Another Property Question From Me.

[mutual_biscuit]

O transfers Blackacre to A who does not record. O transfers Blackacre to B who does record. B is the rightful owner. My question is this: What cause of action does A have against O?

I know he doesn't have any action under a covenant of quiet enjoyment because that only warrants against claims that would arise from acts that occurred prior to the grant from O to A. Is there a cause of action under a covenant of general warranty or is the same true in that it only protects against claims of superior title arising from acts prior to the grant from O to A. How can A get to this O a-hole?

[pig floyd]

self-help.

[mutual_biscuit]

@#!*-you.

[NeverTrustKlingons]

If you review your present covenants (the warranties that are included in a conveyance at the time the conveyance is made), you will see O has breached several of these and A will have a cause of action on them.

[pig floyd]

If you review your present covenants (the warranties that are included in a conveyance at the time the conveyance is made), you will see O has breached several of these and A will have a cause of action on them.

I didn't learn that in Property.  I want my money back.   

[mutual_biscuit]

O did not breach any of the present covenants you ass. I have a pretty simple question and I can't find the answer (my textbook is at school). Does the general warranty covenant warrant against future conveyances of the property by the grantor. My guess is that it does not protect against this action just like the quiet enjoyment warranty does not warrant against this, but I'm not 100% sure . . . only 93% sure. 

[NeverTrustKlingons]

Yeah you're right.  But then again I took my property exam two weeks ago without asking bad questions on a public board... maybe you should go back to studying and I should go back to being done with 1L.  ;-)

[mutual_biscuit]

You're done with school and you're still sitting on this board during the afternoon? That's just sad.

[NeverTrustKlingons]

Yes it is. :-(