Recorded Deeds One Minute Apart

This is probably another "it depends" question based on laws in a specific state. But here in Virginia "pocket deeds" are legal. So the fact that they are recorded doesn't matter at all. It's when they are signed that is important. And since they don't write a time beside the date when they sign and date, all deeds done the same day are simultaneous.

Simultaneous.?ÿ Seniority isn't decided by luck of the draw of the order the Recorder time-stamped them.?ÿ Three docs, 1 minute apart had to have been submitted at the same time.?ÿ?ÿ

Most important, the grantor wouldn't have had an intent to make any of the conveyances, executed together, to have precedence over any of the others.

Sequential - Each Parcel has its own ORB and PAGE number.

Simultaneous - Subdivision of lands recorded at the same time via "Plat".?ÿ

????

Sequential.

Even subdivisions filed by deed are sequential. (In my state)

I thought if it wasn't a plat it was a race to the courthouse??ÿ Not anymore?

@bstrand

That depends upon what State you are in.

Texas has always been signed, witnessed and notarized deed date.

Louisiana is race to recording.

Sequential

@eapls2708

Many state's courts would disagree. Unrecorded deeds are legal, but in many states they are not enforceable against third parties until recorded. 

As usual it depends. The superior intrument number wins here, but the language of the deed can turn that around.?ÿ

If I record my so and so except such and such, such and such is senior regardless of the order of recording...

I think all jurisdictions would call it sequential if the parcels have different chains of title.?ÿ On the other hand, if this represents a subdivision, then all would agree simultaneous.?ÿ Either way, hopefully a retracement survey could be done without resorting to junior/senior rights issues.?ÿ If a subdivision by deed and nothing surveyed yet, then it will be a consideration.

If recording statutes come into play, there's too many things to list that might make it go one way or another. But that would only happen if major title problems beyond a small boundary discrepancy.

@aliquot

Still talking about recorded deeds.  I'd be very surprised if there is a state that would arbitrarily apply senior rights over intent in a case like this.

If A grants the east 100 feet of Tanglewood to B and C has knowledge of the grant then A grants the west 100 feet of Tanglewood to C the next day but C immediately records while B waits until next week nevertheless in the case of a conflict B gets 100 feet and C gets the remainder.

That's what can happen when you know too much.

Title can get very complicated, I would be careful about making pronouncements of who owns what based solely on the sequence of recording.

The example I posted is fairly simple...pick up a Property Outline (essentially a law school simplified text book, sort of like cliff notes for law students), some of the A to B except C if this but D if the other thing, who owns it, maybe the thing to B is illegal because of some obscure rule so how does that affect D, etc. Mind bending stuff like that.

@duane-frymire

My State has subverted the simultaneity effect of subdivisions by suspending the statutory requirement that monuments must be place prior to the plat recordation. We now have many brand new subdivisions without any interior lot monuments. The first buyer has a survey performed and it becomes the senior parcel. Each subsequent lot surveyed becomes junior to the previously surveyed ones. 

@jamesf1

That's sort of the way it works in NY.  Courts recognize subdivision as simultaneous conveyance, but say the intent as evidenced by the monuments is superior to an inferred intent for all lots to be same size or same size in relation to mapped v. later surveyed discrepancies.  So, no junior/senior rights.  Honor staked lots per retracement principles. Prorate allowed in left over un-surveyed areas if it makes sense.

@duane-frymire

When a subdivision map is fully executed and recorded who is it conveyed to?

Care needs to be taken even when the grantors and grantees are on the same page with what they wish to do. One case I was involved in was a grantor A who granted parcels to B, then B turned around and granted those parcels to C and D. I don't remember why it was done that way but for some reasons back 40 years ago they wanted to do it that way.?ÿ

So all the parties showed up in the Title office and signed papers on the same day. Then the deeds were taken to the Clerk's office to be recorded.?ÿ

The Clerk's staff don't know what is up and record B granting to C and D. Then a day or so later they grab more papers from the stack and record A granting to B. My guess, no one is sure exactly how it happened. Then I come years later to do a survey and the companies title staff send me a spreadsheet highlighting the issue, as far as they are concerned B owns both parcels.?ÿ

Then I ask the question no one seems to consider, "did they get title insurance". Sure enough they did, and the same attorney and company are in town and in business.

Let them fix it.

And they did!!

@duane-frymire

I was reading the OP as being a division of a single parent parcel, thus common chains of title.  Therefore simultaneous.  I agree, if it were parcels which just happened to be adjacent to each other but had separate title, then sequential.