Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
18. If the buyer wins, it will be because
Last week, the daughter fled the jurisdiction. Upon learning the facts, the buyer brought an appropriate action against the boyfriend to quiet title to Blackacre.
The recording act of the jurisdiction provides: «No conveyance or mortgage of real property shall be good against subsequent purchasers for value and without notice unless the same be recorded according to law.»
One month ago, the daughter, for a valuable consideration, executed and delivered to a buyer an instrument in the proper form of a warranty deed purporting to convey Blackacre to the buyer, who promptly and properly recorded the deed. The daughter was then in possession of Blackacre and the buyer had no actual knowledge of the deed to the boyfriend. Immediately thereafter, the daughter gave possession to the buyer.
One year ago, the woman died and by will, duly admitted to probate, left her entire estate to the daughter.
A woman owned Blackacre, her home. Her daughter lived with her and always referred to Blackacre as «my property.» Two years ago, the daughter, for a valuable consideration, executed and delivered to her boyfriend an instrument in the proper form of a warranty deed purporting to convey Blackacre to the boyfriend in fee simple, reserving to herself an estate for two years in Blackacre. The boyfriend promptly and properly recorded the deed.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
D is correct. In this case, the buyer is a subsequent BFP because he paid for the property and recorded without notice of any earlier purchasers. The facts tell you that the buyer did not have actual notice. Further, the buyer did not have constructive notice because the daughter had possession of the land, which would lead him to believe that she was the rightful owner. Lastly, the buyer did not have record notice because the boyfriend's deed was not in the buyer's chain of title. The deed that passed from the daughter to her boyfriend occurred before the daughter had proper title. This recorded deed is not connected to the proper chain of title, which resided with the woman, then passed to her daughter (after her conveyance to her boyfriend), and then passed to the buyer. The buyer cannot be charged with record notice of the deed from the daughter to boyfriend because it does not relate to the chain of title originating from the woman. If a judgment is entered in favor of the buyer, it will be because he recorded without notice of earlier purchasers and is protected by the recording act.
A is incorrect. Under the doctrine of estoppel by deed, if a grantor purports to convey an estate in property that she does not then own, her subsequent acquisition of title to the property will automatically pass to the grantee. The grantor will be estopped from claiming that she did not convey title to the grantee. However, the grantee may only assert estoppel against the grantor. The doctrine does not protect the grantee from subsequent bona fide purchasers. However, if the original grantee properly records the deed, he may be safe depending on the subsequent purchaser's burden of searching title in that jurisdiction. If the grantee's recordation gave sufficient notice to the subsequent purchaser, so as to prevent him from becoming a bona fide purchaser, the original grantee may prevail. In this case, the boyfriend would have valid title because of estoppel by deed. Even though the daughter did not have title when she conveyed to her boyfriend, her later acquisition inures title in the boyfriend. The buyer though, still has the potential to take title from the boyfriend if the buyer is an innocent subsequent BFP. This jurisdiction is a notice jurisdiction. The boyfriend did record first, but his deed was outside of the buyer's chain of title. Therefore, the buyer would have no notice of the boyfriend's deed.
B is incorrect. In this problem, no factor would delay the boyfriend's deed from taking effect. Even if the court did find that estoppel by deed applied to give the boyfriend valid title, the buyer would still triumph as a subsequent BFP.
C is incorrect. Priority in possession generally does not affect who will win a suit to quiet title. Possession can sometimes be a factor when considering what type of notice a party had. However, this jurisdiction follows a notice statute. Notice, not possession, will be the determining element here.
Note, this is a tricky question. There are two chains of title in this question. One from the woman to the daughter (upon the woman's death) and then from the daughter to the buyer. The second chain of title began when the daughter conveyed to her boyfriend before she had title to Blackacre. That deed, though recorded, would not fall in the buyer's chain of title. The boyfriend's deed would not be connected to the owner's chain of title at all and would not come up during the buyer's search.