1.35 3. Inquiry Notice Doctrine

• Jurisdiction: New York

3. Inquiry Notice Doctrine

In addition to the requirements of actual and constructive notice, a subsequent purchaser may also be required to establish that he or she exercised good faith. As noted, the doctrine of constructive notice has the practical effect of imposing a duty on a subsequent purchaser to search the real estate records. In certain cases, however, there may also be an obligation to search beyond the records. In fact, a subsequent purchaser may also be charged with notice of what a reasonable investigation or inquiry would disclose.¹³⁶

New York courts have considered this obligation of “inquiry notice” as requiring a subsequent purchaser to make an inquiry in order to discover the nature and character of any unrecorded instrument or transaction that is referred to in a recorded instrument, or to inquire about ambiguous or imprecise references to other documents,¹³⁷ subject to the protection afforded in certain instances by RPL § 291-e.¹³⁸

In addition, a searching subsequent purchaser may be charged with notice of the rights of persons in possession of real property not discoverable on a search of the real estate records.¹³⁹ It is therefore advisable for a prudent purchaser of an interest in land to physically inspect the land he is attempting to purchase, as well as to search the real estate records.

A purchaser may then be charged with the obligation of inquiry notice imputed from the records, from the form of the conveyance or from a physical examination of the premises. In all cases, to invoke the doctrine of inquiry notice, it must be shown that some fact, such as the possession of the land, existed upon which an initial obligation to inquire could be based, and that a reasonable investigation would have disclosed facts for which the subsequent purchaser is to be charged with notice.¹⁴⁰

--------

Notes:

^[136] . See, e.g., Sweet v. Henry, 175 N.Y. 268 (1903), modified on other grounds, 177 N.Y. 583 (1904); Smith v. Graham, 161 A.D. 803, 147 N.Y.S. 773 (4th Dep’t 1914), aff’d, 217 N.Y. 655 (1916), modified on other grounds, 221 N.Y. 592 (1917).

^[137] . Beach v. Jenkins, 174 A.D. 813, 159 N.Y.S. 652 (4th Dep’t 1916); Whistler v. Cole, 81 Misc. 519, 143 N.Y.S. 478 (Sup. Ct., Saratoga Co. 1913), aff’d, 162 A.D. 920, 146 N.Y.S. 118 (3d Dep’t 1914).

^[138] . RPL § 291-e (titled “Exceptions, reservations and recitals referring to unrecorded conveyances and contracts for sale of real property”); see Stroh & Sons, Inc. v. Battavia Homes & Dev. Corp...