Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Recording Acts

20 questions · exam conditions

0:00

Recording ActsQuestion 1 of 20

A property owner conveyed a parcel of land to his friend. The friend did not record the deed. The friend then sold and conveyed the parcel to an investor, who promptly recorded the deed from the friend. A year later, the original property owner, seeing that no deed from him was on record except to prior owners, sold and conveyed the same parcel to a buyer. The buyer, having conducted a title search and finding no conveyances from the original owner to the friend or investor, paid fair value and promptly recorded her deed.

The jurisdiction has a race-notice recording statute. In a quiet title action, who will prevail? Select one.

The investor, because his deed was recorded before the buyer purchased the property.

The buyer, because the deed to the investor was a 'wild deed' outside the chain of title.

The investor, because the original conveyance to the friend was valid even though unrecorded.

The buyer, because she was the last to record, which corrected the title defect.

← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Recording Acts

Practice Recording Acts in Bar Exam (Uniform) with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Recording Acts, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Bar Exam (Uniform).

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

The jurisdiction has a race-notice recording statute. In a quiet title action, who will prevail? Select one.

The investor, because his deed was recorded before the buyer purchased the property.
The buyer, because the deed to the investor was a 'wild deed' outside the chain of title. (correct answer)
The investor, because the original conveyance to the friend was valid even though unrecorded.
The buyer, because she was the last to record, which corrected the title defect.

Explanation: This question tests your understanding of recording statutes and chain of title concepts, which are fundamental to property law. When you see a recording statute problem, always trace the sequence of transfers and determine what each subsequent purchaser could discover through a reasonable title search. Under a race-notice statute, a subsequent purchaser prevails if they record first AND lack notice of prior unrecorded interests. The key here is the "wild deed" concept. When the friend never recorded his deed from the original owner, the friend had no recorded title to convey. This made the investor's recorded deed a "wild deed" - a deed that appears in the records but isn't connected to the chain of title because the grantor has no recorded interest in the property. The buyer prevails because when she conducted her title search, she found no recorded conveyance from the original owner to anyone except prior owners. The investor's deed, while recorded, was essentially invisible to her search because it came from someone (the friend) who had no recorded title. This means the buyer had no constructive notice of the investor's interest and paid fair value, satisfying the race-notice requirements. Answer A is wrong because simply recording first isn't enough - the deed must be discoverable in the chain of title. Answer C fails because while the original conveyance was valid between the parties, the recording statute protects subsequent bona fide purchasers. Answer D misunderstands how recording works - there's no "correction" mechanism simply by recording last. Remember: A recorded deed only provides constructive notice if it's discoverable through a reasonable title search within the proper chain of title.

Question 2

An elderly woman conveyed her home to her daughter by a valid, but unrecorded, deed. A year later, the woman died, and her will devised all of her property, including the home, to her son. The son was unaware of the prior conveyance to his sister. The son recorded a certified copy of the will in the county land records. The son then sold the home to a purchaser for fair market value. The purchaser had no notice of the deed to the daughter and promptly recorded his deed from the son.

In a notice jurisdiction, who has superior title to the home? Select one.

The daughter, because the son, as a devisee, was not a purchaser for value protected by the recording act. (correct answer)
The daughter, because her interest was first in time and the will could not devise property the woman no longer owned.
The purchaser, because he was a bona fide purchaser for value who took from the record title holder.
The purchaser, but only if the son had no actual or inquiry notice of the daughter's interest.

Explanation: Recording acts protect subsequent purchasers for value, not heirs or devisees. The son inherited whatever interest his mother had at death. Because the mother had already conveyed the property to the daughter, she had no interest to devise to the son. The son was not a purchaser for value and therefore was not protected by the notice statute against the daughter's unrecorded deed. Since the son had no interest to convey, the subsequent purchaser could not acquire title from him. The daughter's prior unrecorded interest prevails.

Question 3

On January 1, having no title to Blackacre, a man purported to convey it by warranty deed to a developer. The developer recorded the deed on January 2. On February 1, the original owner of Blackacre conveyed it to the man. The man recorded this deed on February 2. On March 1, the man conveyed Blackacre to an investor for value. The investor, who had no actual knowledge of the deed to the developer, recorded her deed on March 2.

In a race-notice jurisdiction, who has superior title to Blackacre? Select one.

The developer, under the doctrine of estoppel by deed.
The investor, because the deed to the developer was recorded outside her chain of title. (correct answer)
The developer, because his deed was recorded first chronologically.
The investor, because the man's warranty deed to the developer was invalid when made.

Explanation: This question tests your understanding of recording acts and chain of title concepts, which are crucial in real property law. When you see a complex recording scenario with multiple deeds, focus on the type of recording jurisdiction and whether each grantee can claim protection under it. In a race-notice jurisdiction, a subsequent purchaser for value wins if they record first AND had no notice (actual, inquiry, or record notice) of the prior conveyance. The key issue here is record notice through the chain of title. The developer's deed from January 1 was recorded outside the chain of title because the man had no title when he conveyed it. A proper title search would examine the man's chain of title starting from when he actually acquired title (February 1), not from his invalid earlier conveyance. Since the developer's deed appears in the records before the man even owned the property, it's not in the investor's chain of title and wouldn't provide record notice. The investor, having no actual knowledge, qualifies for race-notice protection and wins because her deed was the first validly recorded deed in the proper chain of title. Answer choice (A) is incorrect because while estoppel by deed might help the developer against the man personally, it doesn't overcome the recording act issues. Answer choice (C) fails because mere chronological recording doesn't matter if the deed is outside the chain of title. Answer choice (D) misses the point—the deed's initial invalidity doesn't prevent it from becoming effective once the man acquired title through estoppel by deed. Remember: recording outside the chain of title provides no constructive notice to subsequent purchasers conducting proper title searches.

Question 4

A con artist, who had no ownership interest in a parcel of land, forged the true owner's signature on a deed conveying the parcel to himself. The con artist then recorded this forged deed. Shortly thereafter, the con artist sold and conveyed the property to a buyer for fair market value. The buyer conducted a title search, which showed the (forged) deed to the con artist, and had no reason to suspect any wrongdoing. The buyer promptly recorded her deed.

In a quiet title action between the true owner and the buyer, who will prevail? Select one.

The buyer, because she is a bona fide purchaser for value who properly relied on the land records.
The buyer, because the true owner is estopped from denying title after a forged deed has been recorded.
The true owner, because a forged deed is void and conveys no title. (correct answer)
The true owner, but only if the jurisdiction has a notice or race-notice statute.

Explanation: A forged deed is completely void and transfers no interest to the grantee. Because the con artist never acquired any title, he had nothing to convey to the subsequent buyer. The recording acts do not protect a subsequent purchaser who takes title through a forged instrument, as such an instrument is a nullity. Therefore, the true owner still holds valid title to the property, and the buyer has no interest, despite her BFP status.

Question 5

A developer owned a large tract of land, which he subdivided into 20 lots. He sold Lot 1 to a buyer, and the recorded deed included a covenant stating that all lots in the subdivision were restricted to single-family residential use. The developer then sold Lot 15 to a construction company. The deed for Lot 15 contained no mention of the restriction. The construction company, after a title search on Lot 15 revealed no restrictions, began building a small commercial office building.

The owner of Lot 1 sued to enjoin the construction. In a jurisdiction that recognizes implied reciprocal negative servitudes and imputes constructive notice from prior deeds out of a common grantor, what is the likely outcome? Select one.

The injunction will be denied, because the restriction was not in the construction company's direct chain of title for Lot 15.
The injunction will be denied, because the construction company paid value without actual notice of the restriction.
The injunction will be granted, but only if the developer had publicly advertised the subdivision as exclusively residential.
The injunction will be granted, because the restriction in the deed for Lot 1 provided constructive notice to all subsequent buyers in the subdivision. (correct answer)

Explanation: When you encounter real covenants and equitable servitudes, focus on notice requirements and how restrictions can bind subsequent purchasers who weren't direct parties to the original agreement. This jurisdiction recognizes implied reciprocal negative servitudes and imputes constructive notice from prior deeds out of a common grantor. This means when a developer sells lots with restrictions, those restrictions create a common scheme that applies to all lots in the subdivision, even if later deeds don't explicitly mention the restrictions. The key is that buyers have constructive notice of restrictions found in any deed from their common grantor, regardless of whether those restrictions appear in their direct chain of title. Since the developer's deed to Lot 1 contained the residential-use restriction, and both Lot 1 and Lot 15 came from the same grantor (the developer), the construction company is deemed to have constructive notice of this restriction. The injunction will be granted because the restriction is enforceable against Lot 15. Answer A is wrong because constructive notice doesn't require the restriction to be in the direct chain of title—it extends to all deeds from the common grantor. Answer B fails because constructive notice defeats the bona fide purchaser defense, even without actual notice. Answer C is incorrect because public advertising isn't required when the jurisdiction recognizes implied reciprocal servitudes with constructive notice from recorded deeds. Remember: In jurisdictions with this doctrine, always check all recorded deeds from the common grantor, not just the direct chain of title, when analyzing whether covenants bind subsequent purchasers.

Question 6

Your client purchased a tract of land from a seller via a quitclaim deed for fair market value. The seller had previously conveyed the same land to another party, but that party never recorded their deed. Your client had no actual knowledge of this prior conveyance. After your client recorded her quitclaim deed, the prior grantee recorded his deed and filed a quiet title action.

The jurisdiction has a notice recording statute. What is your client's strongest argument for having superior title? Select one.

The prior grantee's failure to record makes his conveyance void as to all subsequent purchasers.
A quitclaim deed transfers all of the seller's rights, which, on the record, appeared to be full ownership.
The prior grantee is estopped from asserting title because his failure to record induced your client to purchase the land.
The client qualifies as a bona fide purchaser because receipt of a quitclaim deed does not, by itself, create inquiry notice. (correct answer)

Explanation: This question tests your understanding of recording statutes and the bona fide purchaser doctrine. When you see competing claims to real property, focus on the type of recording statute and whether each party qualifies for protection under it. Under a notice recording statute, a subsequent purchaser prevails if they take without notice of the prior conveyance. The key insight is that receiving a quitclaim deed alone doesn't automatically put you on inquiry notice of competing claims. While quitclaim deeds transfer only whatever interest the grantor actually has (unlike warranty deeds that include covenants), courts recognize that quitclaim deeds are commonly used for legitimate reasons—family transfers, clearing title defects, or avoiding warranty liability. Therefore, your client can still qualify as a bona fide purchaser despite receiving a quitclaim deed, making option D correct. Option A is wrong because the prior grantee's failure to record doesn't void the conveyance—it remains valid between the original parties. Option B mischaracterizes quitclaim deeds, which transfer only the grantor's actual interest, not necessarily full ownership as the record might suggest. Option C incorrectly applies estoppel theory; the prior grantee had no duty to record for your client's benefit and didn't induce the purchase. Remember this distinction: the type of deed received (quitclaim vs. warranty) doesn't automatically determine bona fide purchaser status. Focus instead on whether the purchaser had actual, record, or inquiry notice of competing claims. Quitclaim deeds may create inquiry notice in suspicious circumstances, but not in every case.

Question 7

A landowner conveyed a parcel of land to a charity as a donation. The charity did not record. The landowner then died, and his only heir inherited the property by intestate succession. The heir, unaware of the donation, sold the land to a developer for fair market value. The developer conducted a title search, found nothing amiss, and promptly recorded the deed from the heir. The charity then learned of the sale and recorded its deed.

In a race-notice jurisdiction, who has superior title? Select one.

The charity, because the heir inherited nothing and thus could convey nothing. (correct answer)
The charity, because it was the first grantee in time, and the heir was not a purchaser.
The developer, because it was a bona fide purchaser for value who recorded first.
The developer, but only because the charity's interest was a donation and not a purchase.

Explanation: This question is similar to a devisee case. An heir, like a devisee, is not a purchaser for value and is not protected by the recording acts. The heir takes only what the decedent owned at death. Because the landowner had already conveyed the property to the charity, he owned nothing at death for the heir to inherit. Therefore, the heir had no title to convey to the developer. The developer, despite being a BFP, cannot obtain title from a grantor who has no title. The charity's prior unrecorded interest is superior.

Question 8

An owner of a tract of land conveyed it to a developer on January 1. The developer did not record the deed. On February 1, the owner conveyed the same tract to an investor for value. The investor had no knowledge of the prior conveyance to the developer. On March 1, the developer recorded his deed. On April 1, the investor recorded her deed.

The jurisdiction has a race-notice recording statute. Who has superior title to the tract of land? Select one.

The developer, because he was the first to record his deed. (correct answer)
The developer, because his conveyance was first in time.
The investor, because she was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice.
The investor, because she was a bona fide purchaser who paid value, even though she recorded second.

Explanation: Under a race-notice statute, a subsequent purchaser for value without notice prevails only if they also record first. Here, the investor was a bona fide purchaser for value. However, the developer recorded his deed on March 1, before the investor recorded her deed on April 1. Because the investor did not win the 'race' to the recorder's office, she does not have priority. Therefore, the developer, who recorded first, has superior title.

Question 9

A woman owned a vacant lot. On February 1, she sold it to her brother for $50,000. The brother did not record the deed. On March 1, the woman used the same lot as collateral to obtain a $75,000 loan from a bank, executing a mortgage in the bank's favor. The bank's title search revealed no prior conveyances, and it had no knowledge of the sale to the brother. The bank recorded its mortgage on March 2. On April 1, the brother recorded his deed.

The jurisdiction has a notice recording statute. As between the brother and the bank, whose interest has priority? Select one.

The brother's, because a deed of sale has priority over a subsequent mortgage.
The brother's, because his interest was created first in time.
The bank's, but only to the extent of the loan amount that has been disbursed to the woman.
The bank's, because a mortgagee for value is a protected purchaser under the recording act. (correct answer)

Explanation: When you encounter competing property interests with different recording dates, you need to analyze how recording statutes protect subsequent purchasers. Notice recording statutes protect later purchasers who take without notice of prior unrecorded interests and record first. The bank qualifies for protection under the notice recording statute. When the bank conducted its title search on March 1, the brother's February 1 deed was unrecorded, so the bank had no constructive notice of his interest. The bank also had no actual notice of the sale to the brother. As a mortgagee who lent $75,000, the bank gave valuable consideration and recorded its mortgage on March 2 - before the brother recorded his deed on April 1. This makes the bank a protected purchaser under the recording act. Answer choice A is wrong because the type of instrument (deed vs. mortgage) doesn't automatically determine priority - recording statutes govern the analysis. Answer choice B incorrectly applies the "first in time, first in right" rule, which only applies when recording statutes don't protect a subsequent purchaser. Here, the recording statute does protect the bank. Answer choice C is incorrect because once the bank qualifies as a protected purchaser, its entire mortgage interest takes priority, not just disbursed amounts. Remember that recording statutes can override the normal "first in time" rule. Always check whether a subsequent purchaser meets the statute's protection requirements: valuable consideration, no notice of prior interests, and proper recording before the prior interest is recorded.

Question 10

On June 1, a property owner conveyed a tract of land to Buyer A. On July 1, the owner conveyed the same tract to Buyer B, who knew of the prior conveyance to Buyer A. On August 1, Buyer B conveyed the tract to Buyer C, who paid fair value and had no knowledge of the conveyance to Buyer A. On September 1, Buyer A recorded her deed. On October 1, Buyer C recorded her deed.

In a race-notice jurisdiction, who holds superior title to the tract? Select one.

Buyer A, because she recorded before Buyer C. (correct answer)
Buyer A, because Buyer B could not convey good title since he had actual notice of Buyer A's interest.
Buyer C, because she was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice.
Buyer C, because she took from Buyer B, who was second in time.

Explanation: To prevail under a race-notice statute, a subsequent purchaser must be a BFP (for value without notice) and record first. Here, Buyer B was not a BFP because he had actual notice. Therefore, he could not defeat Buyer A's interest. Buyer C, although a BFP, could only acquire whatever interest her grantor, Buyer B, had. Since Buyer B's interest was subordinate to Buyer A's, Buyer C's interest is also subordinate. Furthermore, Buyer A recorded before Buyer C. For both reasons, Buyer A has superior title.

Question 11

You are representing a client who wants to purchase a farm from its record owner. Your client visited the farm and discovered that a family was living in the farmhouse. The family claimed they had purchased the farm from the record owner two years ago under an installment land contract but had not yet received or recorded a deed. The record owner confirmed the sale but stated the family had missed several payments, and he now had the right to sell to your client. The jurisdiction has a notice recording statute.

What is the most accurate advice you should give your client regarding the legal effect of the family's presence on the farm? Select one.

The client will take title free of the family's interest, because the family failed to record any document providing constructive notice.
The client cannot be a bona fide purchaser, because the family's possession provides inquiry notice of their potential interest in the property. (correct answer)
The family's interest is subordinate to the client's, because an unrecorded installment land contract is not a valid conveyance of title.
The client can obtain superior title by immediately recording a deed from the record owner before the family can record their interest.

Explanation: A subsequent purchaser is charged with inquiry notice when there are facts on the property that would cause a reasonable person to inquire further. Possession by someone other than the grantor is a classic example of inquiry notice. The family's presence on the farm puts the client on notice of their potential claim of ownership. This notice prevents the client from achieving bona fide purchaser status, and thus the client would take title subject to the family's rights under their contract.

Question 12

What is the most accurate advice you should give your client regarding the legal effect of the family's presence on the farm? Select one.

The client will take title free of the family's interest, because the family failed to record any document providing constructive notice.
The client cannot be a bona fide purchaser, because the family's possession provides inquiry notice of their potential interest in the property. (correct answer)
The family's interest is subordinate to the client's, because an unrecorded installment land contract is not a valid conveyance of title.
The client can obtain superior title by immediately recording a deed from the record owner before the family can record their interest.

Question 13

A landowner conveyed a commercial property to a corporation on March 1. The corporation did not record. On April 1, a creditor obtained a large money judgment against the landowner and properly docketed the judgment in the county where the property was located, creating a judgment lien. On May 1, the corporation recorded its deed. The jurisdiction's recording act protects subsequent purchasers and mortgagees.

In this jurisdiction, whose interest in the property has priority? Select one.

The corporation, because its interest was created before the judgment lien attached. (correct answer)
The corporation, because it recorded its deed before the creditor initiated foreclosure proceedings.
The creditor, because its judgment lien was recorded before the corporation's deed.
The creditor, because the corporation's failure to record rendered the conveyance fraudulent as to creditors.

Explanation: In most jurisdictions, judgment creditors are not considered bona fide purchasers for value because they do not give contemporaneous value for their liens. The recording acts typically protect subsequent purchasers or mortgagees who give value in reliance on the record, not creditors who are simply securing a pre-existing debt. Therefore, the common law rule of 'first in time, first in right' applies. The corporation's interest was created first and will have priority over the subsequent judgment lien, even though the deed was unrecorded when the lien attached.

Question 14

In this jurisdiction, whose interest in the property has priority? Select one.

The corporation, because its interest was created before the judgment lien attached. (correct answer)
The corporation, because it recorded its deed before the creditor initiated foreclosure proceedings.
The creditor, because its judgment lien was recorded before the corporation's deed.
The creditor, because the corporation's failure to record rendered the conveyance fraudulent as to creditors.

Question 15

A woman owned two adjacent lots, Lot 1 and Lot 2. She sold Lot 1 to a buyer, and the recorded deed contained a promise from the woman, 'for herself, her heirs, and assigns,' that Lot 2 would never be used for commercial purposes. Later, the woman sold Lot 2 to a company by a deed that did not mention the restriction. The company's title search of the grantor-grantee index under the woman's name for Lot 2 did not reveal the restriction contained in the deed for Lot 1.

In a jurisdiction where a title search is not required to include examination of deeds to neighboring property from a common owner, can the buyer of Lot 1 enforce the covenant against the company? Select one.

Yes, because the covenant was recorded and therefore provided constructive notice to the entire world.
Yes, because the covenant runs with the land and binds all subsequent owners of Lot 2.
No, because the covenant was a personal promise and did not run with the land.
No, because the company did not have actual or constructive notice of the covenant. (correct answer)

Explanation: This question tests your understanding of real covenants and the notice requirements for enforcing them against subsequent purchasers. When analyzing covenant enforcement, you must determine whether the covenant runs with the land and whether the new owner had proper notice. The correct answer is D because the company lacked both actual and constructive notice of the restriction. The company didn't know about the covenant (no actual notice), and their title search following standard procedures didn't reveal it (no constructive notice). The restriction was recorded in Lot 1's deed, not Lot 2's chain of title, and the jurisdiction explicitly doesn't require searching neighboring property deeds from common owners. Without notice, even a valid covenant cannot be enforced against a bona fide purchaser. Answer A is wrong because while recording generally provides constructive notice, it must be in a location where reasonable title searching would discover it. Here, the covenant was "hidden" in another lot's deed chain. Answer B incorrectly assumes the covenant automatically binds all future owners. Even if a covenant runs with the land (meeting the writing, intent, touch and concern, and notice requirements), enforcement still requires that the subsequent purchaser had notice of the restriction. Answer C is incorrect because the language "for herself, her heirs, and assigns" and the restriction on land use suggests this covenant was intended to run with the land, not remain personal to the original parties. Remember: For covenant enforcement, always check both whether the covenant runs with the land AND whether the subsequent purchaser had adequate notice through their jurisdiction's standard search procedures.

Question 16

In a race-notice jurisdiction, who has superior title to Blackacre? Select one.

The developer, under the doctrine of estoppel by deed.
The investor, because the deed to the developer was recorded outside her chain of title. (correct answer)
The developer, because his deed was recorded first chronologically.
The investor, because the man's warranty deed to the developer was invalid when made.

Question 17

On February 1, a man conveyed property to his niece. On March 1, the man conveyed the same property to a buyer for value, who had no notice of the prior conveyance. On April 1, the niece recorded her deed. On May 1, the buyer recorded his deed. The jurisdiction has a statute that reads: 'Any conveyance of an estate in land shall not be valid as against a subsequent bona fide purchaser who shall have his deed first duly recorded.'

Under this statute, who has superior title to the property? Select one.

The niece, because she was the first to record her deed. (correct answer)
The niece, because her conveyance was first in time.
The buyer, because he was a bona fide purchaser for value.
The buyer, because the niece was a donee and not a purchaser for value.

Explanation: The statute described is a race-notice statute. It protects a 'subsequent bona fide purchaser who shall have his deed first duly recorded.' The buyer was a subsequent BFP. However, to prevail over the niece, he needed to record his deed before she recorded hers. The niece recorded on April 1, and the buyer recorded on May 1. Because the niece won the race to record, the buyer is not protected by the statute. Therefore, the niece has superior title.

Question 18

An owner of a parcel of land first conveyed the property to Buyer A, who did not record. The owner then conveyed the same property to Buyer B, a bona fide purchaser for value. Neither Buyer A nor Buyer B has recorded their respective deeds.

In a jurisdiction with a race-notice recording statute, who has superior title to the property? Select one.

Buyer A, under the common law rule of 'first in time, first in right'. (correct answer)
Buyer B, because as a bona fide purchaser, her interest is automatically superior.
Buyer B, but only if he can prove Buyer A was negligent in failing to record.
The owner, because neither conveyance was perfected by recording.

Explanation: The recording acts operate to change the common law rule of 'first in time, first in right'. However, they only apply when their conditions are met. Under a race-notice statute, a subsequent BFP prevails only if she records first. Since Buyer B has not recorded, she has not met the requirements of the statute to divest Buyer A's interest. Therefore, the dispute falls back to the common law rule, and Buyer A, whose interest was created first, has superior title.

Question 19

The jurisdiction has a notice recording statute. As between the brother and the bank, whose interest has priority? Select one.

The brother's, because a deed of sale has priority over a subsequent mortgage.
The brother's, because his interest was created first in time.
The bank's, but only to the extent of the loan amount that has been disbursed to the woman.
The bank's, because a mortgagee for value is a protected purchaser under the recording act. (correct answer)

Question 20

On March 1, a landowner conveyed Blackacre to his son. The son did not record. On April 1, the landowner conveyed Blackacre to a purchaser for value. The purchaser knew the son sometimes used the property for weekend camping but was unaware of the conveyance. The purchaser recorded his deed on April 2. On May 1, the son recorded his deed. The jurisdiction's statute states: 'No conveyance shall be valid against subsequent purchasers for value and without notice, unless the conveyance is recorded.'

Based on the statute, who has superior title to Blackacre? Select one.

The son, because the purchaser's knowledge of his presence on the land created inquiry notice.
The son, because he recorded his deed before the purchaser brought a quiet title action.
The purchaser, because his status as a BFP was fixed at the time of the conveyance. (correct answer)
The purchaser, because he was the first to record after the conflicting conveyances.

Explanation: The statute described is a notice statute. Under a notice statute, a subsequent BFP prevails regardless of who records first. The key moment is the time of conveyance to the BFP. Here, the purchaser paid value and lacked notice on April 1. His status as a BFP was established at that moment. The son's occasional use for camping is likely not sufficient to constitute the kind of open and notorious possession that would create inquiry notice of an ownership claim. Therefore, the purchaser's BFP status gives him superior title over the son's prior unrecorded interest.