Messersmith v. Smith

Supreme Court of North Dakota · 1953 · Property

PropertyRecording actsAcknowledgmentsQuiet titleBona fide purchaserrecording actconstructive noticeacknowledgment

Facts

Caroline Messersmith had previously conveyed her interest in the land to plaintiff by quitclaim deed in 1946, but plaintiff did not record that deed until July 9, 1951. In 1951, after she no longer had any title, Caroline executed a mineral deed to Herbert B. Smith, Jr., who then conveyed the same mineral interest to defendant Seale; both of those deeds were recorded on May 26, 1951. The trial court found the mineral deed was not procured by fraud. The recorded mineral deed bore a regular certificate of acknowledgment, but the court found Caroline did not actually appear before the notary and acknowledge the deed that was recorded.

Issue

Can a subsequent purchaser claim priority over a prior unrecorded valid deed under the recording act when the intervening deed in his chain of title, though recorded and regular on its face, was never actually acknowledged and thus was not entitled to record? More specifically, did Seale become a good-faith purchaser protected by the recording statutes?

Rule

An instrument affecting real property gives constructive notice only if it was entitled to be recorded, and a deed is entitled to record only when its execution is established in the manner required by statute, including actual acknowledgment where acknowledgment is relied upon. A certificate of acknowledgment regular on its face is presumptively true but not conclusive; if the grantor did not in fact appear and acknowledge the recorded instrument, the record gives no constructive notice, and a later purchaser claiming solely under the recording act is not protected as a good-faith purchaser.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Tulsa, Nora Benton conveyed her ranch by quitclaim deed to her brother, Eli Benton, in 2019, but Eli did not record. In 2022, Nora signed a mineral deed to Damon Price, who later sold the same mineral interest to Lena Torres for value. Damon’s deed had been recorded first and bore a facially proper notarial certificate, but clear evidence later showed Nora never actually appeared before the notary or acknowledged that deed.

Who has the superior claim to the mineral interest as between Eli and Lena?

Explanation. A subsequent purchaser can gain protection under the recording statute only through an instrument that was entitled to be recorded. Where acknowledgment is the method used to establish execution, the grantor must actually appear and acknowledge the instrument. A facially regular certificate is only presumptively true, not conclusive. Because Nora had already conveyed away her title, Lena’s claim depends entirely on the recording act, and Damon’s unacknowledged recorded deed gave no constructive notice and cannot support bona fide purchaser status.