Spickler v. Ginn
40 A.3d 999
Me.2012Background
- In 1970, RD Realty acquired Parker Head property; Olive S. Spickler (Robert's wife) was deeded a parcel in 1976 but did not record it until 1986.
- Olive deeded the property to Robert in 2007; RD Realty conveyed to Depositors Trust in 1983, with a deed in lieu of foreclosure that did not exclude Olive's parcel.
- Depositors Trust (later Key Bank) recorded its interest in 1984; Key Bank conveyed to Herbert Ginn, who then conveyed to Parker Head (the Company) in 1985, which recorded in 1985.
- In 2002, Parker Head (the Company) gifted a portion of the property to Adah Ginn, who recorded, asserting an interest that included Olive's claimed parcel.
- By 2007, both Robert and Adah held recorded deeds to the same parcel, prompting declaratory judgment/quiet title actions by Robert and an adverse possession claim by Adah.
- The Superior Court and jury found, inter alia, that Olive had prior conveyances and the Company had knowledge of Olive’s interest, leading to a judgment in favor of Robert.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What is the governing priority rule under §201? | Adah argues priority may favor later recordation or lack of notice. | Spickler contends §201 is a race-notice provision requiring lack of notice and recorded before prior transfers. | §201 is a race-notice statute. |
| Did any predecessor in Adah's chain divest Olive before Olive's 1986 recording? | Adah asserts possible divestment through earlier conveyances. | Robert argues no predecessor fully satisfied both notice and recording elements before Olive's 1986 recording. | No predecessor divested Olive before 1986. |
| Did Olive's 1986 recording cut off Adah's interest under §201? | Adah contends her interest could prevail despite Olive's earlier recording. | Spickler contends Olive's 1986 recording cuts off Adah's downstream interests. | Olive's 1986 recording cut off Adah; Robert prevails. |
| Does Hill v. McNichol apply to determine title consequences when a first grantee has notice of a prior unrecorded deed later overshadowed by recording? | Not specifically advanced by Adah. | Court applies Hill to interpret the effect of notice and recording in chain of title. | Hill governs the pass-through priority; if notice exists and later recording occurs, the first grantee may prevail. |
| Who has the superior title to the disputed parcel based on the chain of title and §201? | Adah contends she could obtain title through recording or notice. | Spickler argues Olive’s preexisting interest, with the Company’s knowledge, defeats Adah under §201. | Robert holds title; Olive’s earlier interest precludes Adah’s claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. McNichol, 76 Me. 314 (Me. 1884) (subsequent grantee with notice cannot defeat prior unrecorded title when not recording first)
- Spofford v. Weston, 29 Me. 140 (Me. 1848) (fraudulent notice defeats later conveyances; notice matters in title transfer)
- Kimball v. Land Use Regulation Comm'n, 2000 ME 20 (Me. 2000) (statutory interpretation of recording statute principles)