Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

White v. Buntin, 77 S.W.3d 702 (2002)

Citation
White v. Buntin, 77 S.W.3d 702 (2002)
Parent Document
White v. Buntin, 77 S.W.3d 702 (2002)
Jurisdiction
Missouri (state)
Effective Date
2002-06-18

Full Text

890 chars
We turn to the issue of actual notice. Here, there is no evidence that purchasers had actual notice from anyone of tenant’s claim to the fill dirt, driveways, and drain tiles. But that does not end our inquiry. Actual notice in regard to the contents of agreements affecting real estate can include circumstances where the purchaser is charged with notice, if the purchaser has knowledge of facts which would put an ordinarily prudent person on inquiry. Hamrick v. Herrera, 744 S.W.2d at 462. Under such circumstances, the purchaser is considered to have “notice of such facts as would be disclosed by reasonable pursuit and proper inquiry.” Id. If a purchaser has knowledge from any source which should “reasonably put him on inquiry,” he is charged with the knowledge he would gain by making that inquiry. Woodbury v. Connecticut Mutual Life Ins., 350 Mo. 527, 166 S.W.2d 552, 555 (1942).