## Facts

- Florence F. Hood owned a farm in Ontario County, New York.
- In 1913, Florence executed a deed conveying the farm to William J. Hood and delivered it to Hood’s attorney in escrow to take effect upon her death; the delivery was found to be subject to no condition other than her death.
- An accompanying arrangement contemplated that Hood would pay Florence \$200 annually for life while she remained in possession, worked the farm, and paid taxes and upkeep from farm proceeds.
- Hood did not perform his promised payment obligations.
- In 1928, Florence, still in possession, executed and recorded a second deed conveying the farm to her nephew, Howard A. Webster, and her brother, Almon B. Farwell; the deed recited nominal consideration (“one dollar and other good and valuable consideration”).
- Florence died in 1933; the 1913 escrow deed was then delivered to Hood and recorded.
- Hood sued to annul the 1928 deed, asserting priority under the earlier 1913 conveyance; defendants claimed protection as later purchasers whose deed was recorded first under Real Property Law § 291.

## Issues

1. Whether a later grantee’s prior recording, without more, establishes that the grantee is a subsequent purchaser “in good faith and for a valuable consideration” under Real Property Law § 291.
2. Which party bears the burden of proving good faith and valuable consideration when a prior unrecorded conveyance conflicts with a later recorded conveyance.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed judgment for Hood and annulled the 1928 deed as against Hood’s title.
- Defendants bore the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they were subsequent purchasers in good faith and for valuable consideration within § 291.
- Earlier recording of the later deed did not itself establish good faith or payment of value.
- The deed’s nominal consideration recital was insufficient, standing alone, to prove valuable consideration.
- Because defendants failed to prove valuable consideration (and thus failed to qualify for § 291 protection), the prior 1913 escrow deed controlled.
- The court accepted as binding the affirmed finding that the 1913 escrow delivery was subject to no condition other than Florence’s death, making the deed operative upon that event.

## Legal Principles

- Under Real Property Law § 291, a prior unrecorded conveyance is void only against a subsequent purchaser who proves both good faith (including lack of notice) and payment of valuable consideration, and who records first.
- The subsequent grantee invoking the recording act bears the burden of proving the statute’s predicates; the earlier grantee need not disprove good faith or value.
- A recital of nominal consideration in a deed is not, by itself, proof that valuable consideration was actually paid.
- Where an escrow deed is delivered subject only to the grantor’s death, and that factual finding is affirmed below, the deed is treated as valid and effective according to its escrow terms.

## Conclusion

The court held that New York’s recording statute does not protect a later grantee merely because the later deed was recorded first; the later grantee must affirmatively prove good faith and valuable consideration, and failure to prove value leaves the earlier escrow deed controlling.


Hood v. Webster, 271 N.Y. 57, 2 N.E.2d 43 (N.Y. 1936)