Luthi v. Evans
223 Kan. 622, 576 P.2d 1064 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An instrument of conveyance containing a general, non-specific 'Mother Hubbard' clause, which purports to convey all of a grantor's property in a certain county, is not sufficient upon recording to provide constructive notice to a subsequent bona fide purchaser of a specific tract of land covered by the clause.
Facts:
- On February 1, 1971, Grace V. Owens owned interests in multiple oil and gas leases in Coffey County, Kansas, including an interest in a property known as the Kufahl lease.
- On that date, Owens executed a written assignment to International Tours, Inc. (Tours) that specifically described seven leases and also included a 'Mother Hubbard' clause conveying all other oil and gas interests Owens owned in Coffey County.
- The Kufahl lease was not one of the seven leases specifically described in the assignment to Tours.
- The assignment from Owens to Tours was recorded in the office of the register of deeds of Coffey County on February 16, 1971.
- On January 30, 1975, Owens executed a second assignment, specifically conveying her working interest in the Kufahl lease to J.R. Burris.
- Prior to his purchase, Burris personally checked the records in the office of the register of deeds and subsequently obtained an abstract of title for the Kufahl lease property.
- Neither Burris's personal search of the records nor the abstract of title reflected the prior assignment of the Kufahl lease interest to Tours.
Procedural Posture:
- The dispute over ownership of the Kufahl lease was litigated between International Tours, Inc. and J.R. Burris in the Kansas district court (trial court).
- The district court entered judgment in favor of Burris, holding that the general description in the prior assignment was insufficient to provide constructive notice.
- International Tours, Inc. (appellant) appealed the decision to the Kansas Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's judgment, finding that the recorded 'Mother Hubbard' clause was sufficient to impart constructive notice to Burris (appellee).
- The Supreme Court of Kansas then granted review of the Court of Appeals' decision.
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 the recording of an instrument of conveyance that uses a general 'Mother Hubbard' clause to describe property provide constructive notice to a subsequent bona fide purchaser of a specific property interest that falls within that general description?
Opinions:
Majority - Prager, J.
No. The recording of an instrument of conveyance that uses a general 'Mother Hubbard' clause does not provide constructive notice to subsequent purchasers. While such a clause is valid to transfer property interests between the original parties to the instrument, it fails to provide constructive notice because it does not describe the land with sufficient specificity. The court reasoned that Kansas recording statutes, when read together ('in pari materia'), are intended to give subsequent purchasers notice of instruments affecting specific tracts of land. A general description makes it impossible for a register of deeds to properly index the conveyance or for a subsequent purchaser to discover the encumbrance when searching the title of a specific parcel. Therefore, a subsequent purchaser without actual knowledge of the prior conveyance, like Burris, prevails.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the standard for property descriptions required to impart constructive notice under recording statutes. It establishes that specificity is paramount for a recorded instrument to protect a grantee against subsequent bona fide purchasers. The ruling places the burden on grantees who accept deeds with 'Mother Hubbard' clauses to protect their interests by subsequently filing an instrument with a specific description, thereby preserving the integrity and searchability of the public land records system. The case balances the validity of such clauses between the original parties with the public policy need for a reliable recording system that protects innocent third-party purchasers.
Unlock the full brief for Luthi v. Evans