## Facts

- Kari Anderson patented 280 acres in McKenzie County, North Dakota, in 1916.
- In 1922, Kari conveyed the land to her four children—A.T. Anderson, James T. Anderson, Julia Anderson, and Theodore T. Anderson—as tenants in common, each receiving an undivided one-fourth interest.
- The dispute concerned only Julia’s undivided one-fourth interest.
- In 1934, Julia executed a deed conveying her one-fourth interest to James T. Anderson. James took possession and operated the farm, but the 1934 deed was not recorded until 1983.
- After James’s death, his successors (including Merton T. Anderson and Karen Anderson and other heirs of James’s line) continued farming the land, paying property taxes, and treating the property as their own. They held record title to the other three-fourths of the 280 acres.
- In 1951, Julia executed a quitclaim deed conveying the same one-fourth interest to Ida E. Mathews and Willie H. Anderson. That 1951 deed was recorded promptly in 1951.
- Ida and Willie (and their successors) never possessed the land and did not receive or claim rents or profits from it.
- Plaintiffs brought a quiet-title action, claiming Julia’s one-fourth interest through the 1934 deed (and also asserting adverse possession).
- The trial court quieted title in defendants (successors of Ida and Willie), reasoning that the recorded 1951 deed created a presumption that Ida and Willie were purchasers in good faith and for valuable consideration, and that plaintiffs had not rebutted that presumption.
- Plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court of North Dakota.

## Issues

1. Under North Dakota’s recording statute, may a later grantee who records first rely solely on the recorded deed to prove the grantee was a purchaser in good faith for valuable consideration, thereby taking priority over an earlier unrecorded deed?

## Decision

- The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- The court held that defendants did not establish that Ida and Willie were purchasers in good faith and for valuable consideration as required to gain priority under the recording statute over the earlier unrecorded 1934 deed.
- The court concluded the trial court erred by treating the 1951 deed itself as sufficient proof (or as creating a dispositive presumption) of good faith and valuable consideration when challenged.
- Because the case was resolved on deeded title and recording-statute priority, the court did not reach plaintiffs’ adverse-possession claim.

## Legal Principles

- An unrecorded conveyance is void only “as against any subsequent purchaser in good faith, and for a valuable consideration, whose conveyance is first duly recorded” (N.D. recording statute).
- A party claiming priority as a protected subsequent purchaser must prove the statutory elements, including good faith and payment of valuable consideration; recording first is not enough by itself.
- When good faith and consideration are disputed, the face of a deed or its recitals alone may be insufficient to prove the grantee paid valuable consideration and qualifies for statutory protection.
- Longstanding possession and use of land by the holder of the earlier deed can be relevant to whether a later claimant truly fits the statute’s “good faith” purchaser requirement.
- If priority is decided on recorded title and statutory purchaser status, a court may decline to decide alternative theories such as adverse possession.

## Conclusion

Anderson v. Anderson held that defendants could not defeat an earlier unrecorded deed merely by producing a later recorded deed; to obtain priority under North Dakota’s recording statute, defendants had to prove the later grantees were purchasers in good faith and for valuable consideration, and the record did not support that showing, requiring reversal and remand.


Anderson v. Anderson, 435 N.W.2d 687 (1989)