(1) S conveys to B, who does not record.
S conveys to C.
C records.
B records.
(Answer for first-in-time, race, notice, and race-notice jurisdiction)
The dispute is between B and C.
(a) First-in-time: B owns Greenacre because she is first-in-time.
(b) Race jurisdiction: C owns Greenacre because he was the first to record.
(c) Notice jurisdiction: C owns Greenacre because he was a subsequent purchaser f
(2) S conveys to B, who does not record.
S conveys to C as a gift.
C records.
B records.
(Answer for first-in-time, race, notice, and race-notice jurisdiction)
The dispute is between B and C.
(a) First-in-time: B owns Greenacre because she is first-in-time.
(b) Race jurisdiction: In general, the first purchaser "for a valuable consideration" to record the conveyance wins; B owns Greenacre because C was not a pur
(3) S conveys to B, who does not record.
S conveys to C, who does not record.
S conveys to D, who does not record.
C records.
(Answer for first-in-time, race, notice, and race-notice jurisdiction)
B, C, and D all claim the property.
(a) First-in-time: B owns Greenacre because she is first-in-time.
(b) Race jurisdiction: C owns Greenacre because he was the first to record.
(c) Notice jurisdiction: D owns Greenacre because he was a subsequent purchas
(4) S conveys to B, who does not record.
S conveys to C, who does not record.
C conveys to D, who knows about the S-B deed.
C records.
B records.
D records.
(Answer for first-in-time, race, notice, and race-notice jurisdiction)
The dispute is between B and D.
(a) First-in-time: B owns Greenacre because she is first-in-time.
(b) Race jurisdiction: D owns Greenacre because of the shelter rule. Since C recorded first (before B), C gained priority over B. The shelter rule allows C t
(1) S conveys to B, who does not record.
S conveys to C, who knows about the S-B deed.
B records.
C records.
C conveys to D.
D records.
(Answer for notice and race-notice jurisdiction)
The dispute is between B and D.
(a) Notice statute: B owns Greenacre because she is first-in-time. D is not a subsequent bona fide purchaser because B recorded her deed, giving D record notice. And D would not gain protection under the shelter rule becaus
(2) S conveys to B, who does not record.
S conveys to C, who knows about the S-B deed.
C records.
B records.
C conveys to D.
D records.
(Answer for notice and race-notice jurisdiction)
The dispute is between B and D.
(a) Notice statute: D owns Greenacre in many jurisdictions When a title searcher searches the grantor-grantee index forward to the present, he will stop searching under S's name when he sees the recordation of the S-C deed.
(3) S conveys to B, who does not record.
B conveys to C.
C records.
S conveys to D.
D records.
B records.
(Answer for notice and race-notice jurisdiction)
The dispute is between C and D.
(a) Notice statute: D owns Greenacre. Because the S-B deed was not recorded, there is no way for a title searcher to discover the B-C deed. It is a wild deed. When the searcher searches forward under S's name, she would not
(4) S conveys to B, who does not record.
S conveys to C, who does not record.
B records.
C records.
(Answer for notice and race-notice jurisdiction)
The dispute is between B and C.
(a) Notice statute: C owns Greenacre. C gets priority as a subsequent bona fide purchaser when C's deed is delivered, because C had no notice of the prior deed to B.
(b) Race-notice statute: B owns Greenacre. Because C did
(5) S conveys to B, who does not record.
S conveys to C.
C records.
B records.
C conveys to D, who knows about the S-B deed.
D records.
(Answer for notice and race-notice jurisdiction)
The dispute is between B and D.
(a) Notice statute: D owns Greenacre by virtue of the shelter rule. C had no notice of the S-B deed when she obtained her interest, so she is a subsequent bona fide purchaser. Even though D knew about the S-B deed, C's prio
What is the concept of a title covenant?
The grantor promises in the deed that she has good title to convey.
These turn on the type of deed received and the scope of promises made in the deed
Title Covenants (Common Law)
(1) The promises made by the parties ended at the contract unless they were restated in the deed.
(2) Doctrine of merger
Doctrine of Merger
Once the grantee accepted the deed all prior promises were extinguished; the contract merged into the deed
Types of Deeds (3) recognized by Modern Law
General Warranty
Special Warranty
Quitclaim Deed
Of the types of Deeds recognized by Modern Law, which deed(s) provide(s) the most protection? which deed(s) is/are supplemented with covenants?
General - because before and after coverage
General and Special
General Warranty Deed
The grantor warrants title against all defects, whether they arose before or after he obtained title
Special Warranty Deed
The grantor warrants title against all defects that arose after he obtained title
Quitclaim Deed
The grantor makes no warranties about title, so the grantee receives only what grantor has, if anything.
Standard Covenants (6)
Covenant of sesin
Covenant of right to convey
Covenant against encumbrances
Covenant of warranty
Covenant of quiet enjoyment
Covenant of further assurances
Covenant of sesin
A promise that the grantor owns the estate he purports to convey
Covenant of right to convey
A promise that the grantor has the right to convey title
Covenant against encumbrances
A promise that there are no encumbrances on the title other than those expressly listed on the deed
Present Covenants (3)
Covenant of sesin
Covenant of right to convey
Covenant against encumbrances
If breached, it is at moment deed is delivered.
Together, the present covenants provide much of the same assurance as
The implied covenant of marketable title
What is the difference between implied covenant of marketable title and title covenants?
The implied covenant of marketable title applies to defects BEFORE closing.
Title covenants applies to defects discovered AFTER the closing.
When do title covenants apply?
to defects discovered AFTER the closing.
Future Covenants
Covenant of warranty
Covenant of quiet enjoyment
Covenant of further assurances
Breached when grantee is actually or constructively evicted by 3rd party holding superior title
Covenant of warranty
A promise that the grantor will defend the grantee against any claim of superior title
Covenant of quiet enjoyment
A promise that the grantee's possession of the property will not be disturbed by anyone holding superior title
Covenant of further assurances
A promise that grantor will take all future steps reasonably necessary to cure title defects that existed at closing.
Brown v Lober - Topic
Breach of Present and Future Covenants
Constructive Eviction in Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment.
Brown v Lober - Issue/Holding
Whether the claim for breach of the covenant of seisin was barred by the statute of limitations
Whether the plaintiffs had a viable claim for breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment.
Covenant was broken. But barred by statute.
No they didn't, no constru
Brown v Lober - Rationale (Covenant of Seisin)
Was the covenant of seisin breached at that time? Yes. The Bosts used a general warranty deed to convey title to the Browns. They purported to convey fee simple absolute in the 80-acre parcel, but in fact they did not own two-thirds of the mineral rights.
Brown v Lober - Rationale (Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment)
The court cited Scott and Moore for the rule that "the mere existence of paramount title does not constitute a breach of the covenant....There has been no assertion of the adverse title....Appellant could at any time have taken peaceable possession of it.
Brown v Lober - Key take aways
The existence of superior title is not enough to constitute constructive eviction.
Breach of present covenants happens at delivery
Breach of future covenants happens when a person is constructively evicted.
What constitutes a breach of quiet enjoyment?
The INTERFERENCE with the grantee's enjoyment.
The mere existence of someone else's better title or pressure is not enough.
Is a forced modification of a contract enough for a constructive eviction?
The court noted that constructive eviction requires more than a contract modification based upon the discovery of paramount title in another.
In Brown v Lober, isn't having superior title to the mineral estate the equivalent of possession?
The court reasoned that because no one had undertaken to remove the coal (interference) or otherwise manifest a clear intent to exclusively possess the mineral estate, the subsurface estate was "vacant.
The purposes (2) of the recording system
It protects existing owners from losing their property to later purchasers.
It protects new buyers.
How do you search title?
In order to determine the state of title, the searcher must do the following:
(1) Locate the recorded documents
(2) Evaluate the significance of the recorded documents
What types of indexes (2) are there?
Grantor/Grantee Index
Tract Index
Grantor/Grantee Index
Every document is indexed in two places: the grantee index and grantor index
The searcher examines all entrees in the grantor index under each grantor's name from
The date he received his interest until
The date the deed conveying his interest to a grantee was recorded.
Tract Index
Each parcel of land is assigned a unique identifier.
Recorded Documents that Provide Notice (4) Requirements
It meets the formal requirements for recording
It contain no technical defects
It is recorded in the "chain of title"
It is property indexed
Recorded Documents that do not Provide Notice
Invalid Acknowledgment
Incorrect Name
Incorrect Property Description
Incorrect Property Description
A deed or other document that contain a materially defective property description does not give notice.
Luthi v Evans - Topic
...
Luthi v Evans - Issue/Holding
Whether the "mother hubbard" clause in the conveyance to Tours provided sufficient notice to Burris.
Supreme Court held in favor of Burris, because the deed was not sufficiently clear enough to give him constructive notice.
Luthi v Evans - Rationale
Owens' assignment to Tours:
Both parties agreed that the language used in Owens' assignment to Tours was sufficient to affect a valid transfer of the Kufahl lease.
As the court observed, the assignment "constituted a valid transfer of the Owens interest i
Luthi v Evans - Topic
Mother Hubbard Clause
BFP due to inaccurate property description
Luthi v Evans - Key Takeaways
The vagueness/"catch-all" wording in the conveyance that granted interest was not enough property description to constructively notice a buyer in the index.
The description must be accurate so that a title searcher could both find the recorded document an