Volume 5 Winter 2011 Number 2 - Charleston Law Review

CHARLESTON LAW REVIEW [Volume 5and served as officers and directors; however, Ray Hice had soldmost of his shares of Hi-Mil, Inc. to Miller before the plaintiffbrought her action for reformation. 141 In 1977, the mistake wasdiscovered, and in 1978, the plaintiff brought her action. 142Under the race statute, the issue of who owned the 13-acretract of land should have been settled with the filing of thedeed; 143 however, the court used its equitable powers to disregardthe direct effect of the statute. 144 Notice and race-notice statutesexplicitly provide the contingency of dealing with a bona fidepurchaser without knowledge of a mistake in the deed. 145 Racestatutes make no such provision. 146 Yet the Hice court held thatbecause Ray Hice, as an officer and director of Hi-Mil, Inc. at thetime he transferred the property to Hi-Mil, Inc., had actualknowledge of the mistake in the deed, Ray Hice’s knowledge wasimputed to Hi-Mil, Inc. 147 Therefore, Hi-Mil, Inc. had actualknowledge and could not be a bona fide purchaser withoutknowledge. 148 Again, actual notice ruled the day, trumping legaldeficiencies. 149The same result was had in the Delaware case of HandlerConstruction, Inc. v. CoreStates Bank, 150 where a mortgage inimproper form was recognized as an equitable mortgage andgiven full legal effect because the subsequent filer of a legallyvalid mortgage had actual and constructive notice of themortgage in improper form. 151 In Delaware, a valid mortgage atlaw must be sealed. 152 Furthermore, Delaware is a race-notice141. Id.142. Id.143. Id. at 270–73.144. Id.145. See supra note 125 and accompanying text.146. See supra notes 125 & 133 and accompanying text.147. Hice, 273 S.E. 2d at 272.148. Id.149. Id.150. 633 A.2d 356, 358 (Del. 1993).151. Handler Construction, Inc. v. CoreStates Bank, 633 A.2d 356, 367 (Del.1993).152. Monroe Park v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 457 A.2d 734, 737 (Del. 1983).216