VICTOR VAZEMILLER v. KENNETH SANDERS, A21A1151

In 2010 Deborah Lamb deeded Tract A to Kristi and Kenneth Sanders and Tract B to Timothy Evans; neither deed was immediately recorded.
The Sanders allegedly told family they lost the deed and did not want Tract A; Evans paid taxes and Lamb quitclaimed both tracts to Evans in January 2015 (recorded Feb. 2015).
Kenneth recorded the 2010 Sanders deed in April 2015 after objecting to Evans’s attempt to sell; Evans later contracted to sell both tracts to the Vazemillers in Feb. 2016.
The March 2016 closing with O’Kelley & Sorohan initially omitted Tract A; a corrected limited warranty deed transferring both tracts to the Vazemillers was executed Aug. 5, 2016 and recorded Aug. 10, 2016.
O’Kelley & Sorohan discovered the Sanders deed during a title search, but the firm and the Vazemillers executed a signed closing acknowledgment that the firm was a transaction agent and did not represent buyer or seller.
Kenneth sued to cancel the corrected deed and for damages; the trial court granted Kenneth partial summary judgment finding the Vazemillers had notice (via the closing attorney) and denied the Vazemillers’ cross-motion. The Court of Appeals reversed in part, vacated the denial of the Vazemillers’ motion, and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Vazemillers were bona fide purchasers protected from the Sanders deed	Sanders: O’Kelley & Sorohan discovered the Sanders deed during the title search, and that knowledge inured to the Vazemillers, so they had notice	Vazemillers: No attorney-client or principal-agent relationship with closing counsel; recorded Sanders deed was outside their chain of title so they lacked constructive notice	Reversed trial court’s finding of notice; evidence did not establish representation as a matter of law, so Vazemillers’ BFP status not defeated on that basis
Whether a recorded deed outside a purchaser’s chain of title gives constructive notice	Sanders: discovery of deed by closing counsel gave purchasers notice	Vazemillers: A recorded instrument gives constructive notice only if it is in the purchaser’s chain of title	Court accepted that a recorded deed outside the chain does not give constructive notice; but main reversal centered on lack of notice via attorney-client link
Whether the trial court properly denied the Vazemillers’ summary-judgment counterclaims (quiet title) and failed to cancel the Sanders deed	Vazemillers: entitled to summary judgment as bona fide purchasers for value	Sanders: argued ownership via 2010 deed and other grounds to defeat BFP claim	Court vacated the denial of Vazemillers’ motion and remanded for the trial court to consider their arguments and any other unresolved summary-judgment contentions

Montgomery v. Barrow, 286 Ga. 896 (defines bona fide purchaser protection and presumption of good faith)
Real Estate Operators v. McMahon, 171 Ga. 454 (recorded deed gives constructive notice only if it is a link in the purchaser’s chain of title)
Mathis v. Blanks, 212 Ga. 226 (notice to an attorney is notice to the client when within the subject matter of the attorney’s employment)
Richard v. David, 212 Ga. App. 661 (closing attorney does not necessarily represent the purchaser)
Cleveland Campers v. R. Thad McCormack, P. C., 280 Ga. App. 900 (attorney-client relationship may be implied only when the would-be client reasonably believes representation was provided, induced by attorney’s conduct)