I tried this question, but I added "MEE Question 6" at the top so it has a better context and the answer seems somewhat better? No idea if it would get any cred

I tried this question, but I added "MEE Question 6" at the top so it has a better context and the answer seems somewhat better? No idea if it would get any credit though, maybe the author of this blog post can chime in. > It is likely that Abe is entitled to possession of Whiteacre. The deed that Owen delivered to Abe twenty years ago constituted a valid conveyance of the property to Abe, even though it was never recorded. Abe subsequently took possession of the land and made use of it for the next eleven years, paying the property taxes and allowing others to use the land. This constitutes "adverse possession," which is a legal principle that allows someone to gain ownership of a piece of property through continuous, open, and notorious possession of the property for a certain period of time. > In this case, Abe has satisfied the requirements for adverse possession under the laws of State B, as he has been in possession of the property openly, continuously, and notoriously for more than the statutory period of time required by State B. Doris and Buyer are considered "subsequent purchasers," as they acquired the property after Abe's conveyance to them, and they do not have a valid claim to the property because they did not have notice of Abe's conveyance. Therefore, it is likely that Abe would be entitled to possession of Whiteacre in this case.