Yes, the mortgage still counts. The court said the main way to look up property records has always been by the names of the people involved (the grantor-grantee index). Since MidCountry's mortgage was correctly listed under the Kruegers' names, it was officially on record. A person buying property is expected to do a thorough search, which includes looking up the previous owner's name and then reading the actual documents that appear. You can't just rely on a property address search. Because the full mortgage document was available and clearly included Hinshaw's new house, she and her bank should have known about it. Legally, they had 'constructive notice.'

Yes, Hinshaw and PHH should have known about MidCountry's mortgage because it was listed under the Kruegers' names and you could find the actual mortgage document from that listing. Even though the listing didn't have all the details about the Hinshaw property, the mortgage document itself did. When you look at both the listing and the full document, it's clear the mortgage was related to the Hinshaw property. So even if the listing wasn't perfect, the mortgage was still officially recorded. This means Hinshaw and PHH are expected to have known about it, and MidCountry's claim on the property comes before theirs.

Yes, the mortgage was properly recorded. An instrument provides constructive notice if it is indexed in a manner sufficient to allow a diligent searcher to locate the full document. Although the mortgage was imperfectly indexed in the tract index, it was correctly listed in the grantor-grantee index under the Kruegers' names. The court reasoned that indexes are merely a 'springboard' to the actual recorded instrument, and a purchaser is presumed to have examined the 'whole record,' which includes the contents of the document itself. Citing precedent like Latourell v. Hobart, the court explained that the indexes and the recorded instrument supply defects in each other. Since a search of the grantor-grantee index would have revealed the mortgage, and an examination of the imaged document would have revealed the encumbrance on the Hinshaw property, the mortgage was 'properly recorded' for purposes of constructive notice. The court concluded that 'properly recorded' is not coterminous with 'perfectly indexed' and placed the duty on the title examiner to review the full contents of documents found via the indexes.

Yes, the MidCountry mortgage was properly recorded because it was indexed in the grantor-grantee index under the correct names and an image of the document was available through this index. Despite the incomplete legal description in the index, the contents of the mortgage itself were available and compensated for the deficiencies in the indexes for constructive notice purposes. The indexes are the starting point for a subsequent purchaser or title examiner, but there is a duty to examine the copy of a recorded document and not rely solely on information in the indexes. Between the indexes and the record, there was sufficient evidence that the MidCountry mortgage pertained to the Hinshaw property. Therefore, although the mortgage may have been imperfectly indexed, it was properly recorded. Because the mortgage was properly recorded, Hinshaw and PHH are charged with constructive notice of its existence, and MidCountry's mortgage takes priority over their interests in the property.

MidCountry Bank v. Krueger

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot