Luthi v. Evans
Kansas Supreme Court · Decided April 1, 1978
Full citation
Luthi v. Evans, 576 P.2d 1064 (Kan. 1978).
Quote pages are pages of 223 Kan. 622, the official report, so quotes and pinpoints cite it; for 576 P.2d 1064, find the page in that reporter.
VerifiedQuotes, pinpoints and citation checked word for word against the opinion; facts checked against the opinion before publication. October 20, 2026.
Dale A. Luthi and Marcia Luthi
party named in captionappellees
John R. Evans, J. R. Burris and International Tours, Inc.
party named in captionappellees; Tours, appellant
Brief
Facts
On February 1, 1971, Grace V. Owens owned interests in a number of oil and gas leases in Coffey county, Kansas. By a written assignment (a transfer of her rights), she conveyed all of those interests to International Tours, Inc. (Tours). The first paragraph described seven leases specifically, and those leases are not part of this appeal. The second paragraph used a general description, called a "Mother Hubbard" clause. It said Owens intended to convey all her working and overriding royalty interests in all oil and gas leases in Coffey county, whether or not they were listed. The assignment was filed for record with the county register of deeds on February 16, 1971. Owens also owned a working interest in the Kufahl lease, which the assignment did not list. On January 30, 1975, Owens assigned that interest to J. R. Burris. Burris checked the register's records himself and later got an abstract of title. Neither showed the assignment to Tours, and he had no actual knowledge of it. Burris agreed the general language passed title to Tours as between Owens and Tours. He argued it was too vague to warn a later buyer, because it did not name the lessor and lessee, give the lease date, or give a legal description or recording data. Tours argued that recording gave constructive notice (notice the law presumes) to later purchasers.
Issue
Does recording an instrument that describes the property only by a general "Mother Hubbard" clause give constructive notice of the conveyance to a later purchaser who had no actual knowledge of it?
Holding
The recorded assignment to Tours did not describe the Kufahl interest with sufficient specificity, so recording it did not give Burris constructive notice. Burris had no actual knowledge of the earlier assignment, so his later assignment prevailed over the one to Tours.
IRAC
Learn the citation form
Short video lessons on the rules behind this brief’s citations, each with two pause-and-practice exercises.
The Citation Code · citationcode.com/cases/luthi-v-evans