Palamarg Realty Company v. Rehac
404 A.2d 21, 1979 N.J. LEXIS 1250, 80 N.J. 446 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under a notice/race recording act, a subsequent bona fide purchaser is not charged with constructive notice of a prior conveyance from a common grantor if that prior conveyance was recorded after the deed that constitutes the first link in the purchaser's chain of title was recorded. A purchaser is only required to conduct a reasonable search of the record within their specific chain of title.
Facts:
- On February 12, 1913, Asbury Company conveyed a large tract of land, including the disputed property, to Appleby Estates.
- On February 15, 1913, Asbury Company conveyed the same disputed property to Robert E. Taylor by warranty deed.
- The deed from Asbury Company to Appleby Estates was recorded on February 18, 1913.
- The deed from Asbury Company to Taylor was recorded later, on April 25, 1913.
- At the time of these conveyances, J. Randolph Appleby was the president and majority stockholder of both Asbury Company and Appleby Estates.
- In 1924, Appleby Estates conveyed the land back to Asbury Company. This deed included a defective exception clause mentioning a conveyance to Taylor, but incorrectly naming Appleby Estates as the grantor.
- In 1966, Asbury Company and related entities conveyed all their property in Burlington County to Anthony J. Del Tufo Agency Inc., the predecessor in title to the plaintiffs.
- The defendants derive their title from a separate chain originating with the 1913 conveyance to Robert E. Taylor.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs brought a suit to quiet title in the trial court in Burlington County.
- Defendants filed counterclaims seeking similar relief.
- Both parties moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court denied the plaintiffs' motion and granted summary judgment for the defendants.
- Plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed to the Appellate Division.
- The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's judgment and entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.
- Defendants, as petitioners, sought and were granted certification by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
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 bona fide purchaser for value have constructive notice of a deed recorded outside their direct chain of title, thereby defeating their claim to superior title under New Jersey's notice/race recording act?
Opinions:
Majority - Mountain, J.
No. A subsequent bona fide purchaser does not have constructive notice of a deed recorded outside their direct chain of title. The recording acts protect purchasers who rely on a reasonable search of the record, and this protection requires that the scope of the search be limited to the purchaser's specific chain of title. Citing Glorieux v. Lighthipe, the court affirmed that it would be an 'intolerable burden' to compel a purchaser to examine all conveyances made by every grantor in their chain of title for all time. A purchaser’s obligation to search a grantor's record ends at the date of the recording of the first deed from that grantor in the purchaser's chain. Therefore, the Del Tufo Agency, purchasing in 1966, was not charged with record notice of the Taylor deed, as it was recorded after the Asbury-to-Appleby Estates deed that formed the first link in Del Tufo's chain. The court also held that the doctrine of estoppel by deed does not protect an earlier grantee against a subsequent bona fide purchaser for value without notice. The case was remanded to determine whether plaintiffs' predecessor had actual notice and to take expert testimony on the effect of conveyancing customs.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the importance of the 'chain of title' doctrine in limiting the scope of constructive notice under recording statutes. It prioritizes the marketability of titles and the protection of subsequent bona fide purchasers over a literal interpretation of the recording act or the strict application of doctrines like estoppel by deed. The decision gives legal weight to the practical realities of title searching, ensuring that purchasers can confidently rely on a reasonable search of the public records. The court's remand for expert testimony on conveyancing customs also signals a willingness to allow industry standards to inform judicial rules in property law, potentially affecting how title searches are conducted and evaluated in the future.
