“Such notice may be shown by direct evidence, or it may be inferred from facts and circumstances.” Obernay v. Chamberlin, 506 S.W.2d 446, 450 (Mo. banc 1974). Furthermore, the “knowledge of the realtor as to a boundary problem is imputed to his principals, plaintiffs.”
These recording statutes "protect[] a subsequent bona fide purchaser unless he has actual notice of a prior unrecorded instrument." Obernay v. Chamberlin, 506 S.W.2d 446, 450 (Mo. 1974); see also Trigg v. Vermillion, 20 S.W. 1047, 1048 (Mo. 1892). DeGeorge and KD Christian assert that under the first spade rule and Missouri recording law, because Hawthorn's purchase money deed of trust was not valid until it was recorded, it was an encumbrance attaching subsequent to their mechanics' liens and consequently inferior under section 429.060.
Ordinarily the question of laches is a question of fact to be determined from all the evidence and circumstances adduced at trial. Obernay v. Chamberlin, 506 S.W.2d 446, 452 (Mo. banc 1974); Schaeffer v. Moore, 262 S.W.2d 854, 859 (Mo. 1953). Invocation of laches requires that a party with knowledge of the facts giving rise to his rights delays assertion of them for an excessive time and the other party suffers legal detriment therefrom.
The question of laches being one of fact is to be determined from all the evidence and circumstances existing at the trial. Obernay v. Chamberlin, 506 S.W.2d 446 (Mo. banc 1974). Standing alone, the evidence as to the discrepancy in acreage might be indicative of neglect in ascertaining the facts.
This purpose has recently been reaffirmed. Obernay v. Chamberlin, 506 S.W.2d 446 (Mo. banc 1974). Consistent with that purpose other cases have emphasized the right of one dealing with real estate to rely upon the record title.
Whether there has been an unreasonable delay which operates to the prejudice of the other party must be determined from all the evidence and circumstances adduced at trial. Obernay v. Chamberlin, 506 S.W.2d 446 (Mo. banc 1974). In the case at bar, appellant neither appeared or testified nor presented any evidence to show prejudice to him in respondent's dawdle in pursuit for reimbursement. The trial judge did not enter any formal findings of fact regarding laches.