FIRST PROPERTIES v. JPMorgan Chase Bank

Supreme Court of Alabama
993 So.2d 438 (2008)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A recorded instrument that is outside the chain of title, such as a 'wild deed' that does not list the record owner as the grantor, does not provide constructive notice to a subsequent bona fide purchaser or encumbrancer. Furthermore, knowledge possessed by a title insurance company is not imputed to its insured absent a proven agency relationship.

Facts:

Ruthia Cullen Dumas held duly recorded title to a property located in Birmingham.
On October 19, 1998, the Forestdale fire district conducted a foreclosure sale on Dumas's property to satisfy delinquent fire-protection dues.
The fire district was the highest bidder and executed a deed conveying the property to itself, listing the fire district as both grantor and grantee and failing to name Dumas.
The fire district recorded this deed on October 28, 1998, but it was not listed in the grantor/grantee index under Dumas's name.
On November 9, 1999, Dumas executed a mortgage on the same property in favor of First Franklin Financial Corporation, which was later assigned to JPMorgan Chase Bank.
On December 18, 2004, the fire district executed a quitclaim deed conveying the property to First Properties, L.L.C.

Procedural Posture:

JPMorgan filed an action in trial court against First Properties seeking a declaratory judgment and to quiet title to the property.
Both parties filed motions for summary judgment.
The trial court initially entered summary judgment in favor of First Properties.
JPMorgan filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment, which the trial court granted, setting aside its initial order.
The parties waived a trial and submitted the case to the trial court for a final decision on stipulated facts and prior evidentiary submissions.
The trial court entered a final judgment in favor of JPMorgan, holding that it was a bona fide encumbrancer for value without notice.
First Properties (appellant) appealed the trial court's final judgment to the Supreme Court of Alabama, with JPMorgan as the appellee.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a recorded foreclosure deed that does not name the record owner and is therefore outside the chain of title provide constructive notice to a subsequent mortgagee for value?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Smith

No. A recorded deed that is outside the chain of title does not provide constructive notice to a subsequent mortgagee for value. The court reasoned that the foreclosure deed recorded by the fire district was a 'wild deed' because it did not name the record owner, Dumas, as the grantor. A search of the grantor-grantee index would not have revealed the deed, placing it outside the chain of title. An instrument outside a purchaser's chain of title does not impart constructive notice. The court also rejected the argument that JPMorgan was on 'inquiry notice,' holding that any knowledge possessed by the title insurance company could not be imputed to JPMorgan's predecessor, First Franklin, because First Properties failed to prove the existence of an agency relationship between the insurer and the insured; the title company was merely an independent contractor.

Analysis:

This decision reinforces the critical importance of the 'chain of title' concept within property recording systems. It affirms that for a recorded document to provide constructive notice, it must be properly indexed in a way that allows a reasonably diligent searcher to find it. By characterizing the improperly indexed deed as a 'wild deed' with no legal notice effect, the court protects subsequent bona fide purchasers and lenders who rely on the integrity of public records. The ruling also clarifies the relationship between a title insurer and an insured, establishing that the insurer is typically an independent contractor whose knowledge is not automatically imputed to the party purchasing the insurance policy.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: FIRST PROPERTIES v. JPMorgan Chase Bank (2008)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"