Laserfiche WebLink
actual, implied or constructive notice of inconsistent outstanding <br /> rights of others is not entitled to the protection of the Recording <br /> Act. Ritchie v. Jennings , 233 N.W.2d 20, 21 (Minn. 1930) . <br /> In the instant case the Petitioners were not bona fide, good <br /> faith purchasers of the interior lot and therefore should not <br /> obtain the protections of the Recording Act . In their affidavits , <br /> Petitioners openly admit that at the time of the purchase, the <br /> docking rights , as set forth in the Agreement , were in question. <br /> The Agreement specifically grants the owners of the interior lot a <br /> right to an easement to maintain a dock. If the docking rights <br /> were in question, the issue of the validity of the easement was <br /> necessarily raised. In fact , the Petitioners stated in their <br /> respective affidavits that they were informed that the dock which <br /> came with their house may not conform with the City' s ordinances . <br /> Such statements clearly demonstrate that Petitioners knew that the <br /> validity of the agreement recorded and memorialized on their <br /> Torrens Certificate was in question. The question of the <br /> Agreement ' s validity occurred prior the Petitioners purchase of the <br /> property and coincided with the phone calls to the City Building <br /> and Zoning Administrator regarding the issue of the easement and <br /> docking rights associated with the interior lot . The City Building <br /> and Zoning Administrator consistently told the callers who were <br /> directly involved the the sale and purchase of the property that <br /> the agreement creating the easement was invalid. <br /> Even if the Petitioners ' assertion that the only riparian <br /> right in question was the right to maintain a dock is correct, the <br /> Petitioners were still not bona fide, good faith purchasers of the <br /> -5- <br />