Also known as: chain of title · chains of title
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A sequence of recorded instruments through which a purchaser traces ownership of real property. A purchaser receives constructive notice only of instruments appearing within that sequence. Breaks or gaps in the sequence render title unmarketable and may defeat priority under recording acts.
Tiana Tan contracted to sell land to Thomas Thompson. A title search revealed a missing deed in the recorded sequence from an earlier owner. Thompson refused to close because the gap left reasonable doubt whether an outstanding interest existed. Tan could not cure the defect before the closing date.
Thaddeus Tran purchased property from Theodore Tucker. An easement benefiting a neighboring parcel had been recorded in a deed from a common grantor to a stranger. Tran had no actual knowledge of the easement. The easement lay outside the recorded sequence through which Tran traced title and therefore gave no constructive notice.
Tyrone Tran agreed to buy acreage from Timothy Tang. A prior mortgage remained unreleased in the recorded sequence. Tang could not obtain a release before closing. Tran properly refused performance because the unreleased lien broke the clean chain required for marketable title.
Terra Financial acquired a parcel from Threshold Capital. A prior unrecorded conveyance existed but was absent from the recorded sequence. Terra recorded first after purchasing without notice. The recording act awarded priority to Terra because its interest appeared in the chain examined by subsequent purchasers.
Titan Industries received a deed from Topaz Mining. The deed had been forged by an impostor and conveyed no title. A later bona fide purchaser searched the recorded sequence and found no defect. The forged instrument created a permanent break that prevented the subsequent purchaser from claiming protection under the recording act in that jurisdiction.
Howard occupied land described in a recorded deed that contained an erroneous survey description. Kunto held record title to the adjacent parcel under a correct description. The mismatch between the occupied land and the recorded sequence prevented Howard from establishing a continuous chain through adverse possession.
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 break occurs when a recorded instrument is missing from the sequence of conveyances through which ownership is traced. Gaps such as an unreleased lien or a missing deed create reasonable doubt that prevents marketable title.
No. A purchaser is charged with notice only of instruments appearing in the chain of title through which the purchaser claims. An easement or covenant recorded in a different chain is outside the chain and provides no constructive notice.
A forged deed is void and conveys no title. The forgery creates a permanent break in the chain that may prevent a subsequent bona fide purchaser from obtaining protection under the recording act depending on the jurisdiction's statute.
Recording acts protect subsequent purchasers who take without notice of unrecorded interests and who record. The chain defines the scope of the search a purchaser must conduct and determines which recorded instruments provide constructive notice.
…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…