Grose v. Sauvageau
942 P.2d 398, 1997 Wyo. LEXIS 100, 1997 WL 398667 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A subsequent purchaser of real property is not on inquiry notice and has no duty to inquire directly of a party in possession if that party's possession is consistent with and explained by information available in the public records.
Facts:
- Michael and Patricia Grose (the Groses) became interested in purchasing Lot 153, which was adjacent to their business property.
- In July 1991, the Groses agreed with the record owner, H. Carl Ryberg, that they would pay the back taxes on the lot in exchange for a quitclaim deed.
- The Groses paid the taxes and received a Certificate of Purchase from the county.
- Ryberg provided a quitclaim deed that was defective: it named 'Ryberg Construction Co.' as grantor, was undated, lacked a property description, and had an incomplete notarization.
- The Groses filled in the property description, back-dated the deed, and took possession of the property, building fences, a barn, and a corral, but they never recorded the defective deed.
- A hostile relationship developed between the Groses and their neighbor, Peggy Sauvageau, following incidents involving escaped pigs and a dispute at a town council meeting.
- Sauvageau researched Lot 153's title and discovered that H. Carl Ryberg was still the record owner and that the Groses held only a Certificate of Purchase.
- On November 28, 1994, Sauvageau purchased Lot 153 from Ryberg with a quitclaim deed for $50. The following day, she recorded her deed and redeemed the property.
Procedural Posture:
- Peggy Sauvageau filed a quiet title and ejectment action against the Groses in the district court.
- The Groses counterclaimed to quiet title in their favor and also alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress and tortious interference with contract.
- Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Sauvageau, quieting title in her name and dismissing the Groses' counterclaims.
- The Groses' motion for rehearing was denied by the district court.
- The Groses, as appellants, appealed the district court's summary judgment ruling on the quiet title action to the Wyoming Supreme Court.
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 subsequent purchaser of real property have a duty to inquire directly of a party in possession about their interest when that party's possession is consistent with information found in the public records?
Opinions:
Majority - Taylor, Chief Justice
No. A subsequent purchaser does not have a duty to inquire directly of a party in possession if that possession is consistent with the public record. Under Wyoming's race-notice statute, a subsequent purchaser in good faith for valuable consideration who records their deed first has superior title against a prior unrecorded conveyance. While possession of property can put a purchaser on 'inquiry notice' of an unrecorded interest, this duty to investigate only arises when the possession is inconsistent with the title shown in the public records. Here, Sauvageau's title search revealed the Groses held a Certificate of Purchase, which fully explained their possession of the property. Therefore, their possession was not inconsistent with the record, and Sauvageau had no further duty to inquire directly of them. Regarding 'good faith,' while Sauvageau's secretive actions were unsportsmanlike, they did not constitute fraudulent or illegal conduct that would negate her good faith status under the statute.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the scope of the 'inquiry notice' doctrine within property law, particularly in jurisdictions with race-notice recording statutes. The court's decision narrows the circumstances under which a third party's possession of property obligates a subsequent purchaser to investigate beyond the public record. By holding that possession consistent with the record does not trigger a duty of further inquiry, the ruling strengthens the reliability and primacy of public land records. This creates a bright-line rule that benefits subsequent purchasers but places a greater burden on parties with unrecorded interests to perfect and record their title properly.
