Opinion ID: 2543629
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Deed Recording

Text: ¶ 31 The Holdens contend that under Utah's race to the registry [10] system, the Holdens title is paramount to the Aults' title, and the Holdens are thus entitled to the property because they recorded their deed before the Aults recorded their deed. In Utah, between two purchasers of real property, the first to validly record a conveyance and take the property without notice of a prior interest in the property takes the property over a purchaser who subsequently records a deed. See Wilson v. Schneiter's Riverside Golf Course, 523 P.2d 1226, 1227 (Utah 1974). The Utah Code provides: Each document not recorded as provided in this title is void as against any subsequent purchaser of the same real property, or any portion of it, if: (1) the subsequent purchaser purchased the property in good faith and for a valuable consideration; and (2) the subsequent purchaser's document is first duly recorded. Utah Code Ann. § 57-3-103 (2000) (emphasis added). ¶ 32 While it is undisputed the Holdens duly recorded their deed before the Aults recorded their deed, the Ault deed is not void as against the Holdens with respect to the disputed parcels because the Holden deed does not describe the same real property as the Ault deed, or any portion of it. Id. ¶ 33 The legal description in the Ault deed explicitly encompasses both the western parcel and the strip. Conversely, the Holden deed describes neither the strip nor the western parcel because the northern boundary of the Holden property is defined in the Holden deed legal description as the South line of the A.M. Ross and C.M. Plant property, which the parties agree refers to the Ault property. The south line of the Ault property is not the fence, [11] see supra part I, but the boundary articulated in the Ault deed legal description. See Hancock v. Planned Dev. Corp., 791 P.2d 183, 185 (Utah 1990) (noting that a specific description will control or limit a general description); Neeley v. Kelsch, 600 P.2d 979, 982 (Utah 1979) (The specific description in chains and degrees prevails over the general reference [to the location of a boundary].). Indeed, the Holden deed by its own terms excludes any property specifically included in the Ault deed. ¶ 34 We addressed a similar situation in Neeley, in which the defendants recorded their deed to a parcel of property before the plaintiff recorded. 600 P.2d at 980. However, the metes and bounds description in the defendants' deed did not include the disputed property. Id. Conversely, the plaintiff's deed included the disputed property and was recorded, although it was recorded after the defendants recorded their deed. Id. at 982. Thus, we concluded that under the recording act, [the defendants'] claim to the land [wa]s void. Id. ¶ 35 Similarly, in this case, where the Holden deed describes neither the strip nor the western parcel, the Holdens are precluded from claiming the disputed parcels by recording their deed before the Ault deed was recorded. Therefore, the Holdens cannot claim that the Ault deed is void as against them when first duly recorded because their deed does not cover the same real property. Utah Code Ann. § 57-3-103.