In a chain of title where an investor's friend did not record a mortgage on a vacant lot, and the buyer buys the lot for value without notice and later learns of the mortgage, whose lien is enforceable in a notice jurisdiction?

• A. The friend's unrecorded mortgage is enforceable because it attached at the time and the buyer is liable.
• B. The investor's mortgage remains enforceable against the buyer.
• C. The bank's mortgage is the only enforceable lien against the buyer.
• D. The buyer takes title free of any mortgage due to notice jurisdiction.

Answer: (C)

In a notice jurisdiction, priority depends on whether a purchaser takes with or without notice of unrecorded interests, not on mere attachment timing alone. A later purchaser for value who has no notice of an unrecorded lien is not bound by that unrecorded interest. But interests that are properly recorded before the buyer's purchase do bind the buyer.

Here, the bank’s mortgage was recorded, so it binds the title and remains enforceable against the buyer. The investor’s friend never recorded the mortgage, and the buyer bought for value without notice of that mortgage; under a notice statute, that unrecorded lien does not bind the buyer. Even though the buyer later learns of the mortgage, it cannot override the recorded lien.

So the only enforceable lien against the buyer is the bank’s recorded mortgage.