- Who has superior right to the house?
Answer: A, because B had inquiry notice of A's possessory claim and therefore was not a bona fide purchaser.
This question tests race-notice recording acts and the duty of inquiry created by possession. Under a race-notice statute, a later purchaser prevails over an earlier unrecorded interest only if she pays value, has no notice of the earlier interest, and records first. Here, A's deed was first but unrecorded, and A moved into the house openly. B saw A living there before buying. That visible possession is inquiry notice: a reasonable buyer must ask the occupant what rights she claims. Because B did not ask, he was not a bona fide purchaser, so he cannot use the recording act to defeat A's earlier deed. A wins.
The choice saying B wins because he recorded first and had no actual notice is wrong: lack of actual notice is not enough, and possession imposes inquiry notice. The choice saying A's unrecorded deed is void against any subsequent purchaser for value who records before A is also wrong: race-notice requires the subsequent purchaser to be without notice, not merely first to record. The choice saying O's later deed was void even if B had been without notice misses the point: recording acts can allow a bona fide later purchaser to prevail over an earlier unrecorded conveyance, so the prior grant does not automatically win.
Study tip: whenever anyone is in possession of the property, assume notice—buyers must investigate and ask the occupant.
- Who owns Lot 12?
Answer: A, because B gave no value, and a donee is not a purchaser protected by a recording act even if B recorded first.
When you see a recording act question, your first job is to determine whether the subsequent grantee is a bona fide purchaser (BFP). A BFP must give value, have no notice of prior deeds, and record first (in a race-notice jurisdiction). Here, B received a gift deed—no value was given. While B recorded first and had no notice, the recording act only protects purchasers for value, not donees. Therefore, B cannot claim BFP status, and A's earlier, unrecorded deed prevails. A owns Lot 12.
Why are the other choices wrong? The choice that says "B, because B recorded first and had no notice, so B is a BFP" is the classic trap—it checks notice and recording but forgets the value requirement. The choice that "recording a gift deed gives B the same priority as a purchaser for value" is also wrong—recording cannot retroactively turn a gift into a sale; it only perfects priority for those already qualifying. And the choice that "a gift deed is invalid unless acknowledged and recorded before the donor changes his mind" misstates the law—a gift deed is valid upon delivery; recording is only needed for priority against later purchasers, not for validity between the parties.
Study tip: Whenever the fact pattern says "gift" or "nominal consideration," you immediately know the grantee cannot be a BFP. Always test the three BFP elements—value, notice, recording—in that order. Missing value is an automatic disqualification, no matter how fast they record.
- Who has superior title to Blackacre?
Answer: Cara, because Beth's deed was outside the chain of title, so Cara took without notice and recorded before Alan did.
Whenever you see a recording-act question, identify the statute type and each taker's status. In a race-notice jurisdiction, a later purchaser wins only by paying value, lacking notice, and recording before the earlier interest is recorded. Cara did all three: she paid value, searched Olive's records, found no deed from Olive, and recorded before Alan finally recorded.
Why did Beth's earlier recorded deed not defeat Cara? Beth took from Alan, but Alan's deed from Olive was unrecorded when Beth recorded. A title search under Olive would never reveal Alan, so Beth's deed was a wild deed outside the chain of title. It gave Cara no constructive notice. Cara therefore took without notice and, by recording before Alan, became protected.
Beth's "first recorded deed prevails" argument misunderstands race-notice: mere priority in recording matters only for a bona fide purchaser without notice, and Beth's wild deed could not give notice. Alan's "later recording relates back" argument fails because the relation-back doctrine does not override a recording act that protects a later BFP who records first. And the claim that Olive had nothing left to convey is simply the common-law first-in-time rule—the recording act changes that result.
On exam day, trace the chain of title carefully. A deed recorded before its connecting link is a wild deed and gives no notice, no matter how early it appears in the record.
- Who has superior title to Lot 9?
Answer: B, because B took for value and without notice before A recorded, and a notice statute makes A's earlier unrecorded deed void as against B.
This question tests the recording acts, specifically how a notice statute protects a later purchaser. Whenever you see a deed priority problem, first identify the type of recording statute, then ask whether the later purchaser gave value and had notice.
Here, B wins because B was a bona fide purchaser: B paid fair value and had no notice of A's earlier deed at the time of the purchase. Under a notice statute, a later purchaser who takes without notice is protected against any prior unrecorded interest, even if that prior interest was recorded later. B's own recording, though after A's, does not hurt B—the statute protects B based on B's good faith at the moment of purchase, not on who recorded first.
The choice saying "A, because A recorded first and, under a notice statute, priority is determined by the order of recording" is wrong because that describes a race or race-notice act, not a pure notice statute. The choice saying "A, because B failed to record before A, and a subsequent purchaser must record first to be protected under any recording act" is also wrong: no such first-recording requirement exists under a notice statute, and A's unrecorded deed is void against B. Finally, the choice saying "B, because B's recording relates back to the date of B's deed and therefore precedes A's recording" reaches the right winner but for the wrong reason; B prevails because of lack of notice and payment of value, not a relation-back doctrine.
Your takeaway: under a notice statute, stop when you see "for value" and "no notice"—that later purchaser is protected, regardless of who recorded first.
- Who owns Blackacre?
Answer: A, because A's open possession charged B with inquiry notice, so B was not a purchaser without notice.
Whenever you see a recording act question, first identify the type of act. Under a race-notice statute, a subsequent purchaser wins only if they take without notice AND record first. Here, the critical issue is whether B took without notice. A's open and notorious possession of the house is a classic trigger for inquiry notice. The law charges B with inquiry notice because a reasonable purchaser would have investigated the property. Since B never visited, he is deemed to have notice of what a reasonable inspection would have revealed — namely, A's occupancy. Because B had notice, he cannot be a bona fide purchaser, so A prevails despite not recording.
Now consider the wrong answers. The choice stating "B, because B paid value and recorded first, and A's deed was unrecorded" is wrong because it ignores the notice prong; recording first is insufficient if you have notice. Similarly, the choice claiming "recording first is the only requirement for priority under a race-notice statute" describes a pure race statute, not a race-notice one. Finally, the choice saying "B's failure to visit Blackacre means B cannot be charged with notice of what a visit would have revealed" is backwards — that failure to visit is exactly what triggers inquiry notice. For study, remember: open possession = inquiry notice. Always check for possession before analyzing recording priority.
- Who holds title to Blackacre?
Answer: Carol, because Beth's recorded deed was outside the chain of title and Carol was a subsequent purchaser for value without notice who recorded in the chain.
Recording acts are tested through the chain of title. The key: a recorded deed gives constructive notice only if a title search in the grantor-grantee index can find it. Albert never recorded his deed from Owens, so when Albert conveyed to Beth and she recorded, Beth's deed was a wild deed: a searcher looking under Owens as grantor would not find Owens-to-Albert, so would never reach Albert-to-Beth. Under race-notice, Carol is a subsequent purchaser for value without notice: she paid fair value, had no actual knowledge, and her own deed from Owens was on the direct chain. She recorded, so she wins.
Beth's "first to record" claim fails because she recorded outside the chain; it gave Carol no constructive notice. Albert's first-in-time deed fails because an unrecorded deed, though valid between the original parties, is not protected against a later bona fide purchaser under a recording act. Owens does not retain title: he had already conveyed the property, and Carol's protection comes from the recording act, not from Owens still holding title. Also, Albert's unrecorded deed was not void generally; it was valid between Owens and Albert but lost to Carol as a later BFP.
Study tip: whenever a deed is recorded before its grantor's deed is recorded, it is a wild deed. Focus on discoverability, not just chronological recording order.
- Is B bound by Tenant's lease?
Answer: Yes, because B is charged with notice of the contents of the recorded deed in his chain of title, including the reference to Tenant's lease.
When you see a recording act question, your first move is to ask whether the later purchaser is without notice — actual, inquiry, or record notice. Even under a race-notice statute, a purchaser who records first is protected only if they took without notice. Here, B is not without notice. O's recorded deed to A expressly stated that the conveyance was "subject to an unrecorded five-year lease in favor of Tenant." Because that deed is in B's chain of title, B is charged with constructive notice of its contents. So B cannot claim bona fide purchaser status, and Tenant's valid lease binds B.
The choice saying "No, because an unrecorded lease is void against a subsequent purchaser for value without notice who records first" fails because B had record notice despite the lease itself being unrecorded. The choice saying "No, because the lease was not recorded and B's deed did not mention it" similarly ignores that the prior recorded deed supplied notice; B's own deed need not repeat it. The choice saying "Yes, but only if Tenant was in possession" confuses one form of inquiry notice with the dispositive record notice already present; possession would be enough, but it is not required.
Study tip: on bar exam property questions, do not stop at "recorded vs. unrecorded." Always scan the chain of title for references to prior interests — a recorded document that mentions an unrecorded interest gives constructive notice of that interest.
- Owen owned Blackacre. On January 3, Owen conveyed Blackacre to Amy by a valid deed; Amy did not record it. On January 10, Amy conveyed Blackacre to Ben by a valid deed; Ben did not record it, and neither Amy nor Ben occupied Blackacre. On February 1, Owen—still the record owner—purported to convey Blackacre to Cara for fair value. Cara had no knowledge of either prior transfer, and neither prior deed had been recorded. Cara recorded her deed on February 2. On February 10, Ben recorded his deed from Amy. On March 1, Cara conveyed Blackacre to Dan for fair value by warranty deed. Dan had actual knowledge of Ben's claimed interest before the sale and recorded on March 2. The jurisdiction has a race-notice recording act. Who owns Blackacre?
Answer: Dan, because Cara was a bona fide purchaser who took free of Ben's claim, and Dan, as Cara's transferee, is protected by the shelter rule despite his actual notice.
Whenever you see a recording act problem, first identify the statute type and then track who is a bona fide purchaser (BFP). Under a race-notice act, a later purchaser is protected only if she takes without notice and records first. Here, Amy's unrecorded deed to Ben did not give Owen's later purchaser, Cara, notice. Cara paid value, had no knowledge of the prior transfers, and recorded her deed on February 2. Therefore Cara was a BFP and took Blackacre free of Ben's unrecorded interest. When Cara conveyed to Dan by warranty deed, Dan inherited Cara's priority through the shelter rule: a transferee of a BFP steps into the BFP's shoes, so Dan is protected even though he had actual notice of Ben's claim and recorded later.
The first wrong choice, "Dan had actual notice… therefore Dan cannot qualify as a BFP," misunderstands the shelter rule—Dan does not need his own BFP status. The second, "Ben recorded before Dan and Dan took with notice, so race-notice gives priority to Ben," misapplies the race-notice statute: Ben's later recording cannot defeat Cara's already-perfected BFP status, and Dan takes that status. The third, "shelter rule does not protect a transferee who takes with actual notice after the earlier deed has been recorded," is backwards—the shelter rule protects transferees with notice precisely when their transferor was a BFP. Remember: a BFP can "launder" title, and recording timing only matters once someone with actual or constructive notice tries to claim priority.
- Who has priority as to the property?
Answer: Bank, because a mortgagee that lends without notice and records first is a bona fide purchaser for value to the extent of the loan.
Whenever you see a recording-act question, the first move is to identify who is a bona fide purchaser and who recorded first. Under a race-notice statute, a later purchaser who gives value, takes without notice, and records before the earlier claimant wins. Here, Bank qualifies: it lent $200,000, had no notice of A's deed, and recorded before A. A mortgagee is treated as a purchaser for value under recording acts to the extent of the loan, not as a mere lien creditor. Because Bank recorded first, its mortgage has priority over A's earlier unrecorded deed.
Why not A? A's deed was indeed delivered first, but an unrecorded deed is void against a later bona fide purchaser without notice. O had apparent title, so O could validly mortgage the property to Bank. Why not the lien-creditor argument? That confuses recording acts with judgment-lien rules; a mortgagee lending in good faith and recording first is a classic BFP. Why not the after-acquired-title theory? Recording A's deed does not cause O to reacquire title; title stayed with A, but Bank's prior recording gives it priority over A. So the rule is simple: in a race-notice jurisdiction, record first and you win—provided you gave value and lacked notice. On the exam, when you see an unrecorded deed followed by a mortgage, check notice, value, and recording order.
- Who prevails between B and C?
Answer: C, because B's deed from A was a wild deed outside the chain of title, so C had no constructive notice and C's deed from O was the first recorded conveyance from O.
Whenever you see a recording act problem, first identify the statute type and then trace the chain of title. Here, the race-notice statute protects a subsequent purchaser who records first and takes without notice. The critical twist is that B's deed from A is a "wild deed"—because A never recorded the deed from O, B's recorded deed is outside the chain of title. When C searches the records, the only conveyance from O appears to be the one to C, so C has no constructive notice of A or B. C pays fair value and records first from O. Therefore, C prevails because C is the first recorded bona fide purchaser without notice.
The choice claiming "B, because B recorded before C" fails because a race-notice statute requires both recording first and lack of notice—and B's recording is ineffective because it is a wild deed that does not give notice to anyone searching the chain of title. The choice arguing "O had already conveyed to A so O had no title" misunderstands the recording act: while O's deed to A was valid, the recording act can vest title in a later bona fide purchaser like C when the prior deed is unrecorded and undiscoverable. The choice stating "recording priority is based solely on time" describes a pure race statute, not race-notice, which also requires lack of notice.
Study tip: On bar questions, always ask "Is the deed in the chain of title?" A wild deed does not provide constructive notice, even if it is recorded first.
- Who prevails?
Answer: B, because B recorded first and a pure race statute awards priority to the first recorded deed regardless of notice.
When you see a recording act question, first classify the statute: notice, race-notice, or pure race. A pure race statute makes priority depend solely on who records first; good faith and notice are irrelevant. Here O conveyed to A first, but A did not record. O then conveyed to B, and B recorded before A did. Under pure race, B prevails. The fact that B knew about A's earlier deed is a red herring: in a pure race jurisdiction, even a purchaser with actual notice can win by being first to record. So the answer stating that "B recorded first and a pure race statute awards priority to the first recorded deed regardless of notice" is correct.
The answer saying B's actual notice prevents B from being a bona fide purchaser misapplies that concept; notice matters only under notice or race-notice statutes, not pure race. The answer saying "a deed delivered first takes priority regardless of recording" states the common-law rule between earlier and later grantees, but recording acts override that for subsequent purchasers. The answer saying B had no notice at the time of recording is both factually wrong—he did know before purchasing—and legally irrelevant under this statute.
Your takeaway: in a pure race jurisdiction, ignore notice entirely and ask only one question—who recorded first? B did, so B wins.
- Who has priority between A and Bank?
Answer: Bank, because a mortgagee is a purchaser for value under the recording act, and Bank took without notice and recorded first.
Whenever you see a recording-act question, start by classifying each claimant under the statute. A race-notice statute protects any subsequent bona fide purchaser who records first and takes without notice. The key question here is whether a mortgagee counts as a "purchaser" — and it does. A mortgage is a conveyance of an interest in land, and a mortgagee who lends in good faith and records is protected by the recording act.
Here, O gave A a deed first, but A never recorded. O then granted Bank a mortgage, and Bank had no notice of A's deed. Bank recorded its mortgage before A ever recorded. Because Bank qualifies as a purchaser for value — it gave $200,000 in exchange for the mortgage — and took without notice and recorded first, Bank wins under the race-notice statute.
Now the traps. The choice saying "a mortgage is not a conveyance" misunderstands property law; mortgages create protected interests and are recordable. The choice asserting "first in time has priority" ignores that recording acts displace pure first-in-time rules once a protected later purchaser records. And the choice saying Bank would win only if it obtained a deed is wrong because mortgagees are expressly protected as purchasers for value. Finally, the choice favoring A because A's deed was delivered earlier fails for the same reason: delivery matters, but recording and notice status determine priority here.
Study tip: on recording-act questions, memorize the race-notice formula — subsequent purchaser + value + no notice + first to record = winner.
