A property owner conveyed commercial property in joint tenancy to his two daughters as a birthday present. The deed from the property owner to his daughters was never recorded. After a few years, the property owner no longer wished the daughters to control valuable commercial property, and so he demanded that they return the deed with which he conveyed the property to them. The daughters returned the deed, and the property owner destroyed it. The property owner then sold and conveyed the property to a third party. The jurisdiction's recording act states the following: "No conveyance or mortgage of an interest in land is valid against any subsequent purchaser for value without notice thereof whose conveyance is first recorded."

Question

Social Studies

Melody Garza

14 June, 13:31

A property owner conveyed commercial property in joint tenancy to his two daughters as a birthday present. The deed from the property owner to his daughters was never recorded. After a few years, the property owner no longer wished the daughters to control valuable commercial property, and so he demanded that they return the deed with which he conveyed the property to them. The daughters returned the deed, and the property owner destroyed it. The property owner then sold and conveyed the property to a third party. The jurisdiction's recording act states the following: "No conveyance or mortgage of an interest in land is valid against any subsequent purchaser for value without notice thereof whose conveyance is first recorded."

+4

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Emely Osborne · Answer 1

Answer:Inconclusive

Explanation:how do we determine what needs solution; the case cannot be contested by the property owner daughters because the deed to them been owners was never recorded or kept in storage or filed for reference [ it was destroyed].

So the question concluded with stating Jurisdiction recording act, afterwards nothing was said if it was contested neither was the question asked if the purchase was valid.