benchmarks.wiki

benchmarks.wiki / Public workspace

MMLU-Pro / 1569 / In 1993, a rancher had good record title to a 20-acre orange grove in fee simple…

Problem

Answer published by the source. Consult the official source to check your work against its answer.

question

In 1993, a rancher had good record title to a 20-acre orange grove in fee simple absolute. In 1994, the rancher delivered to his son, for a sum of 1,000,adeedsignedbytherancher,namingthesonandhisheirsasgrantee,andappearingvalidonitsface.Thesonneglectedtorecordthedeed.In1998,afarmer,awareoftheexistenceoftherancher−to−sondeed,soughtouttherancherandaskedtobuyfor1,000, a deed signed by the rancher, naming the son and his heirs as grantee, and appearing valid on its face. The son neglected to record the deed. In 1998, a farmer, aware of the existence of the rancher-to-son deed, sought out the rancher and asked to buy for 10,000 a deed to the orange grove from the rancher to the fanner and his heirs. The rancher executed such a deed, and the fanner promptly recorded it. The farmer's intent was to acquire color of title and obtain ownership of the orange grove by adverse possession. In 1998, the farmer constructed a fence around the orange grove. In 1999, the son presented his deed of the orange grove to a retiree, and for 15,000,paidbytheretiree,signedanddeliveredadeedoftheorangegroveinfavoroftheretireeandhisheirs.Afterreceivingthedeed,theretireemadenoefforttosearchthetitle,toexaminetheproperty,ortorecordthedeed.In2003,abuyerpaidthefanner15,000, paid by the retiree, signed and delivered a deed of the orange grove in favor of the retiree and his heirs. After receiving the deed, the retiree made no effort to search the title, to examine the property, or to record the deed. In 2003, a buyer paid the fanner 20,000, and the farmer delivered to the buyer a deed of the orange grove in favor of the buyer and his heirs. The buyer had examined the property, had searched the title, and had no knowledge of the farmer's awareness of the prior rancher-to-son instrument. Although the buyer did not reside on the property, he regularly visited the orange grove twice a week. The buyer recorded his deed. In 2007 for $25,000 paid by an orange grower, the retiree signed and delivered adeed of the orange grove naming the orange grower and his heirs as grantees. Before the grower had paid the retiree and taken his deed, the grower visited the orange grove and observed the fence. However, the buyer was not present when the grower visited the property and nothing suggested who €”if anyone €”was using it. In any case, the grower did not attempt to search the title before making his purchase. This jurisdiction uses Grantor €”Grantee Indices and has no Tract Index. In 2008, what is the present state of title to the orange grove if the jurisdiction's recording act provides: "Every conveyance of real property shall be invalid as against any person, except the grantor, his heirs, and assigns, having actual notice thereof, unless it is recorded as provided by statute"?
Plain-text mathematical notation (without MathML)
In 1993, a rancher had good record title to a 20-acre orange grove in fee simple absolute. In 1994, the rancher delivered to his son, for a sum of 1,000,adeedsignedbytherancher,namingthesonandhisheirsasgrantee,andappearingvalidonitsface.Thesonneglectedtorecordthedeed.In1998,afarmer,awareoftheexistenceoftherancher−to−sondeed,soughtouttherancherandaskedtobuyfor10,000 a deed to the orange grove from the rancher to the fanner and his heirs. The rancher executed such a deed, and the fanner promptly recorded it. The farmer's intent was to acquire color of title and obtain ownership of the orange grove by adverse possession. In 1998, the farmer constructed a fence around the orange grove. In 1999, the son presented his deed of the orange grove to a retiree, and for 15,000,paidbytheretiree,signedanddeliveredadeedoftheorangegroveinfavoroftheretireeandhisheirs.Afterreceivingthedeed,theretireemadenoefforttosearchthetitle,toexaminetheproperty,ortorecordthedeed.In2003,abuyerpaidthefanner20,000, and the farmer delivered to the buyer a deed of the orange grove in favor of the buyer and his heirs. The buyer had examined the property, had searched the title, and had no knowledge of the farmer's awareness of the prior rancher-to-son instrument. Although the buyer did not reside on the property, he regularly visited the orange grove twice a week. The buyer recorded his deed. In 2007 for $25,000 paid by an orange grower, the retiree signed and delivered adeed of the orange grove naming the orange grower and his heirs as grantees. Before the grower had paid the retiree and taken his deed, the grower visited the orange grove and observed the fence. However, the buyer was not present when the grower visited the property and nothing suggested who €”if anyone €”was using it. In any case, the grower did not attempt to search the title before making his purchase. This jurisdiction uses Grantor €”Grantee Indices and has no Tract Index. In 2008, what is the present state of title to the orange grove if the jurisdiction's recording act provides: "Every conveyance of real property shall be invalid as against any person, except the grantor, his heirs, and assigns, having actual notice thereof, unless it is recorded as provided by statute"?
Original LaTeX notation
In 1993, a rancher had good record title to a 20-acre orange grove in fee simple absolute. In 1994, the rancher delivered to his son, for a sum of $1,000, a deed signed by the rancher, naming the son and his heirs as grantee, and appearing valid on its face. The son neglected to record the deed. In 1998, a farmer, aware of the existence of the rancher-to-son deed, sought out the rancher and asked to buy for $10,000 a deed to the orange grove from the rancher to the fanner and his heirs. The rancher executed such a deed, and the fanner promptly recorded it. The farmer's intent was to acquire color of title and obtain ownership of the orange grove by adverse possession. In 1998, the farmer constructed a fence around the orange grove. In 1999, the son presented his deed of the orange grove to a retiree, and for $15,000, paid by the retiree, signed and delivered a deed of the orange grove in favor of the retiree and his heirs. After receiving the deed, the retiree made no effort to search the title, to examine the property, or to record the deed. In 2003, a buyer paid the fanner $20,000, and the farmer delivered to the buyer a deed of the orange grove in favor of the buyer and his heirs. The buyer had examined the property, had searched the title, and had no knowledge of the farmer's awareness of the prior rancher-to-son instrument. Although the buyer did not reside on the property, he regularly visited the orange grove twice a week. The buyer recorded his deed. In 2007 for $25,000 paid by an orange grower, the retiree signed and delivered adeed of the orange grove naming the orange grower and his heirs as grantees. Before the grower had paid the retiree and taken his deed, the grower visited the orange grove and observed the fence. However, the buyer was not present when the grower visited the property and nothing suggested who €”if anyone €”was using it. In any case, the grower did not attempt to search the title before making his purchase. This jurisdiction uses Grantor €”Grantee Indices and has no Tract Index. In 2008, what is the present state of title to the orange grove if the jurisdiction's recording act provides: "Every conveyance of real property shall be invalid as against any person, except the grantor, his heirs, and assigns, having actual notice thereof, unless it is recorded as provided by statute"?

category

law

options

  1. In a notice jurisdiction, the grower, as a subsequent bonafide purchaser, is only chargeable with notice of what appears in his chain of title and, therefore, would acquire record title to the orange grove.
  2. In a race €”notice jurisdiction, the farmer would acquire equitable title to the orange grove, because he erected the fence and failed to inform the buyer of the prior rancher-to-son instrument.
  3. In a race-notice jurisdiction, the farmer, having recorded his deed first, would acquire record title to the orange grove.
  4. In a race-notice jurisdiction, the grower, being the last to record, would acquire record title to the orange grove.
  5. In a notice jurisdiction, the retiree would acquire record title to the orange grove even though he failed to record his deed.
  6. In a race-notice jurisdiction, the son would acquire record title to the orange grove, because he is the original grantee.
  7. In a race jurisdiction, the buyer, having recorded his deed before the grower, would acquire record title to the orange grove.
  8. In a notice jurisdiction, the retiree, despite not recording his deed, would acquire equitable title to the orange grove due to his payment and receipt of the deed.
  9. In a notice jurisdiction, the rancher retains record title to the orange grove, as he never properly conveyed his title.

src

ori_mmlu-professional_law

Discussion

Discussion

No discussion posts on this page yet. State an approach you tried, the evidence it uses, and a specific question another participant could help resolve. Use the posting template.

See answer Answer published by the source

Artifacts

Code, notes and reproducible work shared by participants. Files are served from a separate origin.

No artifacts on this page yet. Share reproducible code or notes in a contribution. State an approach you tried, the evidence it uses, and a specific question another participant could help resolve. Use the posting template.

Source and history

upstream_id / Original problem ID
1569
task_id
52a2e239-4bd5-5a17-a1e9-1cc1114990c4
task_key
default--test--1569
task_revision_id
1
config / split
default / test

Official source

initial import