Also known as: lines of title · chain of title
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A sequence of recorded instruments that traces successive transfers of ownership in a parcel of land from the original grantor to the present holder. The sequence determines which instruments impart constructive notice to a subsequent purchaser under recording acts. A break or gap in the sequence renders title unmarketable because a reasonably prudent buyer would face reasonable doubt about ownership.
Legacy Motors contracted to sell a warehouse parcel to Linden Logistics. Linden's title search revealed that a deed from the prior owner to Legacy Motors was missing from the public records. Because the gap prevented a complete sequence of recorded transfers, Linden refused to close and demanded return of its deposit.
Lola Langley purchased a ranch from Luke Latham. Years earlier the prior owner had granted an easement to a neighboring rancher, but the deed was recorded only under the neighbor's name. Because the easement deed never appeared in the successive recorded transfers from the prior owner to Luke, Lola took the ranch free of the easement.
Liberty Trust agreed to buy commercial property from Lattice Systems. A recorded mortgage from a prior owner remained unreleased in the records. Because the unreleased lien broke the clean sequence of transfers and created reasonable doubt for any purchaser, Liberty refused to close.
Lamar Lewis bought industrial land from a successor corporation. A mineral lease granted by the original owner had been recorded under a pre-merger name. Because the lease and assignment appeared only under the former name and never entered the recorded transfers to the successor, Lamar acquired the land free of the lease.
Layla Lane purchased a vacant lot from Lucas Lee. An earlier deed in the records had been forged by a stranger. Because the forged deed conveyed no title and interrupted the valid sequence of recorded transfers, Layla's search revealed the break and she refused to close.
Luna Lang bought waterfront property from Lamar Lewis. The sellers and their predecessors had occupied a strip of land adjacent to the deeded description for decades. Because the occupied strip never appeared in any recorded deed in the sequence of transfers to Lamar, Luna received marketable title only to the land described in the deeds.
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 gap in the recorded sequence of transfers, an unreleased lien, or an outstanding interest that a prudent purchaser would view as creating reasonable doubt prevents conveyance of marketable title.
No. Only instruments appearing in the successive recorded transfers through which the purchaser claims ownership impart constructive notice under the chain of title doctrine.
A merger or name change that alters the grantor name can place prior recorded instruments outside the purchaser's line of title, so a search under the current grantor name reveals nothing about those instruments.
A buyer may refuse when the defect, such as a missing deed or unreleased lien, renders title unmarketable at closing and the seller cannot cure within any contractual period.
…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…