Ann. tit. 27, § 342. Rather, the Us pendens provision merely stipulates that the filing of the foreclosure complaint establishes constructive notice of the foreclosure itself. Of course, in practice, if someone has notice of a foreclosure that person has also been made aware of the underlying mortgage. But this does not obliterate Vermont’s legal fiction that an unwitnessed mortgage fails to give notice to subsequent purchasers. Affirmance, however, presumes a relatively high degree of formalism in Vermont law. And such formalism is by no means the only possible approach to cases like this. See In re Ryan, 851 F.2d at 507-10 (discussing the claim that modern courts look to “substance over form” in the area of land recording law); In re Periandri, 266 B.R. 651, 658 (6th Cir.BAP2001) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the rule appears particularly harsh
holding that the trustee did not have constructive knowledge of an improperly executed mortgage because ohio law provided that an improperly executed mortgage does not provide constructive notice to a subsequent bona fide purchaser holding that the filing of notice without motion is insufficient holding that under mississippi law a purchaser is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice unless there is actual notice or circumstances which would put a purchaser on inquiry notice holding that one who acquires legal title with notice of a prior equitable interest in the property is not a bona fide purchaser holding that under ohio law the filing of a foreclosure complaint put the bankruptcy trustee on notice and thereby thwarted the trustees accession to the status of bona fide purchaser without notice