Cited by

for the proposition that “constructive and actual knowledge have the same effect.” There, our supreme court held that a party who “acted reasonably under the circumstances by searching the Mohave County recorder’s office” but found “nothing to confirm the existence” of a prior water rights agreement did n

(“[A]bsent other notice, a search of the record was sufficient under the facts in this case.”).

Enters., Ltd., (recognizing that a person having actual notice of circumstances sufficient to put a prudent person on inquiry as to a particular fact is deemed to have notice of that fact if, by pursuing such inquiry, the person might have learned that fact); (“Constructive and actual notice have the same effect.” (citation omitted)).

(citing Neal v. Hunt, 112 Ariz. 307, 310-11, -63 (1975)).

our supreme court recognized that transferring groundwater pumped from one property for use on another may “encourage the reasonable and beneficial use of this great natural resource.” Id.

Specifically, the right to percolating groundwater is a hereditament, -12 , -63 (1975), and in Arizona, hereditaments are real property interests.

Southwest Cotton, 39 Ariz. at 85, 4 P.2d at 376 .

§ 45-131(A); groundwater is presumed to be percolating, -12 , -64 (1975); and percolating groundwater is not appropriable, Bristor, 75 Ariz. at 234 , 255 P.2d at 177 .

(unrecorded agreement between a prior owner and his vendee held not to be binding upon a subsequent purchaser for valuable consideration without notice).