## Facts

- William J. Wineberg, a citizen of Washington, claimed title to about 880 acres of timber land in Humboldt County, California.
- Wineberg asserted that in May 1948 he purchased the property from O. O. Barker for $6,000 and received a deed, but he did not record the deed in Humboldt County until May 1951.
- While Wineberg’s deed remained unrecorded, Barker dealt with the property as though he still owned it.
- In 1950, Barker executed a timber sale contract with Construction Engineers, Inc.; the contract was recorded.
- In 1951, Barker conveyed the same property to Natural Resources, Inc.; that deed was recorded before Wineberg recorded his 1948 deed.
- During the same period, several creditors obtained judgments against Barker and recorded judgment liens that were asserted against the property.
- Wineberg brought a federal diversity action to quiet title and for related relief, naming Moore, Construction Engineers, Natural Resources, Inc., and various judgment creditors as defendants.
- The court first had to resolve a disputed factual question: whether Wineberg in fact purchased the property from Barker (as Wineberg claimed) or whether the dealings were something else in substance.
- Wineberg also relied on possession of the land—by himself or those connected with him—as notice of his claimed ownership to later purchasers and lien claimants.
- The court applied California substantive law because the land and relevant transactions were in California.

## Issues

1. Whether Wineberg’s unrecorded deed from Barker was valid and enforceable against later purchasers and judgment lien creditors claiming through Barker under California’s recording rules.
2. Whether Wineberg’s possession of the land (personally or through others) gave constructive notice that prevented Construction Engineers, Natural Resources, Inc., and the judgment creditors from claiming protection as parties without notice.

## Decision

- The court found that Wineberg actually purchased the property from Barker and held a valid deed, even though he recorded it years later.
- The court held that Wineberg’s possession was sufficient to place subsequent purchasers and encumbrancers on inquiry, charging them with constructive notice of Wineberg’s interest.
- Because the later claimants were charged with notice, they could not qualify as protected purchasers (or equivalent protected claimants) without notice under California law.
- The court quieted title in Wineberg, rejecting the competing claims based on the later-recorded timber contract, later-recorded deed, and the recorded judgment liens.

## Legal Principles

- Under California law, an unrecorded deed is still valid between the parties and is effective against later parties who take with actual or constructive notice of the prior interest.
- A later purchaser (or protected claimant) gains priority over a prior unrecorded conveyance only if the later party takes for value and without notice of the earlier interest.
- Possession of real property by someone other than the record owner is constructive notice of the possessor’s rights and triggers a duty of reasonable inquiry by later purchasers and encumbrancers.
- The notice chargeable after possession puts a party on inquiry is not limited to what public records reveal; it includes what reasonable investigation would disclose.
- When a buyer takes while a third party is in possession, the buyer is presumed to take with notice of the third party’s legal and equitable rights and subject to those rights.
- That presumption is rebutted only by clear proof of a diligent but unsuccessful effort to discover the possessor’s rights.
- A judgment lien reaches only the judgment debtor’s interest in the property; if the debtor previously conveyed the property, the lien cannot defeat the earlier grantee’s title where the lienholder is charged with notice of that conveyance.

## Conclusion

Wineberg’s earlier, unrecorded deed prevailed because the court found he had purchased the land and that his possession gave constructive notice to later purchasers and judgment lien creditors, preventing them from claiming priority under California recording law; title was therefore quieted in Wineberg.


Wineberg v. Moore, 194 F.Supp. 12 (1961)