Also known as: chain of title
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A doctrine under recording acts that limits a purchaser's constructive notice to instruments appearing in the chain of recorded conveyances through which title is traced. A purchaser therefore takes subject only to interests properly recorded within that sequence and may prevail over interests recorded outside it.
Christine Castro contracted to purchase land from Corinne Cho. A title search revealed an unreleased mortgage recorded by a prior owner whose deed appeared in the chain leading to Cho. Because the mortgage remained in the chain, Castro refused to close and rescinded the contract.
Cameron Cruz purchased a parcel from Christopher Collins. An easement benefiting a neighboring lot had been recorded in a deed from a common grantor directly to a stranger whose interest never entered Cruz's chain. The easement therefore gave Cruz no constructive notice and did not burden his title.
Cade Carpenter agreed to sell property to Colin Chambers. A recorded covenant running with the land appeared in an earlier deed within Carpenter's chain but had never been released. Chambers refused to close because the covenant rendered title unmarketable.
Crestview Holdings acquired land from Compass Logistics and promptly recorded its deed. A later purchaser searched the records and found only the instruments in the direct chain from the original grantor through Compass Logistics to Crestview Holdings. The later purchaser therefore took subject to Crestview's recorded interest.
Cobalt Energy received a deed from a grantor who had obtained title through a forged instrument. Because the forged deed conveyed nothing, subsequent purchasers tracing through that link could not rely on the recording act to defeat the true owner's claim even if they recorded first.
Citadel Security occupied a strip of land under color of title for the statutory period. Its predecessors' deeds formed a continuous recorded chain that included the disputed strip, allowing Citadel to establish marketable title through adverse possession without a gap in the chain.
Land surveying errors led to a mismatch between deed descriptions and actual occupations on the shore of Hood Canal in Mason County. As long ago as 1932, McCall resided in the house now occupied by the Kuntos under a deed describing a 50-foot-wide parcel that was adjacent to the lot where the house stood. Several property owners to the west of defendants were similarly situated. Since 1946, several conveyances occurred using the same legal description accompanied by transfer of possession to succeeding occupants. The Kuntos' immediate predecessors, the Millers, had a survey performed to build a dock which indicated conformity between deed and occupation, leading to placement of boundary stakes and construction of improvements. The Kuntos took possession of the disputed property under a deed from the Millers in 1959. In 1960, the Howards, who held land east of the Kuntos, undertook a survey to convey an undivided one-half interest to the Yearlys. The survey revealed that the Howards were record owners of land occupied by the Moyers and the Moyers held record title to land occupied by the Kuntos. In April 1960, Howard obtained a conveyance from Moyer of the land upon which the Kunto house stood in exchange for conveying the land upon which the Moyer house stood. Until that conveyance, neither Moyer nor predecessors asserted any right to the property possessed by Kunto and predecessors. Plaintiffs instituted this action to quiet title on August 19, 1960, when defendants had been in occupancy of the disputed property less than a year. The trial court denied the Kuntos' claim of adverse possession, finding a lack of continuity of possession or estate to permit tacking and that defendants' possession was not continuous because it involved only summer occupancy. Defendants appealed from the decree quieting title in the plaintiffs.
View caseA purchaser is charged with constructive notice only of instruments appearing in the chain through which the purchaser claims. An interest recorded in a different chain therefore does not bind the purchaser.
Supporting sources
A gap or break in the chain of title renders title unmarketable. The buyer may refuse to close and may rescind or recover damages unless the seller cures the defect.
Supporting sources
A forged deed is void and conveys no title. Subsequent bona fide purchasers may still be protected under some recording acts depending on whether the jurisdiction follows a race, notice, or race-notice statute and how the chain-of-title rules apply.
Supporting sources
…barring a use so detrimental to the enjoyment and value of its neighbors. Defendants insist that no restrictions appear in their chain of title and they purchased without notice of any reciprocal negative easement, and deny that a gasoline station is a nuisance per se. We find no occasion to pass upon the question of nuisance, as…