In Timothy v$.$ Keetch, $251$ P$\mathrm{.}3$d $848($Utah Ct$.$ App. $2011),$ the case in the text, the court held that:

The Timothys had no reason to know that they were being deceived.

Utah law requires one to inspect the public record to verify the truthfulness of statements made to him or her.

The Keetches justifiably represented that they owned the horse without any encumbrances.

Paul$$s visit to the ranch should have $$served as a warning$$ that the Timothys were being deceived.