## Facts

- Grover C. Lowery occupied a five-acre parcel to obtain a federal patent under the Alaska Homesite Law (43 U.S.C. § 687a), filed required paperwork, and received a favorable agency recommendation before patent issued.
- Before receiving a federal patent, Lowery executed a quitclaim deed conveying the parcel to William A. Horvath and Barbara J. Horvath.
- The Horvaths recorded their deed on January 5, 1970, before Lowery received the federal patent; at that time Lowery had no record title, so the recording was outside the later chain of title.
- The United States issued the patent to Lowery on March 30, 1970.
- After patent, Lowery executed a second quitclaim deed conveying the same parcel to William Sabo and Barbara Sabo, who recorded on December 13, 1973.
- The Sabos paid value and lacked actual knowledge of the Horvaths’ earlier deed.
- Horvath sued to quiet title; the Sabos counterclaimed to quiet title in themselves.

## Issues

1. When, under the Alaska Homesite Law, did Lowery acquire a present equitable interest in the land that he could convey before patent?
2. Can a grantee under a quitclaim deed qualify as a “subsequent innocent purchaser in good faith” under Alaska’s recording statute (Alaska Stat. § 34.15.290)?
3. Does a deed recorded before the grantor acquires record title—outside the chain of title—give constructive notice to a later purchaser?

## Decision

- The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed that Lowery had a transferable equitable interest when he conveyed to the Horvaths before patent.
- The court held that taking by quitclaim deed does not, by itself, bar bona fide purchaser status under Alaska Stat. § 34.15.290.
- The court reversed the superior court’s ruling on constructive notice, holding that the Horvaths’ pre-patent recorded deed was a “wild deed” outside the chain of title and did not impart constructive notice.
- Because the Sabos were subsequent purchasers for value without actual or constructive notice who recorded, their interest had priority under Alaska’s race-notice scheme.

## Legal Principles

- A claimant under federal land-entry statutes may hold a present equitable interest capable of conveyance before issuance of a patent when statutory requirements have been substantially satisfied and no clear anti-alienation rule applies.
- Under Alaska’s recording statute, bona fide purchaser protection turns on value and lack of notice; the quitclaim form does not automatically defeat “good faith purchaser” status.
- In a grantor–grantee index system, constructive notice extends only to recorded instruments within the purchaser’s chain of title.
- A deed recorded before the grantor’s title appears of record is a “wild deed” and does not provide constructive notice to subsequent purchasers who search the chain from the point the grantor first holds record title.

## Conclusion

Lowery’s first quitclaim deed could transfer an equitable pre-patent interest to the Horvaths, but the Horvaths’ early recording—made before Lowery had record title—did not give constructive notice; therefore, the Sabos, as later purchasers for value without notice who recorded, took superior title.


Sabo v. Horvath, 559 P.2d 1038 (Alaska 1976)