## Facts

- Virginia M. Parkos owned an undivided five-sevenths interest in Valley County, Nebraska real property; her daughters, Susan Caruso and Carol Nattress, each owned an undivided one-seventh interest.
- Carol sought funds for medical expenses through an early inheritance arrangement: Virginia would convey her five-sevenths interest to Carol and Susan, and Susan would borrow money to pay Carol $50,000 for Carol’s share.
- On June 20, 1997, Virginia executed a warranty deed conveying her interest to Carol and Susan and gave the deed to her attorney to record.
- On June 26, 1997, Carol executed a deed conveying her interest to Susan and returned it to the same attorney for recording.
- The attorney did not promptly record the June deeds.
- On October 27, 1997, Virginia executed and delivered another warranty deed to her son, James D. Parkos, purporting to convey the same property; James recorded it on October 29, 1997.
- When Susan later checked the public records for a loan application, she learned that only the deed to James had been recorded; the June deeds were recorded on November 14, 1997.
- Susan brought a quiet title action; James asserted that the June 20 deed was not delivered, was procured by misrepresentation or undue influence, lacked consideration and donative intent, and that he was a good-faith purchaser protected by the recording statute.

## Issues

1. Whether Virginia’s June 20, 1997 deed was validly delivered when left with her attorney for recording but not immediately recorded.
2. Whether the June 20 deed was invalid due to alleged misrepresentation, undue influence, lack of consideration, or lack of intent to transfer.
3. Whether James qualified as a bona fide purchaser under Nebraska recording law despite evidence that he had notice of the earlier conveyance.

## Decision

- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the judgment quieting title in Susan Caruso.
- The court held the June 20 deed was effectively delivered and became operative despite delayed recording.
- The court upheld the trial court’s rejection of James’s claims that the June 20 deed was invalid due to misrepresentation, undue influence, or lack of intent.
- The court held James was not a bona fide purchaser because the evidence supported a finding that he had notice of the prior conveyance when he took his deed.
- Because James lacked bona fide purchaser status, his earlier recording did not defeat Susan’s rights under the earlier effective conveyances.

## Legal Principles

- Delivery of a deed turns primarily on the grantor’s intent to make the conveyance effective and the grantor’s relinquishment of control; placing an executed deed with a third party for recording can constitute delivery.
- Recording is not required for a deed to be valid between the parties; failure to promptly record does not by itself defeat an otherwise delivered conveyance.
- A subsequent grantee cannot claim bona fide purchaser protection if the grantee has actual or constructive notice of a prior conveyance, even if the prior deed is unrecorded at the time.
- Recording-act protection applies only to subsequent purchasers for value who take without notice; priority by recording does not prevail when notice is proved.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that Virginia’s earlier deed was delivered and effective, and that James, having notice of the prior transfer, could not claim bona fide purchaser protection; title was properly quieted in Susan based on the earlier conveyances.


Caruso v. Parkos, 637 N.W.2d 351 (Neb. 2002)