Illinois (a race-notice state) recording statute would support Bruce, who recorded first, without notice of the prior sale to Andy.
But I have a concern:
In the example, the recording parties, Andy and Bruce, were treated differently by the auditor's office. Did one employee at the auditor's office follow protocol while the other did not? Or, was there a legitimate question about the legal description on Andy's deed, giving cause to direct him to the tax map office?
to post a reply:
login - or -
register