Also known as: pure notice statutes · notice statute
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A statutory rule rendering an unrecorded conveyance invalid against any subsequent purchaser for value without notice of the prior interest, whether or not the subsequent purchaser records before the prior grantee.
Phoebe Park conveyed land to Patricia Patel by deed that went unrecorded. Phoebe later conveyed the same land to Pablo Perez, who paid value and had no notice of the prior deed. In a jurisdiction with a pure notice statute, Pablo prevails over Patricia because the statute protects a subsequent purchaser for value without notice regardless of recording order.
Preston Pratt conveyed land to Pedro Pacheco by deed that remained unrecorded. Preston then conveyed the same land to Pavel Petrov, who paid value and lacked notice of the earlier deed. Under a pure notice statute, Pavel obtains priority because the statute invalidates the prior unrecorded interest against a later purchaser for value without notice.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
No. A pure notice statute protects a subsequent purchaser for value without notice of the prior unrecorded interest even if that purchaser records after the earlier grantee. The statute focuses solely on the purchaser's status at the time of acquisition rather than on a race to record.
Supporting sources
The purchaser must prove that value was given and that no actual, record, or inquiry notice of the prior unrecorded interest existed at the time of the conveyance. Once those elements are met, the statute renders the earlier deed invalid as against that purchaser.
Supporting sources
No. The subsequent purchaser's rights vest upon taking without notice, so the prior grantee's later recording cannot cut off those rights. The statute protects reliance on the absence of notice at the moment of purchase.
Supporting sources