<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Normally, I would never quote from Google on matters of law, but it's a lot easier than copying text from text books. So the concept of bona fide purchasers for value without notice is defined below - and it gives the BFP (for value without notice) the goods as against the former owner. But you are correct in saying that there is still a claim against the person who fraudulently sold the property.<div><br></div><div>So the question is then what is meant by 'without notice' and what reasonable steps should such purchaser have taken so that they can be said to be 'without notice'.<br><div><br></div><div>All good fun, reallly</div><div><br></div><div>Holly</div><div><br></div><div><p>A <b><i>bona fide</i> purchaser</b> (<b>BFP</b>) – referred to more completely as a <b><i>bona fide</i> purchaser for value without notice</b> – is a term used in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law" title="Law">law</a> of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_property" title="Real property">real property</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_property" title="Personal property">personal property</a>
to refer to an innocent party who purchases property without notice of
any other party's claim to the title of that property. A BFP must
purchase for value, meaning that he or she must pay for the property
rather than simply be the beneficiary of a gift. Even when a party
fraudulently <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conveyancing" title="Conveyancing">conveys</a>
property to a BFP (for example, by selling to the BFP property that has
already been conveyed to someone else), that BFP will, depending on the
laws of the relevant <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction" title="Jurisdiction">jurisdiction</a>, take good (valid) <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_%28property%29" title="Title (property)">title</a>
to the property despite the competing claims of the other party. As
such, recording one's interest protects an owner from losing that
interest to a subsequent buyer who qualifies as a BFP. Moreover, some
jurisdictions (so-called "race-notice" jurisdictions) require the BFP
himself or herself to record in order to enforce his or her rights. In
any case, parties with a claim to ownership in the property will retain a
cause of action (a right to sue) against the party who made the
fraudulent conveyance.</p><p>A BFP will not be bound by equitable interests of which he/she does
not have actual or imputed notice, as long as he/she has made "such
inspections as ought reasonably to have been made".<sup id="cite_ref-1" class="reference"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_purchaser#cite_note-1"><span>[</span>1<span>]</span></a></sup></p><p>BFPs are also sometimes referred to as "Equity's Darling". However, as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Hackney" title="Jeffrey Hackney">Jeffrey Hackney</a> has pointed out,<sup id="cite_ref-2" class="reference"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_purchaser#cite_note-2"><span>[</span>2<span>]</span></a></sup> the title is somewhat misleading; in cases where legal title is passed to a <i>bona fide</i>
purchaser for value without notice, it is not so much that equity has
any great affection for the purchaser - it is simply that equity refuses
to intervene to preserve any rights held by the former beneficial owner
of the property. The relationship between the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courts_of_equity" title="Courts of equity" class="mw-redirect">courts of equity</a>
and the BFP are better characterised as benign neglect. However, equity
still undoubtedly recognises the right of the beneficial owner to claim
against the former legal owner where the sale was improper.</p><p>In the United States, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_law" title="Patent law" class="mw-redirect">patent law</a> codifies the <i>bona fide</i> purchaser rule, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_35_of_the_United_States_Code" title="Title 35 of the United States Code">35 U.S.C.</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/35/261.html">§ 261</a>. Unlike the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law" title="Common law">common law</a>, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute" title="Statute">statute</a> cuts off both equitable <i>and</i> legal claims to the title.</p><div><div>On 14/01/2014, at 9:09 AM, <a href="mailto:rob.golding@astutium.com">rob.golding@astutium.com</a> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div><br><blockquote type="cite">is talk about the 'innocent third party' who put<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">money down in good faith for something - with compensation for the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">loser.<br></blockquote><br>The 3rd-party would have recourse to claim from whomever they paid<br> - you can't legitimise the purchase of 'stolen' goods through an 'innocent 3rd party'<br><br>Rob<br><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></body></html>