u/Far_Performance_1802

Would this be accurate rule language to take away: A recorded instrument that is void due to forgery or unconsented material alteration cannot serve as a root of title. It does not protect a purchaser (aka make them a BFP) who relies on a void instrument, because that instrument passes no title and imparts no protection, even to an innocent purchaser for value. A subsequent purchaser is subject to the true owner’s interest because the recording act only protects against unrecorded conveyances.