Supreme Court of Alaska (2022)
In Evertson v. Sibley, 520 P.3d 157 (Alaska 2022), the supreme court held that because a bank
lacked actual and constructive notice of any adverse interest to a contested property, it was a bona
fide lender with priority over other claimants to the property. (Id. at 161–62). In 2004, a son
conveyed property to his mother via a quitclaim deed. (Id. at 159–60). A few months later, the
mother conveyed it back to the son; however, they did not record the deed until October 2011. (Id.
at 160). In 2008, the mother conveyed the property to her daughter (the son’s sister) via quitclaim
deed. (Id.). Subsequently, the daughter used this property as collateral in securing a loan with the
bank. (Id.). Shortly thereafter, the son created a fictional trust to which he transferred the property,
supposedly to protect his mother. (Id.). In 2010, the daughter again used the property to secure a
second loan with the bank, and in 2018, she defaulted on this loan. (Id.). The supreme court held
that the bank was a bona fide lender because it lacked notice of the son’s interest in the property.
(Id. at 161–62). Notably, the daughter’s first loan was secured before the son transferred the
property to the trust. (Id. at 162). Also, because the deed from the son to the trust was outside the
property’s chain of title, the bank did not find this deed in its title search prior to the second loan.
(Id.). Affirming the lower court’s grant of summary judgment to the bank, the supreme court held
that because the bank lacked actual and constructive notice of any adverse interest to the contested
property, it was a bona fide lender with priority over other claimants to the property, including the
son. (Id. at 161–62).