Whitlady as seller and Noble as buyer have entered into a contract for the sale of Whitlady's land to Noble. In preparation for the closing, Noble ordered a title search of Whitlady's property. The search revealed a deed in the chain of title, executed and recorded 14 years ago, that contains a discrepancy. The typed part of the deed identifies the grantor as "Michael Allen Hayes," but the signature on the deed appears as "M. Allan Hays." Whitlady's attorney advised her that there is some risk that a person named "Michael Allen Hayes" might appear and claim that he did not sign the deed in question. Whitlady's attorney also advised Whitlady that the law of adverse possession would bar any claim by Hayes. Whitlady filed suit to quiet title and a court held that the law of adverse possession bars any claim by "Michael Allen Hayes." Despite Whitlady's successful suit to quiet title, Noble refuses to close the sale claiming Whitlady cannot provide marketable title. Is Noble correct?

a- Yes, since the deed in question may not have been delivered. b-Yes, since land acquired by adverse possession is universally considered to not meet the standard of marketable title c- No, since the successful suit to quiet title means that Whitlady's title based on adverse possession provides marketable title. d-No, because once the contract was signed, under the doctrine of equitable conversion, Noble became the equitable owner of the property.

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Noble is correct to refuse to close the sale as the deed discrepancy may render the title unmar... View the full answer