Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 507. RECORDING AND FILING CONVEYANCES
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 507.34 (2026)

Unrecorded Conveyances Void In Certain Cases

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Every conveyance of real estate shall be recorded in the office of the county recorder of the county where such real estate is situated; and every such conveyance not so recorded shall be void as against any subsequent purchaser in good faith and for a valuable consideration of the same real estate, or any part thereof, whose conveyance is first duly recorded, and as against any attachment levied thereon or any judgment lawfully obtained at the suit of any party against the person in whose name the title to such land appears of record prior to the recording of such conveyance. The fact that such first recorded conveyance is in the form, or contains the terms of a deed of quitclaim and release shall not affect the question of good faith of such subsequent purchaser or be of itself notice to the subsequent purchaser of any unrecorded conveyance of the same real estate or any part thereof.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 66 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1950–2024 · leading case: Citizens State Bank v. Raven Trading Partners, Inc., 786 N.W.2d 274 (Minn. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Citizens State Bank v. Raven Trading Partners, Inc., 786 N.W.2d 274 (Minn. 2010). · cites it 36× “The district court noted that Raven's mortgage was recorded prior to the Citizens mortgage and would normally take priority based on Minn.Stat. § 507.34 (2008). But the district court reasoned that equitable subrogation should apply for several reasons.”
Amos Graves v. Michael Wayman, First Minnesota Bank, 859 N.W.2d 791 (Minn. 2015). · cites it 26× “, concurring), that is codified in Minnesota’s Recording Act, Minn. Stat. § 507.34 (2014). The Recording Act “serves to protect bona fide purchasers who purchase a property in good faith and lack notice of others’ outstanding rights to the property.”
Washington Mut. Bank, F.A. v. Elfelt, 756 N.W.2d 501 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 18× “Appellant now argues that (1) the district court committed reversible error by failing to properly consider its status as a bona fide purchaser under Minn.Stat. § 507.34, and (2) respondent is equitably estopped from asserting a claim to the property.”
Stone v. Jetmar Props., LLC, 733 N.W.2d 480 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 8× “The district court also concluded that Ortega was not a good-faith purchaser for value under Minn.Stat. § 507.34 (2006). Based on these conclusions, the court awarded Stone damages and title to the duplex.”
Capital Realty Inv. Tax Exempt Fund Ltd. P'ship v. Greenhaven Vill. Apts. of Burnsville Phase II Ltd. P'ship (In Re Greenhaven Vill. Apts. of Burnsville Phase II Ltd. P'ship), 100 B.R. 465 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1989). · cites it 9× “Minn.Stat. § 507.34 (emphasis added). This section establishes, at least by negative implication, that the holder of a recorded interest in real estate, such as an assignment of rents, takes ahead of any rights in that real estate acquired by a subsequent good faith purchaser or…”
Riverview Muir Doran, LLC v. JADT Dev. Grp., LLC, 790 N.W.2d 167 (Minn. 2010). · cites it 2× “KKE bases this argument upon our cases under the Minnesota Recording Act, Minn.Stat. § 507.34 (2008), which have held that a purchaser with “either actual, implied, or constructive notice” of outstanding rights of others "is not a bona fide purchaser entitled to the protection…”
Mavco, Inc. v. Eggink, 739 N.W.2d 148 (Minn. 2007). · cites it 6× “12 to support our conclusion to reverse the district court, we also note that to do otherwise on the facts of this case would require us to contravene the Minnesota Recording Act, Minn.Stat. § 507.34 (2006), and the lis pen-dens statute, Minn.”
Cnty. of Ramsey v. MERSCORP Holdings, Inc., 962 F. Supp. 2d 1082 (D. Minnesota 2013). · cites it 31× “” Minn.Stat. § 507.34. The county recorder collects a fee to index and record these conveyances.”
Hentges v. P.H. Feely & Son, Inc., 436 N.W.2d 488 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 8× “The law in Minnesota concerning the voidability of unrecorded conveyances of real property is governed by Minn.Stat. § 507.34 (1986), the state recording statute.”
Miller v. Hennen, 438 N.W.2d 366 (Minn. 1989). · cites it 4× “The trial court and court of appeals’ decisions are based on an application of the Minnesota Recording Act, Minn.Stat. § 507.34 (1986). The Recording Act provides, in pertinent part: Every conveyance of real estate shall be recorded in the office of the county recorder * * *;…”
Chaney v. Minneapolis Cmty. Dev. Agency, 641 N.W.2d 328 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “02 (2000) (providing for notice of lis pendens) and Minn.Stat. § 507.34 (2000) (Minnesota’s race-notice recording statute).”
Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc., 463 N.W.2d 522 (Minn. 1990). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 507.34 (1990). Under the Minnesota Recording Act, a bona fide purchaser who records first obtains rights to the property which are superior to a prior purchaser who failed to record.”
Show all 66 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.