Szakaly v. Smith
| Decision Date | 10 October 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 03S04-8910-CV-751,03S04-8910-CV-751 |
| Citation | 544 N.E.2d 490 |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | Andrew A. SZAKALY, Jr. and Nancy Szakaly, Appellants (Plaintiffs Below), v. Ron SMITH and Linda Smith, Appellees (Defendants Below). |
Andrew A. Szakaly, Jr., Nashville, for appellants.
Timothy J. Vrana, Sharpnack, Bigley, David & Rumple, Columbus, for appellees.
In an opinion holding that grantees of servient tenements are charged with knowledge of "all the information supplied by the recorded conveyances of a common grantor," the Court of Appeals reversed a trial court determination that Andrew and Nancy Szakaly had no easement by deed over adjacent property owned by Ron and Linda Smith. Szakaly v. Smith (1988), Ind.App., 525 N.E.2d 343. While agreeing with the Court of Appeals to reverse the trial court, we grant transfer to discuss and clarify the extent to which belatedly recorded conveyances of a common grantor provide constructive knowledge to subsequent grantees.
The common grantors of the parties, Sherrill and Isabell Arvin, owned a 195-acre tract of land. In 1956, the Arvins conveyed a 190-acre portion to the Szakalys' predecessor in title. The deed also granted an easement of right-of-way over the Arvins' retained five-acre tract, but this deed was not recorded until 1965. In 1957, the remaining five-acre tract was conveyed through a trustee for reconveyance to Isabell Arvin alone. Though promptly recorded, these deeds to the five-acre tract did not contain any reference to the easement. Subsequent conveyances of this tract likewise omitted mention of the easement. In 1979, Ronald Smith acquired the smaller tract. In 1982 and 1983, the Szakalys took title to the larger tract. The parties dispute whether the 1965 recording of the 1956 deed creating the easement constitutes constructive notice to grantors of the five-acre tract which beginning in 1957 was conveyed by recorded deeds absent reference to the easement.
Relying on Hazlett v. Sinclair (1881), 76 Ind. 488, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the Smiths had constructive notice of all recorded deeds of their remote grantors. The Smiths argue that they cannot be charged with constructive notice because the deed granting the easement is out of their chain of title because it was recorded after their five-acre tract was first conveyed from the Arvins to the trustee for reconveyance. The Smiths, in effect, argue "once out, always out."
The recording statutes offer protection to subsequent purchasers, lessees, and mortgagees. State v. Anderson (1960), 241 Ind. 184, 170 N.E.2d 812; Gratzinger v. Arehart (1936), 209 Ind. 547, 198 N.E. 787. Indiana Code Sec. 32-1-2-16 provides:
Every conveyance ... of lands or of any interest therein ... shall be recorded in the recorder's office of the county where such lands shall be situated; and every conveyance ... shall take priority according to the time of the filing thereof, and such conveyance ... shall be fraudulent and void as against any subsequent purchaser, lessee or mortgagee in good faith and for valuable consideration, having his deed, mortgage or lease first recorded.
County recorders must maintain a name index system for recording deeds and mortgages. Ind.Code Sec. 36-2-11-12. Under this system all deeds are indexed alphabetically by grantor and by grantee, both with cross-references to the other party to the deed. Id. The indices describe the tract and show the date of the deed's recording. The indices refer a prospective purchaser or encumbrancer to the recorded instruments.
In a title search, the prospective purchaser or his abstractor assesses the marketability of title to a tract of land by determining the "chain of title." Beginning with the person who received the grant of land from the United States, the purchaser or abstractor traces the name of the grantor until the conveyance of the tract in question. The particular grantor's name is not searched thereafter. As the process is repeated the links in the chain of title are forged. Schroeder,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Earl v. Pavex, Corp.
...the time he held title to the premises in question include Hamilton v. Smith, 212 Ark. 893, 208 S.W.2d 425, 427 (1948), Szakaly v. Smith, 544 N.E.2d 490, 492 (Ind.1989), Beins v. Oden, 155 Md.App. 237, 843 A.2d 147, 151–52 (Md.Spec.App.2004), Guillette v. Daly Dry Wall, Inc., 367 Mass. 355,......
-
Bank of New York v. Nally, 29S02-0405-CV-214.
...at 327. However, "[a] record outside the chain of title does not provide notice to bona fide purchasers for value." Szakaly v. Smith, 544 N.E.2d 490, 492 (Ind.1989). These rules apply to both purchasers and mortgagees. See id. (purchasers); Sinclair, 179 Ind. at 133, 100 N.E. 376 (mortgagee......
-
Miller v. LaSalle Bank Nat. Ass'n
...The purpose of a recording statute is to provide protection to subsequent purchasers, lessees and mortgagees. See, e.g., Szakaly v. Smith, 544 N.E.2d 490, 491 (Ind.1989). In 2003, after a 2002 recodification, Indiana's recording statute Sec. 1. (a) (1) conveyance or mortgage of land or of a......
-
Patterson v. Seavoy
...purchasers, lessees, and mortgagees." Meyer v. Marine Builders, Inc., 797 N.E.2d 760, 774 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) (citing Szakaly v. Smith, 544 N.E.2d 490, 491 (Ind.1989)).5 That is, when multiple parties claim adverse interests in the same land, the date of recording provides a means to determin......