## Facts

- Grace V. Owens owned interests in multiple oil and gas leases in Coffey County, Kansas, including the Kufahl lease.
- In 1971, Owens executed and recorded an “Assignment of Interest in Oil and Gas Leases” to International Tours, Inc.
- The 1971 assignment specifically described seven leases (not including the Kufahl lease) and also contained a broad “Mother Hubbard” clause purporting to convey Owens’s other Coffey County lease interests whether or not specifically listed.
- In 1975, Owens executed and recorded a second assignment conveying her working interest in the Kufahl lease to J.R. Burris.
- Before purchasing, Burris obtained an abstract, searched title, and inspected, but found no record entry specifically identifying the Kufahl lease as previously conveyed to International Tours and had no actual notice of Tours’ claim.
- The surface owners sued to cancel the Kufahl lease; priority between International Tours and Burris determined who held the working interest, while Evans’s royalty interest was recognized regardless of which party prevailed.

## Issues

1. Whether recording an instrument that uses a broad “Mother Hubbard” clause, without specifically describing a tract, gives constructive notice to a subsequent purchaser of that tract.
2. Whether a later purchaser for value without actual notice takes priority over an earlier grantee claiming the tract only under a general description.

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s judgment for Burris.
- The Court held that the 1971 assignment’s general clause could be effective between Owens and International Tours, but its recording did not provide constructive notice to later purchasers of the Kufahl lease.
- Burris was an innocent purchaser for value without notice; his interest in the Kufahl lease had priority over International Tours’ claim.

## Legal Principles

- Recording statutes are intended to give notice of instruments affecting title to a specific tract being investigated by a purchaser.
- To impart constructive notice, a recorded instrument must describe the property with enough specificity to identify it, or provide a means of identification from the instrument itself or by reference to other recorded instruments.
- A “Mother Hubbard” clause may validly transfer additional, undescribed property interests as between the original parties, but it does not, standing alone, charge subsequent purchasers with constructive notice of those undescribed interests.
- When an earlier recorded conveyance lacks an adequate tract description to be found in a tract-based search, a subsequent purchaser for value without notice takes priority.

## Conclusion

The court held that broad, nonspecific “all my property/leases in the county” language may pass title between grantor and grantee but does not provide constructive notice to later purchasers as to unidentified tracts; therefore, a subsequent bona fide purchaser who searches the record for the specific tract prevails.


Luthi v. Evans, 223 Kan. 622, 576 P.2d 1064 (Kan. 1978)