

Most common
- Search by party name.
- Searched examine both grantor and grantee indexes for each chain of title transfer

Question 15

Indexing Systems:
2. Tract Index

Answer 15

Search by parcel (e.g. lot/block)

Lists all recorded instruments affecting the specific parcel.

Superior for comprehensive title research

Question 16

Search Expctations
Buyers are charged with constructive notice of all properly indexed records
In places like Minnesota, search must cover grantor-grantee and tract indices.

Question 17

Marketable Title Acts

Answer 17

Aim to simplify land recird searches and clear old claims: eg if no re-recording in 40 yrs, claim may be extinguished
Also apply to old mortgages (e.g. RI discharges after 35 years)

Question 18

Sabo

Answer 18

Parties.
- Firsts grantees – Horvaths
- 2nd grantees – Sabos
- Grantor – Lowery (recieved patent from US Gov.)

Issue: Who holds superior title when the same land is conveyed twice - 1st before granto obtained legal title, and 2nd after– and both grantees record?

Facts:
Lowery’s Land Claim - Occupied federal land in 1964 and applied for patent under Alaska law ; Filed application with BLM and patent issues in ‘73
Conveyances - 1970 - Grantor executed a quitclaim deed to Horvaths before receiving patent.
- Horvaths recorded deed - before Grantor had legal title.
- 1973: after patent issued –> Grantor conveyed same land to Sabos (also by quit claim) – Sabos recorded
-Horvaths sued to quiet title. Sabos countered, asserting protection under Alaska’s recording act.

Issues:
1. Did Grantor have interest to convey to Horvaths before Patent? – Yes. Grantor’s compliance with Homesite law (eg. occupancy, application, survey) gave him equitable interest sufficient to support a conveyance. – SCOTUS precedent recognizes that pre-patent equitable interests may be transferred if consistent with statutory purpose and good faith.
2. Are the Sabos BFPs despite receiving a quitclaim deed? – Yes. Ct adopted rule: A grantee under a quitclaim deed can still qualify as a BFP for value, so long as:
a. They paid value
b. They lacked actual/constructive notice of prior conveyances.
3. Did the Horvaths’ earlier recording provide constructive notice to the Sabos?
- No, Horvaths recorded their deed before Lowery received legal title, making it a “wild deed.” - A deed recorded outside the chain of title is not discoverable in a standard title search and does not give constructive notice under Alaska’a recording laws ; Alaska uses grantor-grantee indexing system SO chain of title begins after patent issued. ; Sabos had no actual or constructive notice of the Horvaths’ deed.

Rules:
- Quitclaim grantees may be protected under recording acts if they meet bona fide purchaser criteria.
- Constructive notice under grantor-grantee system applies only to instruments within the chain of title. – A “wild deed” (recorded before the grantor had title) is not within the chain and thus does not impart constructive notice.
- Recording only protects interest that are duly recorded in the correct chain of title.
- Requiring a second recording after the grantor receives legal title is a lesser burden than forcing purchasers to search pre-title history.

Holding- Sabos deed prevailed bc
1. They were BFP
2. Their deed was 1st to be properly recorded within the chain of title, and
3. Horvaths’ earlier-recorded deed was a wild deed, not valid notice under Alaska’s recording system.

Takeaways
- Recording timing matters: a deed recorded before the grantor acquires title will not give constructive notice
-Chain of title analysis is crucial under grantor-grantee systems.
- Public policy: this decision favors certainty and efficiency in title examination over retroactive protection of earlier claimants.
- Encourage re-recording of interests after grantor acquires title, rather than overburdening future purchasers.

Question 19

Federal National Mortgage

Answer 19

Issue: Whether a prior recorded mortgage that was improperly indexed loses priority to a later recorded mortgage when the subsequent mortgagee lacks actual notice of the first.
Holding: Yes-under NY law, an improperly indexed mortgage does not provide constructive notice and may lose priority to a later mortgage properly recorded.

Facts
- ‘83: Levine-Rodriguez executed a mortgage to Intercounty Mortgage Corp. (later assigned to FNMA) – recorded, indexed under L (Levine-Rodriguez), although deed into her was under “R”(Rodriguez)
- ‘89: She and husband executed 2nd mortgage in favor of Chemical Bank. Title search failed to uncover FNMA mortgage due to hyphenate name being indexed under different letter. Chemical Bank relied on title search and recorded it mortgage in 1990. FNMA sued to foreclose, claiming priority; Chemical Bank moved to dismiss, asserting its mortgage had priority due to lack of notice.

Issues:
1. Does an improperly indexed prior mortgage give constructive notice to subsequent lender?
2. Should the burden of indexing accuracy fall on recording party or on future searchers?
3. What is the effect of the 1924 amendment to RealProp Law _ which state that indexes are part of the record?

Holding:
1. Construction Notice Requires Proper Indexing
- Proper indexing is essential for a document to serve as constructive notice under NY Real Property Law
- Even though FNMA’s mortgage was recorded, it was indexed under the wrong letter, making it undiscoverable in a reasonable search.
2. Legislative Intent Behind Real Property Law
- The 1924 amendment added: “Such indexes shall form a part of the record of each instrument hereafter recorded.”
– Before this, indexing errors did not affect priority
– After 1924, indexing errors could defeat constructive notice.
3. NY cases after Amendment – improperly indexed instruments do not provide constructive notice.
4. Policy and Burden of Risk
- Party presenting a document for recording is in the best position to ensure proper indexing. – If they fail to check, they bear the loss, not the innocent subsequent mortgagee.
- Recording offices and title insurers may bear liability for misfeasance, but the prior mortgage loses priority regardless.

Holding:
- Improper indexing of FNMA’s mortgage defeated constructive notice
- Chemical Bank had no actual notice and reasonably relied on title search.
- Chem. Bank’s mortgage is superior in priority.
Complaint dismissed as to Chemical Bank; court declared Chemical’s lien superior.

Takeaways:
- Indexing is now part of the recording record under NY Real Prop. Law
- Instrument must be both recorded and properly indexed to provide constructive notice.
- Subsequent mortgagee in good faith without actual/constructive notice prevails over an improperly indexed prior mortgage.
- Burden lies on filer to ensure indexing is correct – a principle rooted in both equity and practicality.

Question 20

Farrell

Answer 20

Issue: Whether Def. had constructive notice of an easement recorded in plaintiff’s chain of title but not in her own.
Holding:
- No constructive notice - easement not indexed against defendant’s lot.
- Pre-1964 Kings County indexing did not support charging notice outside the chain of title.
- Triable issues of actual notice precluded summary judgment on defendant’s counterclaim to quiet title.

Facts:
- Plaintiffs+Def’s lots were originally part of a single parcel.
- ‘47 - common grantor conveyed one lot to P’s predecessor w/ and express easement over a footpath on the retained lot. – This easement was recorded in P’s chain of title.
-‘95 - Retained lot was sold to the defendant’s predecessor, without mention of the easement in any subsequent deeds.
-Def. moved for summ. judg. to dismiss the plaintiffs’ easement claim and quiet title.

Issues:
1. Constructive Notice and Chain of Title
- P’s argued defendant was constructively on notice of the easement.
- Ct reaffirmed the “time-honored rule” : A purchaser is not charged with constructive notice of recorded instruments outside their direct chain of title.
2. Exception for Block and Lot Indexing Systems
- In counties using block and lot indexing, purchasers are charged with notice of all instruments indexed under their block and lot, even if outside their deed chain.
3. Pre-1964 Indexing Limitation
- P’s easement dated from ‘47 - pre-‘64 block index applied.
- Under that system:
– All instruments for a block were listed, but no indication which lot they pertained to.
– Therefore, the system did not enable parcel-level searches.
- Result: it would be unreasonable to require purchasers to review all entries on an entire block.
4. Application to this case
- ‘47 easement was:
– In P’s deed
–not listed in any deed in defendant’s chain of title, and
– Not indexed under the defendant’s block and lot.
-Therefore, no constructive notice to defendant Sitaras under either:
– Traditional chain of title rules, or
– Block-and-lot-exception (which applies only post-‘64)
5. Actual Notice Inquiry
- Since no constructive notice existed, the question became whether Sitaras has actual notice of the easement.
- The ct found triable issues of fact on the question: Precluded summ. judg. on def.’s counterclaim to quiet title.

Holding:
- Dismissal of P’s claims based on record/constructive notice of easement.
- Denied, Def’s request to quiet title, due to unresolved factual disputes about actual notice

Takeaway
-Constructive notice depends on:
– Proper indexing under the recording system in place
– Instrument’s inclusion in the chain of title or, in some counties, block and lot indexing.
- Block-only indexing systems (pre’64) do not impose constructive notice of all instruments on a block
- Actual notice remains a factual inquiry and can override failure of constructive notice.
- Rule: Purchasers are not required to review all instruments on a block if indexing does not clearly associate them with specific lots.

Question 21

Owen owned Copperacre, a large tract of mineral-rich land in a sparsely populated area. He entered into a lease with Yukon, a prospector who was interested in developing the land for mining. The term of the lease was two years and gave Yukon an option to buy the property at any time after the first year. Yukon did not record the lease. Six months later, Yukon left Copperacre for a period of time to prospect in Mexico, leaving no goods on the land that would identify him. Owen then conveyed Copperacre in fee simple to Darlene, who had inspected the property while Yukon was in Mexico and was unaware of the prior transaction. Darlene did not immediately record her deed. After three months in Mexico, Yukon returned to Copperacre and encountered Darlene.
A statute in the jurisdiction provides, in part:

No conveyance or mortgage of an interest in land, other than a lease for one year, is valid against any subsequent purchaser for value without notice thereof whose conveyance is first recorded.

If Darlene brings an action to quiet title to Copperacre, how should the court rule?

(A) Darlene takes title subject to Yukon’s leasehold interest and his option to purchase.

(B) Darlene takes title subject to Yukon’s leasehold interest but not his option to purchase because he does not yet have the power to exercise the option.

(C) Darlene takes title subject to Yukon’s leasehold interest and option to purchase because, even if she had recorded immediately when she became aware of Yukon, she would have had notice of Yukon’s interest before recording.

(D) Darlene takes title free of Yukon’s leasehold interest and option because Yukon failed to record before Darlene purchased the property without notice of his interest.

Answer 21

The key to resolving this question lies in interpreting the recording statute and applying it to the facts of the transaction.

📜 Statutory Language Recap:
“No conveyance or mortgage of an interest in land, other than a lease for one year, is valid against any subsequent purchaser for value without notice thereof whose conveyance is first recorded.”

This is a race-notice statute, which protects a subsequent bona fide purchaser only if:

They purchase without notice of a prior unrecorded interest; and

They record first.

🧠 Apply the Law to the Facts:
Yukon has a two-year lease and an option to purchase (both of which must be recorded to bind subsequent purchasers).

Yukon did not record.

Yukon vacated the property without leaving identifying markers.

Darlene inspected the land while Yukon was away, saw no sign of a tenant, and was unaware of the lease or option.

Darlene did not immediately record her deed.

Yukon returned and gave notice of his claim before Darlene recorded.

⚖️ Who Prevails?
Under the race-notice statute, Darlene must both:

Be a bona fide purchaser (without notice); and

Record first.

Let’s analyze each:

1. Was Darlene a bona fide purchaser without notice?
   ✅ Yes. At the time of the purchase, Yukon was gone, the lease was unrecorded, and there were no visible signs of occupation. So Darlene had no actual, constructive, or inquiry notice of Yukon’s rights.
2. Did Darlene record before notice?
   ❌ No. Darlene did not record before Yukon returned and revealed his lease. Once Darlene knew of Yukon’s claim, she had actual notice, and could no longer qualify as a BFP from that point forward.

Thus, because Darlene did not record before receiving notice, she does not get protection under the race-notice statute.

🔚 Conclusion:
Since Darlene did not record first before acquiring notice of Yukon’s unrecorded interest, she takes subject to both the leasehold and the option to purchase.

✅ Correct Answer:
(C) Darlene takes title subject to Yukon’s leasehold interest and option to purchase because, even if she had recorded immediately when she became aware of Yukon, she would have had notice of Yukon’s interest before recording.

Question 22

At time one, O conveys CUNYacre to A. A does not record. At time two, O sells CUNYacre to B. B has notice of the earlier conveyance to A. At time three, B records. At time four, A records. B sues A for title. Who prevails?

A. In both a notice jurisdiction and a race-notice jurisdiction, A wins.

B. In both a notice jurisdiction and a race-notice jurisdiction, B wins.

C. In a notice jurisdiction, A wins, but in a race-notice jurisdiction, B wins.

D. In a notice jurisdiction B wins, but in a race-notice jurisdiction, A wins.

E. None of the above.

Answer 22

Let’s analyze the scenario step-by-step under both notice and race-notice recording statutes.

🕒 Timeline Recap:
Time 1: O → A (A does not record)

Time 2: O → B (B has notice of the O→A deed)

Time 3: B records

Time 4: A records

B sues A for title

🧠 Key Facts:
B is not a bona fide purchaser (BFP) because B had notice of the prior conveyance to A.

Recording first does not help B if B had notice under either system.

🏛 NOTICE Jurisdiction:
The recording act protects only subsequent BFPs — i.e., purchasers for value without notice.

Since B had notice, B is not protected.
✅ A wins under notice.

🏛 RACE-NOTICE Jurisdiction:
To prevail, B must:

Be a BFP without notice, and

Record first

B recorded first, ✅ but…

B had notice ❌ → so B fails the BFP requirement

✅ A wins under race-notice too.

✅ Correct Answer:
A. In both a notice jurisdiction and a race-notice jurisdiction, A wins.

Question 23

At time one, O conveys CUNYacre to A. A does not record. At time two, O sells CUNYacre to B. B has no actual notice of the earlier conveyance to A. At time three, B records. At time four, A records. B sues A for title. Who prevails?

A. In both a notice jurisdiction and a race-notice jurisdiction, A wins.

B. In both a notice jurisdiction and a race-notice jurisdiction, B wins.

C. In a notice jurisdiction, A wins, but in a race-notice jurisdiction, B wins.

D. In a notice jurisdiction B wins, but in a race-notice jurisdiction, A wins.

E. None of the above.

Answer 23

🕒 Timeline Recap:
Time 1: O → A (A does not record)

Time 2: O → B (B has no notice of A’s deed)

Time 3: B records

Time 4: A records

⚖️ Legal Framework:
🏛 NOTICE Jurisdiction:
Protects a bona fide purchaser (BFP) without notice of a prior unrecorded deed.

B had no notice of A’s deed at the time of purchase → ✅ B is a BFP.

It doesn’t matter when B records, because notice is determined at the time of purchase.

✅ B wins under notice.

🏛 RACE-NOTICE Jurisdiction:
Protects a BFP only if they record before the prior interest is recorded.

B:

Had no notice (so meets the BFP requirement),

Recorded before A (Time 3 vs. Time 4).

✅ B satisfies both elements → B wins under race-notice too.

✅ Correct Answer:
B. In both a notice jurisdiction and a race-notice jurisdiction, B wins.

Question 24

At time one, O conveys CUNYacre to A. A does not record. At time two, O sells CUNYacre to B. B has no actual notice of the earlier conveyance to A. At time three, A records. At time four, B records. B sues A for title. Who prevails?

A. In both a notice jurisdiction and a race-notice jurisdiction, A wins.

B. In both a notice jurisdiction and a race-notice jurisdiction, B wins.

C. In a notice jurisdiction, A wins, but in a race-notice jurisdiction, B wins.

D. In a notice jurisdiction B wins, but in a race-notice jurisdiction, A wins.

E. None of the above.

Answer 24

🕒 Timeline Recap:
Time 1: O → A (A does not record)

Time 2: O → B (B has no notice of A)

Time 3: A records

Time 4: B records

⚖️ Legal Principles
🏛 NOTICE Jurisdiction:
Protects subsequent bona fide purchasers (BFPs) without notice of prior unrecorded interests.

B was a BFP at the time of purchase (no actual or constructive notice), so…
✅ B wins under notice — the fact that A later recorded doesn’t matter.

🏛 RACE-NOTICE Jurisdiction:
To prevail, B must:

Be a BFP without notice of the prior interest at the time of conveyance

Record before the prior interest is recorded

B was a BFP when he bought at Time 2.

But B did not record until Time 4, after A recorded at Time 3.

❌ B fails the race requirement, so
✅ A wins under race-notice.

✅ Correct Answer:
C. In a notice jurisdiction, B wins, but in a race-notice jurisdiction, A wins.

Question 25

At time 1, O sells CUNYacre to A. At time 2, O sells CUNYacre to B. At time 3, O sells CUNYacre to C. At time 4, A records the O to A deed. At time 5, B records to O to B deed. At time 6, C records the O to C deed. Who owns CUNYacre? (A) In a notice jurisdiction, C. In a race-notice jurisdiction, A. (B) In a notice jurisdiction, C. In a race-notice jurisdiction, B. (C) In a notice jurisdiction, C. In a race-notice jurisdiction, C. (D) In a notice jurisdiction, C. In a race-notice jurisdiction, B. (E) In a notice jurisdiction, B. In a race-notice jurisdiction, C.

Answer 25

To determine who owns CUNYacre in notice and race-notice jurisdictions, we must apply the rules for each recording act. 🕒 Timeline: Time 1: O → A (no record yet) Time 2: O → B Time 3: O → C Time 4: A records Time 5: B records Time 6: C records 📜 Key Rules: Notice Jurisdiction: The last bona fide purchaser (BFP) without notice prevails, regardless of whether they record first. Race-Notice Jurisdiction: A subsequent purchaser without notice and who records first prevails. 🧠 Step-by-Step Analysis NOTICE Jurisdiction C is the last purchaser. Did C have notice of any prior unrecorded deeds at Time 3? At Time 3, neither A nor B had recorded. So C had no notice of A or B. Therefore, C wins in a notice jurisdiction. RACE-NOTICE Jurisdiction Again, C is without notice at Time 3. But must also be the first to record after receiving the deed. Let's look at recording times: A records at Time 4. B records at Time 5. C records at Time 6. C records last, after A and B. So C loses in a race-notice jurisdiction. Who wins? A recorded before B, but B had no notice of A’s unrecorded deed at Time 2, and recorded before C. So B wins in a race-notice jurisdiction. ✅ Final Answer: (B) In a notice jurisdiction, C. In a race-notice jurisdiction, B.

Question 26

O conveys CUNYacre to A, who fails to record. O then sells CUNYacre to B, who records. B then sells CUNYacre to C who has actual knowledge of the O-to-A deed. C records. Who owns CUNYacre? A. In both a notice jurisdiction and a race-notice jurisdiction, A B. In both a notice jurisdiction and a race-notice jurisdiction, B C. In both a notice jurisdiction and a race-notice jurisdiction, C D. In both a notice jurisdiction and a race-notice jurisdiction, O E. In both a notice jurisdiction and a race-notice jurisdiction, none of the above

Answer 26

To determine who owns CUNYacre, we must analyze under both a notice and a race-notice jurisdiction. 🕒 Timeline Recap: O → A (A does not record) O → B (B is subsequent purchaser, records) B → C (C has actual knowledge of the unrecorded O-to-A deed, but records) ⚖️ Legal Framework Notice Jurisdiction A bona fide purchaser (BFP) prevails over a prior unrecorded deed. BFP = Purchaser for value, without notice of prior interest. C has actual notice of A's interest — so C is not a BFP. C cannot defeat A under a notice statute. A wins. Race-Notice Jurisdiction To prevail, the subsequent purchaser must: Be without notice of the prior interest at time of purchase Be the first to record C had actual notice of A's deed when purchasing from B. So C fails both in a notice and race-notice jurisdiction. However, B was a bona fide purchaser without notice and recorded before A. So: B wins under both systems Even though C had notice, C takes title from B, and B's title was valid and protected Shelter Rule applies: C "shelters under" B’s protected status 🛡️ Shelter Rule A person who takes from a BFP gets the same protection as the BFP, even if they themselves have notice. Therefore, C takes protected title from B, even with actual notice. ✅ Final Answer: C. In both a notice jurisdiction and a race-notice jurisdiction, C.

Question 27

At time one, O conveys CUNYacre to A, who does not record. At time two, O sells CUNYacre to B who does not record. At time three, A records. At time four, B sells CUNYacre to D. Who owns CUNYacre? A.In both a notice jurisdiction and a race-notice jurisdiction, A does. B.In both a notice jurisdiction and a race-notice jurisdiction, B does. C.In both a notice jurisdiction and a race-notice jurisdiction, D does. D.In both a notice jurisdiction and a race-notice jurisdiction, O does. E.None of the above.

Answer 27

Let’s analyze the fact pattern and determine ownership of CUNYacre in both notice and race-notice jurisdictions. 🕒 Timeline Summary: Time 1: O → A (A does not record) Time 2: O → B (B does not record) Time 3: A records Time 4: B → D ⚖️ Key Legal Concepts Notice Jurisdiction A subsequent bona fide purchaser (BFP) without notice of a prior unrecorded interest prevails. D must have: Given value Had no notice (actual, constructive, or inquiry) of A’s interest at Time 4 At Time 4, A has already recorded → D has constructive notice D is not a BFP So A prevails Race-Notice Jurisdiction To win, a subsequent purchaser must: Be without notice of the prior conveyance at the time of purchase Be the first to record D is not without notice — A recorded at Time 3, before D took from B at Time 4 D never recorded either Therefore, D loses under race-notice as well B never recorded either, and A recorded before B 🧾 Final Determination: A recorded before B or D did anything D had constructive notice via A’s recorded deed B and D are not protected O cannot convey good title to B once A owns it ✅ Correct Answer: A. In both a notice jurisdiction and a race-notice jurisdiction, A does.

Question 28

Oralee owned CUNYacre for many years. After she reached retirement age, Oralee sold the property to Amber, who financed the purchase with a note secured by a 20 year mortgage with Maritime Bank. Amber promptly recorded her deed, and for 20 years Amber promptly made every payment to the bank. During that period of time, Amber financed the purchase of three automobiles with loans from Maritime Bank, and her record of payment was exemplary. Five years after Amber had paid off the mortgage, she revisited the mortgage loan department of Maritime Bank. She told the loan officer that she wanted to borrow $30,000 to help pay for the medical school education of a favorite niece, securing the loan with a mortgage on CUNYacre. After confirming Amber's continuing employment status, the bank officer quickly approved the loan based upon Amber's excellent record with the bank. On June 3, Amber executed the note and the mortgage, and the bank gave Amber a certified check for $30,000, which she immediately deposited in her account at National Bank. On June 4, Amber sold CUNYacre to Brittany for $150,000 . Brittany, a wealthy actress and film director, paid Amber in cash. Brittany knew nothing about the mortgage. On June 5, Brittany recorded her deed to CUNYacre. Two hours after Brittany recorded, Amber closed out her account at National Bank, which included the $30,000 from the mortgage. Amber, an only child who had never married, had no "favorite niece." By nightfall, Amber was on a flight to Tahiti with the proceeds of the aforementioned transactions, plus $2 million secretly embezzled from her employer. Brittany did have a favorite niece, an aspiring actress named Christie. On the evening of June 8, which was a Saturday, Brittany presented Christie with a deed to CUNYacre as a gift. At 10 a.m. on June 10, Maritime Bank recorded its mortgage. At 2 p.m. on June 10, Christie recorded her deed. After Amber missed her first mortgage payment on July 1, Maritime Bank employees were sent scurrying to the title office. They discovered the deeds to Brittany and Christie, and the facts surrounding Amber's hasty departure soon surfaced. Maritime Bank demanded that Christie satisfy the $30,000 mortgage. Brittany provided Christie with an attorney, who filed an appropriate suit to determine the various interests in CUNYacre. The recording statute in the jurisdiction reads, in relevant part: A conveyance of an estate in land shall not be valid against any subsequent purchaser for value, without notice thereof, unless the conveyance is recorded. The court should rule that: (A) Christie owns CUNYacre subject to Maritime Bank's mortgage, because Christie is a donee. (B) Christie owns CUNYacre subject to Maritime Bank's mortgage, because Maritime Bank recorded before Christie. (C) Christie owns CUNYacre free of Maritime Bank’s mortgage, because Brittany was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. (D) Christie owns CUNYacre free of Maritime Bank's mortgage, because the bank does not qualify as a bona fide purchaser for value.

Answer 28

To determine how a court should rule on the rights to CUNYacre, we must analyze the facts under the recording statute and the bona fide purchaser (BFP) doctrine. 🧾 Key Facts Recap June 3: Amber executes mortgage to Maritime Bank ($30,000 loan), receives funds. June 4: Amber sells CUNYacre to Brittany (for $150,000 cash) — Brittany has no notice of the mortgage. June 5: Brittany records her deed. June 10, 10 a.m.: Maritime Bank records its mortgage. June 10, 2 p.m.: Christie (Brittany’s niece) records her gift deed. The jurisdiction uses a NOTICE recording statute: "A conveyance of an estate in land shall not be valid against any subsequent purchaser for value, without notice, unless the conveyance is recorded." ⚖️ Legal Framework 🔍 1. Brittany’s Status Paid value: $150,000 cash Had no notice (actual or constructive) of the mortgage Recorded before Maritime Bank ✅ Brittany is a bona fide purchaser (BFP) for value without notice. 🏦 2. Maritime Bank’s Status Mortgagee, so a lender — qualifies as a purchaser for value However, the statute protects subsequent purchasers for value without notice — not prior ones who fail to record in time. Brittany acquired and recorded her interest before the bank did. Brittany takes free of the unrecorded mortgage. 🎁 3. Christie’s Status Donee — she received the property as a gift Under long-established principles, a donee is not protected by the recording act because they are not purchasers for value Christie takes subject to all prior interests, unless she stands in Brittany’s shoes But under the shelter rule, a grantee from a BFP takes sheltered rights, even if the grantee is not a BFP herself. ✅ Christie takes Brittany’s clean title — free of the mortgage — even though she's a donee. 🧠 Key Doctrines Applied Notice Statute protects subsequent purchasers for value without notice. Shelter Rule allows a non-BFP (e.g., a donee) to inherit BFP status from her grantor. ✅ Correct Answer: (C) Christie owns CUNYacre free of Maritime Bank’s mortgage, because Brittany was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice.

Question 29

At time one, O conveys CUNYacre to A, who does not record. At time two, O sells CUNYacre to B, who has no notice of the O-to-A conveyance and who does not record. At time three, A records and then sells CUNYacre to C. At time four, B records and then C does. Who owns CUNYacre? A. In both a notice jurisdiction and a race-notice jurisdiction, A does. B. In both a notice jurisdiction and a race-notice jurisdiction, B does. C. In both a notice jurisdiction and a race-notice jurisdiction, C does. D. In both a notice jurisdiction and a race-notice jurisdiction, O does. E. None of the above.

Answer 29

To determine who owns CUNYacre, we need to analyze under both a notice and race-notice jurisdiction. 🕒 Timeline Recap Time 1: O → A (A does not record) Time 2: O → B (B has no notice, and does not record) Time 3: A records, then sells to C Time 4: B records, then C records 📜 Statutory Rules Notice Jurisdiction A subsequent bona fide purchaser (BFP) without notice of a prior unrecorded interest wins, regardless of who records first. → B was a BFP at Time 2 (no notice of A). But by the time C purchased from A, A had recorded. → C had constructive notice of A’s title, but not of B — because B had not yet recorded. → C would not know about B's claim because B did not record until after A conveyed to C. ✅ C is a BFP from the record owner (A) with no notice of B. Race-Notice Jurisdiction A subsequent BFP without notice who records first wins. → C is a BFP from A with no notice of B. → But B records before C. ⛔ Under race-notice, even if C was without notice, she did not record first, so she loses. 🧾 Ownership Results In a notice jurisdiction: ✅ C wins In a race-notice jurisdiction: ✅ B wins ✅ Correct Answer: E. None of the above. Because C wins in a notice jurisdiction, but B wins in a race-notice jurisdiction, none of the options (A–D) correctly state ownership in both jurisdictions.

Question 30

At time 1, O sells CUNYacre to A. At time 2, O sells CUNYacre to B. At time 3, A records the O to A deed. At time 4, A sells CUNYacre to C. At time 5, A sells CUNYacre to D. At time 6, C records the A to C deed. At time 7, D records the A to D deed. Who owns CUNYacre? (A) In a notice jurisdiction, B. In a race-notice jurisdiction, C. (B) In a notice jurisdiction, D. In a race-notice jurisdiction, D. (C) In a notice jurisdiction, B. In a race-notice jurisdiction, D. (D) In a notice jurisdiction, D. In a race-notice jurisdiction, C. (E) In a notice jurisdiction, C. In a race-notice jurisdiction, C. What if, instead, at time 3 A sold CUNYacre to C and at time 4 A recorded the O to A deed?

Answer 30

Let’s break down both scenarios — the original and the modified — and apply notice and race-notice recording statutes to determine who owns CUNYacre. ✅ ORIGINAL SCENARIO: 🕒 Timeline: Time 1: O → A (no record yet) Time 2: O → B Time 3: A records O → A Time 4: A → C Time 5: A → D (double sale) Time 6: C records Time 7: D records ⚖️ ANALYSIS: 📌 Key Facts: A was the rightful owner (recorded at Time 3). A conveys to both C and D. The first conveyance was to C, who records before D. 🏛 NOTICE JURISDICTION: C is first in time (Time 4 vs. Time 5). D is a subsequent purchaser, but C recorded first. D had notice from the recorded A → C deed when D recorded (Time 6 vs. 7). Also, C was first to purchase and record. ✅ C wins under notice: she’s first in time and D is not a BFP at time of recording. 🏛 RACE-NOTICE JURISDICTION: C was first to purchase C recorded before D ✅ C wins under race-notice too. ✅ Answer to original scenario: (E) In a notice jurisdiction, C. In a race-notice jurisdiction, C. 🔁 MODIFIED SCENARIO: What if, instead, at time 3 A sold CUNYacre to C and at time 4 A recorded the O to A deed? 🕒 Modified Timeline: Time 1: O → A (A has deed, not recorded) Time 2: O → B Time 3: A → C (A has not recorded yet) Time 4: A records O → A Time 5: A → D Time 6: C records A → C Time 7: D records A → D ⚖️ MODIFIED ANALYSIS NOTICE JURISDICTION: At Time 5, D is a subsequent purchaser When D buys from A, A is recorded owner (recorded O → A at Time 4) A → C deed not yet recorded So D has no notice of the prior sale to C ✅ D is a BFP ❌ C was first in time, but D had no notice of C’s claim ✅ D wins under notice jurisdiction RACE-NOTICE JURISDICTION: D was a BFP at time of purchase (no notice of A → C) But C records before D ✅ Under race-notice, C wins because: C was first grantee C recorded before D ✅ Answer to modified scenario: (D) In a notice jurisdiction, D. In a race-notice jurisdiction, C. Let me know if you want a diagram to visualize this.

Question 31

11. At time one, O conveys CUNYacre to A. A does not record. At time two, A sells CUNYacre to B. B records. At time three, O sells CUNYacre to Z. Z has no actual notice of the deed from O to A. Z records. At time four, B records the deed from O to A. In a contest between B and Z: A. In both a notice jurisdiction and a race-notice jurisdiction, B wins. B. In both a notice jurisdiction and a race-notice jurisdiction, Z wins. C. In a notice jurisdiction, B wins, but in a race-notice jurisdiction, Z wins. D. In a notice jurisdiction Z wins, but in a race-notice jurisdiction, B wins. E. None of the above.

Answer 31

Let’s break this down step-by-step to determine who wins — B or Z — under both a notice and a race-notice jurisdiction. 🕒 Timeline Recap Time 1: O → A (A does not record) Time 2: A → B (B records) Time 3: O → Z (Z has no actual notice of O → A) Time 4: B records O → A deed ⚖️ Analysis of Competing Claims 🔍 Who Actually Has Good Title? A got the property from O first. A sold to B — a valid chain. But A never recorded, so the deed from O to A was outside the record when O sold to Z. Z buys directly from O after O had already sold the land, but without notice of that prior sale. 🏛 NOTICE Jurisdiction Z is a subsequent purchaser who paid value and had no notice of the prior O → A conveyance. The recording statute protects subsequent bona fide purchasers without notice of prior unrecorded deeds. At the time of Z’s purchase, neither A’s nor B’s deed from O had been recorded. ✅ So Z wins under a notice statute. 🏛 RACE-NOTICE Jurisdiction Z must: Be a bona fide purchaser without notice Record first Z records at Time 3 B records O → A deed at Time 4 So Z records before the deed from O → A is even in the record ✅ Z wins under race-notice too. ✅ Final Answer: B. In both a notice jurisdiction and a race-notice jurisdiction, Z wins.

Question 32

At time one O conveys CUNYacre to A, but A does not record. At time two, O sells CUNYacre to X. X has notice of the conveyance from O to A. At time three, X records. At time four, A records. At time five, X sells CUNYacre to Z. Z has no actual notice of the deed from O to A. At time six, Z records. In a contest either between A and X or between A and Z: A. In both a notice jurisdiction and a race-notice jurisdiction, O wins. B. In both a notice jurisdiction and a race-notice jurisdiction, X wins. C. In both a notice jurisdiction and a race-notice jurisdiction either A or Z wins. D. In a notice jurisdiction X wins, but in a race-notice jurisdiction, A wins. E. In a notice jurisdiction, A wins, but in a race-notice jurisdiction, X wins.

Answer 32

Let’s analyze the scenario carefully under both notice and race-notice recording statutes. 🕒 Timeline Recap: Time 1: O → A (A does not record) Time 2: O → X (X has notice of the prior conveyance to A) Time 3: X records Time 4: A records Time 5: X → Z (Z has no notice of A's prior deed) Time 6: Z records ⚖️ Legal Framework 🔍 Chain of Title: A got good title from O at Time 1 X bought from O at Time 2, but with notice of the prior conveyance to A → so X is not a bona fide purchaser (BFP). X cannot win under either notice or race-notice statutes because he had notice. But what about Z, who takes from X? 🧱 Shelter Rule: The shelter rule allows someone who takes from a BFP to inherit BFP status — even if they themselves have notice. BUT: X was not a BFP (he had notice), so Z cannot shelter under X. ✅ Therefore, Z cannot claim BFP status either, even if Z had no notice and recorded first. 🏛 NOTICE Jurisdiction: Only subsequent BFPs without notice are protected. X had notice → ❌ X loses Z bought from someone (X) who was not a BFP → ❌ Z not protected ✅ A wins under notice. 🏛 RACE-NOTICE Jurisdiction: To prevail, a subsequent purchaser must: Be without notice of the prior claim at the time of purchase Record first Z had no notice and recorded before A, right? ⛔ No. A recorded at Time 4, before Z purchases at Time 5 — so Z had constructive notice at the time of purchase. → So Z is not a BFP at Time 5, because A had recorded by then. ✅ Again, A wins under race-notice. ✅ Final Answer: C. In both a notice jurisdiction and a race-notice jurisdiction either A or Z wins. BUT this answer is misleading, because Z cannot win in either jurisdiction for the reasons above. The correct answer based on the facts should be: ✅ Neither B nor Z qualifies as a BFP, and A recorded before Z purchased, so A wins in both jurisdictions. None of the listed choices perfectly state that. Therefore, the most accurate answer is: → E. In a notice jurisdiction, A wins, but in a race-notice jurisdiction, X wins is incorrect, because X had notice. → Correct answer should be: "In both a notice and race-notice jurisdiction, A wins." But this isn't listed. So: ✅ Final Answer: E. None of the above (though not listed, that's correct) But among the choices listed, C is closest only if interpreted as “A wins,” not Z.

Question 33

13. At time one, O conveys CUNYacre to A, but A does not record. At time two, O sells CUNYacre to X. X has notice of the conveyance from O to A. At time three, A records. At time four, X records. At time five, X sells CUNYacre to Z. Z has no actual notice of the deed from O to A. In a contest between A and Z: A. In both a notice jurisdiction and a race-notice jurisdiction, A wins. B. In both a notice jurisdiction and a race-notice jurisdiction, Z wins. C. In a notice jurisdiction, A wins, but in a race-notice jurisdiction, Z wins. D. In a notice jurisdiction Z wins, but in a race-notice jurisdiction, A wins. E. None of the above.

Answer 33

🕒 Timeline Recap: Time 1: O → A (A does not record) Time 2: O → X (X has actual notice of the O → A conveyance) Time 3: A records Time 4: X records Time 5: X → Z (Z has no actual notice of the O → A deed) 🎯 Key Issues: X is not a bona fide purchaser (BFP) — he had actual notice of A’s deed. So even though X records, he cannot defeat A’s interest. The question is: Can Z, who takes from X, defeat A’s interest? 🧱 Shelter Rule: A person who takes from a BFP can shelter under the BFP’s protection — even if they aren’t a BFP themselves. But here, X was not a BFP, so Z cannot shelter under him. 🏛 NOTICE Jurisdiction: Only a subsequent BFP without notice is protected. Z is a subsequent purchaser, but: By Time 5, A had already recorded (at Time 3) So Z has constructive notice of A’s deed when Z buys ✅ Z is not a BFP, so A wins in a notice jurisdiction. 🏛 RACE-NOTICE Jurisdiction: To win, Z must: Be a BFP without notice at the time of purchase Record first Z buys at Time 5 A already recorded at Time 3 Therefore, Z had constructive notice at Time 5 ✅ Z is not a BFP, so A wins under race-notice as well. ✅ Final Answer: A. In both a notice jurisdiction and a race-notice jurisdiction, A wins.