Lender’s mortgage and Carlos’s title
In a race-notice jurisdiction, a subsequent purchaser for value without notice prevails over an earlier unrecorded interest when the purchaser records first. Barry paid market value and recorded his deed before Lender recorded the mortgage. Nothing states that he had actual knowledge or possession-based inquiry notice of the mortgage. He therefore qualifies as a protected purchaser and takes priority over Lender’s earlier interest.
Carlos presents a different notice question. The mortgage was recorded before Carlos’s purchase, and the jurisdiction indexes by parcel number. A proper parcel search can reveal the late-recorded mortgage even though Allison had already conveyed the property. Carlos cannot assume that the grantor-grantee-chain limitations of a different indexing system eliminate constructive notice here.
Nevertheless, the shelter rule allows Carlos to receive the priority his protected transferor possessed, even if Carlos himself has notice. Otherwise, Barry’s protected ownership would be impaired because he could not transfer marketable priority. Carlos is not the original wrongdoer reacquiring the property, and nothing indicates an exception defeating shelter. Thus, Carlos ordinarily takes free of enforceable mortgage priority through Barry.
Allison’s underlying promise to repay Lender is distinct from the mortgage’s priority against the land. A sale does not extinguish her personal debt. Neither Barry nor Carlos is shown to have assumed it, and accepting a deed alone does not create personal liability on Allison’s loan.
General warranty deed covenants
A general warranty deed ordinarily includes present covenants of seisin, right to convey, and against encumbrances, and future covenants concerning quiet enjoyment, warranty, and further assurances. Present covenants are tested when the deed is delivered; future covenants generally require the later disturbance or failure contemplated by the particular covenant.
Because Carlos receives Barry’s protected priority, Lender cannot successfully enforce its subordinate mortgage against him on these facts. Barry conveyed the title he owned, and the purported mortgage does not establish an actionable superior encumbrance merely because Lender asserts it. Filing a claim alone is also not necessarily the actual or constructive eviction needed for a future-covenant claim.
If Barry were found to have notice before purchasing, or if his first recording were ineffective, the priority result could change. An enforceable existing mortgage could breach the covenant against encumbrances at delivery, irrespective of Carlos’s knowledge. A successful enforcement impairing possession could also implicate future covenants. Those are conditional alternatives, not reasons to disregard the stronger shelter-rule result.
The air-conditioning unit
Whether an item is a fixture turns on annexation, adaptation to the property, and objective intent that it remain. An air conditioner attached to the exterior wall by screwed brackets and serving the house is strongly adapted and physically attached. Although attachment may be removable, those facts support fixture status.
Fixtures ordinarily pass with the land unless reserved. The sale contract says nothing excluding the unit. Barry’s removal the day before closing therefore does not automatically convert it into property he can keep. Carlos can seek restoration or damages for the resulting loss under the sale obligations and appropriate property theories.
This is analytically different from a mortgage-title defect. The ordinary measure may include the reasonable value of the missing unit and installation or repair needed to place Carlos in the promised position, subject to avoiding duplicate or disproportionate recovery. It should not be assumed that every dispute over a missing fixture is necessarily a breach of every general-warranty covenant. Carlos has a strong fixture-removal claim even though the separate mortgage-priority claim is weak.