Facts
- In 1945, a landowner conveyed Jefferson County a deeded right-of-way for public purposes, 80 feet wide, described by reference to a proposed road’s centerline.
- The county did not record the right-of-way deed until 1952.
- In 1949, an existing public road crossing the tract was widened, paved, and improved; the roadway and shoulders occupied 30 feet, and the road occupied a substantial portion of the county’s right-of-way.
- In 1951, the landowner conveyed the property (including the right-of-way area) to M.C. Mosley by warranty deed stating the conveyance was “subject to all public roads, or easements and rights of way.”
- After the county recorded its right-of-way deed, Mosley conveyed portions of the property to the Peoples (1952) and the Selfs (1953), with deeds recorded and containing similar “subject to” language.
- The case was tried without a jury on stipulated facts and pleadings; the trial court concluded Mosley lacked actual, constructive, implied, or inquiry notice of the county’s unrecorded right-of-way and entered judgment for Mosley and his grantees.
Issues
- Whether the visible existence and improvement of a public road across the property charged Mosley with inquiry notice of the county’s deeded right-of-way despite the county’s delayed recordation.
- Whether a deed clause conveying property “subject to all public roads, or easements and rights of way” required Mosley to inquire into outstanding roadway and easement interests.
- Whether Mosley’s grantees took subject to the county’s right-of-way based on Mosley’s notice and/or the county’s recordation before their purchases.
Decision
- The Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the declaratory judgment against Jefferson County and remanded.
- The court held Mosley was not a bona fide purchaser without notice as to the county’s right-of-way.
- The court held the county’s right-of-way was enforceable against Mosley and against the Peoples and the Selfs.
Legal Principles
- A purchaser is charged with inquiry notice when visible conditions on the land or other known facts would cause a prudent person to investigate; the purchaser is deemed to know what reasonable inquiry would disclose.
- The open and obvious existence of a public road across property provides notice sufficient to require inquiry into the right-of-way’s existence and extent.
- A deed recital that the conveyance is “subject to” public roads, easements, and rights-of-way is given effect and places the purchaser on inquiry as to such interests; it is not treated as meaningless surplusage.
- Under Alabama recording law, an unrecorded conveyance is ineffective against a purchaser for value only if the purchaser lacks legally sufficient notice; inquiry notice defeats bona fide purchaser protection.
- A subsequent purchaser cannot obtain greater title than the grantor possessed; where the grantor’s title is burdened by an easement enforceable against the grantor, successors in title generally take subject to that burden.
- Recordation of the easement before later conveyances supplies constructive notice to subsequent purchasers in addition to any inquiry notice from the property’s condition or deed language.
Conclusion
The court ruled that Mosley’s deed language and the plainly existing public road required inquiry into roadway and easement rights, so Mosley could not claim bona fide purchaser status against the county’s earlier unrecorded right-of-way, and the county’s easement bound both Mosley and his subsequent grantees.