Utah Code » Title 57, Chapter 3 — Recording of Documents; part 57-3-1 — General Provisions
Utah Code

Utah Code § 57-3-102 (2026)

Record imparts notice -- Change in interest rate -- Validity of document -- Notice of unnamed interests -- Conveyance by grantee

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section UT-LEGle.utah.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Each document executed, acknowledged, and certified, in the manner prescribed by this title, each original document or certified copy of a document complying with Section 57-4a-3, whether or not acknowledged, each copy of a notice of location complying with Section 40-1-4, and each financing statement complying with Section 70A-9a-502, whether or not acknowledged shall, from the time of recording with the appropriate county recorder, impart notice to all persons of their contents.
If a recorded document was given as security, a change in the interest rate in accordance with the terms of an agreement pertaining to the underlying secured obligation does not affect the notice or alter the priority of the document provided under Subsection (1).
This section does not affect the validity of a document with respect to the parties to the document and all other persons who have notice of the document.
The fact that a recorded document recites only a nominal consideration, names the grantee as trustee, or otherwise purports to be in trust without naming beneficiaries or stating the terms of the trust does not charge any third person with notice of any interest of the grantor or of the interest of any other person not named in the document.
The grantee in a recorded document may convey the interest granted to the grantee free and clear of all claims not disclosed in the document in which the grantee appears as grantee or in any other document recorded in accordance with this title that sets forth the names of the beneficiaries, specifies the interest claimed, and describes the real property subject to the interest.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1998–2025 · leading case: Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.v. Taylor, 267 P.3d 949 (Utah Ct. App. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.v. Taylor, 267 P.3d 949 (Utah Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 8× “Consequently, there is no equitable reason for the "wild" deed from a titleless grantor to work as an estoppel of the valid deed obtained from the record owner. 123 Fourth, an interpretation that the after-acquired title statute displaces the recording act would undermine the…”
Swan Creek Vill. Homeowners Ass'n v. Warne, 2006 UT 22 (Utah 2006). · cites it 4× “Athough Aicia Warne recognizes that the Original Association would have had authority to levy such assessments, see Utah Code Ann. § 57-3-102 (1) (2000) (indicating that duly recorded documents “impart notice to all persons of their contents”), she claims that the HOA lacked…”
Young Res. Ltd. P'ship v. Promontory Landfill LLC, 2018 UT App 99 (Utah Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 4× “3d 2 (stating that "documents completed in accordance [with statute], 'from the time of recording with the appropriate county recorder, impart notice to all persons of their contents' " (quoting Utah Code Ann. § 57-3-102 (1) (LexisNexis 2010) ).”
Chase Manhattan Mortg. Corp. v. Bird (In Re Hiseman), 330 B.R. 251 (Bankr. D. Utah 2005). · cites it 6× “Utah Code Ann. § 57-3-102 (1) (2003). 11 .”
2DP Blanding, LLC v. Palmer, 2017 UT 62 (Utah 2017). · cites it 4× “So First National properly recorded the order under section 57-3-102. C ¶ 33 Palmer also claims that the district court erred in upholding arguments advanced by 2DP but rejected by the court of appeals in Palmer's litigation with First National.”
Commonwealth Prop. Advocates, LLC v. Mortg. Elec. Reg. Sys., Inc., 680 F.3d 1194 (10th Cir. 2011). “” Second, Plaintiff alleges that “[rjecordation of the plaintiffs deed to the subject property prior to the recordation of any assignment of the Trust Deed, renders any such assignments void and unenforceable against the subject property” under Utah Code Ann. §§ 57-3-102 and…”
Johnson v. Higley, 1999 UT App 278 (Utah Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 5× “ENFORCEABILITY OF EASEMENT AGAINST HIGLEYS ¶23 Higleys also argue the trial court erred in concluding they were not bona fide purchasers for value, without notice, under the recording statutes, and, thus, that the Johnson Deed was enforceable against them.”
Pioneer Builders Co. of Nevada v. K D A Corp., 292 P.3d 672 (Utah 2012). · cites it 3× “Urax Cope § 57-3-102(1) ("Each document executed, acknowledged, and certified, in the manner prescribed by this title, .”
Morris v. Off-Piste Capital LLC, 2018 UT App 7 (Utah Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 4× “" Utah Code Ann. § 57-3-102 (1) (LexisNexis 2010).”
Haik v. Sandy City, 2011 UT 26 (Utah 2011). · cites it 2× “" (emphasis added)). 14 . Inquiry notice is not at issue in this case because the Haik Parties did not have actual knowledge of any facts, such as the existence of the Agreement of Sale, giving rise to a duty to inquire further.”
Nebeker v. Summit Cnty., 2014 UT App 244 (Utah Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “64C(e)(1);, see also Utah Code Ann. § 57-3-102 (I) (LexisNexis 2010).”
Wells Fargo Bank v. Noerring, 2018 UT App 232 (Utah Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “" Utah Code Ann. § 57-3-102 (1) (LexisNexis 2010).”
Show all 24 citing cases →
— Utah Code § 57-3-102(1) — 7 cases
Pioneer Builders Co. of Nevada v. K D A Corp., 292 P.3d 672 (Utah 2012). “Urax Cope § 57-3-102(1) ("Each document executed, acknowledged, and certified, in the manner prescribed by this title, .”
Young Res. Ltd. P'ship v. Promontory Landfill LLC, 2018 UT App 99 (Utah Ct. App. 2018). “3d 2 (stating that "documents completed in accordance [with statute], 'from the time of recording with the appropriate county recorder, impart notice to all persons of their contents' " (quoting Utah Code Ann. § 57-3-102 (1) (LexisNexis 2010) ).”
Haik v. Sandy City, 2011 UT 26 (Utah 2011). “" (emphasis added)). 14 . Inquiry notice is not at issue in this case because the Haik Parties did not have actual knowledge of any facts, such as the existence of the Agreement of Sale, giving rise to a duty to inquire further.”
2DP Blanding, LLC v. Palmer, 2017 UT 62 (Utah 2017). “So First National properly recorded the order under section 57-3-102. C ¶ 33 Palmer also claims that the district court erred in upholding arguments advanced by 2DP but rejected by the court of appeals in Palmer's litigation with First National.”
Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.v. Taylor, 267 P.3d 949 (Utah Ct. App. 2011). “Consequently, there is no equitable reason for the "wild" deed from a titleless grantor to work as an estoppel of the valid deed obtained from the record owner. 123 Fourth, an interpretation that the after-acquired title statute displaces the recording act would undermine the…”
— Utah Code § 57-3-102(5) — 1 case
Lavender v. FCOI Preserve, 2025 UT App 47 (Utah Ct. App. 2025).
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.