THE SCOPE OF THE TITLE SEARCH ANTICIPATED BY THE RECORDING ACT
The Recording Act imposes no obligation on a purchaser to try to find wild deeds when doing a title search.
(64) Somewhat ironically, a 1975 Alaska Supreme Court decision (65) that disagreed with another decision by Judge Folta concerning the operation of the Alaska Recording Act made in 1951 (66) indicates that adoption of Finley is consistent with the court's view of how the Alaska Recording Act operates.
If the requirement of the Recording Act that a buyer from C can take Greenacre free of the mortgage only if the buyer has no notice of it were to be strictly applied, C would find it very hard if not impossible to sell the land at its fair market value as an unencumbered parcel, since almost everyone has notice of the mortgage now.
It is predicted that the Alaska Supreme Court will follow these out-of-state precedents, which may or may not require the court to disagree with a 1958 Ninth Circuit decision applying Alaska's Race-Notice Recording Act. (98)
Rejecting Nordling's claim that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the protection of Alaska's Recording Act because they had inquiry notice of Nordling's deed due to his presence on the land, the Ninth Circuit panel concluded:
The Alaska Supreme Court could address in the future the several Recording Act issues discussed above that that court has yet to encounter, as well as re-examine its Sabo holding on the search backward issue.
This incorporated by reference the Recording Act in effect in Oregon in 1884.
Thus a failure to investigate can result in a subsequent purchaser not getting the protection of the Recording Act and being subject to the common law's priority for prior-in-time instruments.
Colson, Limits of Title Search Under the West Virginia Recording Act, 56 W.
(41.) Sabo adopts for Alaska the "majority rule" reflecting "the clear weight of authority" that a purchaser who takes a quitclaim deed can still be a bona fide purchaser and obtain the protection of the recording act. Id.
(45.) Concerning the operation of this well-established doctrine in Alaska's recording act jurisprudence, see Methonen v.