A professor gifts rental property to her daughter and then sells the property. The professor fraudulently states that her daughter is managing the property. The buyer records after the daughter's donative deed, but the daughter records before the buyer. The jurisdiction follows a race-notice recording statute. Which statement is correct?

• A. The buyer cannot prevail because the professor's deed was unrecorded.
• B. The buyer can prevail because the buyer recorded before the daughter.
• C. The daughter prevails because she recorded first under a race-notice statute.
• D. The buyer prevails because the daughter was a donee.

Answer: (C)

Under a race-notice recording rule, the winner is the party who takes without notice of a prior unrecorded conveyance and records first. Here, the daughter received the property by gift from the professor and recorded before the buyer. If the daughter took without knowledge of any earlier unrecorded transfer to the buyer, she satisfies the “no notice” requirement, and since she recorded first, she wins title. The buyer cannot prevail simply because he recorded later; his victory would depend on him having no notice and recording first, which did not happen. The fact that the transfer to the daughter was a gift does not remove her protection under race-notice, and the professor’s misrepresentation about management does not create notice defeating the daughter’s recorded interest.