Sabo v. Horvath

Supreme Court of Alaska · 1976 · Property

559 P.2d 1038 (1976)

Updated July 23, 2026

PropertyRecording actsChain of titleLand patentsquitclaim deedwild deedconstructive noticerecording act

Facts

Lowery occupied a five-acre tract under the Alaska Homesite Law, filed the required notice and application, and received a BLM field examiner recommendation that patent issue. Before patent issued, Lowery executed a quitclaim deed to the Horvaths, who recorded it in 1970; after patent issued in 1973, Lowery executed another quitclaim deed to the Sabos, who recorded later that year. Horvath knew the United States still held title when he purchased and did not rerecord after patent issued. Because the Horvaths recorded before Lowery acquired title, their recording was outside the chain of title.

Issue

Whether Lowery had a conveyable interest under the Alaska Homesite Law before patent issued, whether a quitclaim grantee can be a subsequent innocent purchaser in good faith under Alaska's recording statute, and whether a deed recorded outside the chain of title gives constructive notice to a later purchaser.

Rule

Where the Alaska Homesite Law does not prohibit alienation, a claimant who has complied with the statute to a sufficient extent has an interest capable of conveyance before patent issues. A purchaser taking by quitclaim deed is not barred from being a subsequent innocent purchaser in good faith under AS 34.15.290. But a deed recorded outside the chain of title is a wild deed and is not duly recorded for purposes of constructive notice under Alaska's recording laws.

🔒

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.

Nolan Price occupied a four-acre tract near Fairbanks under a federal homesite statute that, like its implementing regulations, says nothing about alienation. He filed the required notice and purchase application, completed the required occupancy period, and received an agency field report recommending issuance of patent; before the patent issued, he signed a quitclaim deed to Erin Cole.

If Erin later sues to enforce the conveyance, which is the strongest argument that Nolan had a transferable interest when he deeded the tract?

Explanation. The majority held that where the governing land statute and regulations do not prohibit alienation, and the claimant has complied with the statutory scheme to a sufficient extent, the claimant has an interest capable of conveyance before patent issues. The rule does not require full legal title, does not make quitclaim a warranty deed, and does not validate all pre-patent transfers regardless of compliance.