## Facts

- In 1978, James Orr obtained a money judgment exceeding $50,000 against William Elliott, but the judgment misspelled the debtor’s name as “William Duane Elliot.”
- Orr recorded an abstract of judgment in Orange County in 1978 listing the debtor as “William Duane Elliot” and “William Duane Eliot,” and it was indexed only under those spellings.
- After recordation, Elliott acquired real property, making the property subject to Orr’s judgment lien as between Orr and Elliott.
- In 1979, Elliott sold the property to Rick Byers; the title search did not disclose Orr’s abstract because it was not indexed under “Elliott.”
- Orr sued Byers, Elliott, and two financial institutions seeking declaratory relief and, in substance, foreclosure of the judgment lien, asserting that the recorded abstract gave constructive notice under the doctrine of idem sonans.
- After a bench trial, the court entered judgment for defendants; Orr (later substituted by his widow as estate representative) appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a recorded abstract of judgment that misspells the judgment debtor’s name imparts constructive notice to subsequent purchasers under the doctrine of idem sonans.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for defendants.
- The court held that an abstract of judgment with a misspelled debtor name does not provide constructive notice under idem sonans to a good-faith purchaser for value.
- Because the abstract was indexed only under the misspelled names, a purchaser searching the correct spelling was not charged with notice of the lien.

## Legal Principles

- The doctrine of idem sonans applies to minor name inaccuracies only where the written name is not material; it does not control when precise spelling is material to notice.
- Constructive notice from recorded instruments depends on the written, indexed name in the public recording system; the mechanism is visual rather than phonetic.
- A judgment creditor bears the risk of loss from misspellings in recorded lien documents intended to give notice through indexing; the burden is not shifted to subsequent purchasers to search multiple spelling variants.
- Courts will not expand constructive notice rules in a way that undermines reliance on grantor–grantee indexing and imposes broad variant-name search obligations on purchasers and title examiners.

## Conclusion

A recorded abstract of judgment that misspells the debtor’s name is a material defect for indexing purposes and does not impart constructive notice to subsequent purchasers under idem sonans; the resulting loss falls on the judgment creditor who recorded the defective instrument.


Orr v. Byers, 198 Cal. App. 3d 666 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988)