Activity Feed › Discussion Forums › Strictly Surveying › POLL: Research back to parcel creation?
-
POLL: Research back to parcel creation?
Posted by Stephen A. Calder on December 14, 2013 at 10:15 pmWhen performing a property boundary survey, do you
1)FULL RESEARCH which is to research back to the creation of each line of the subject parcel or
2)CURRENT RESEARCH UNLESS MORE which is to research the current deed for your parcel and all adjoiners, UNLESS you have any suspicion of a problem in which you then research back until all suspicions have been allayed or
3)CURRENT ONLY which is to only research the current deed and adjoiners.
Please respond with your choice and your state and please restrict your answer to that. I am going to immediatedly start another thread in which we can all post reasons.
Stephen
andy-bruner replied 10 years, 8 months ago 16 Members · 20 Replies -
20 Replies
-
2) CURRENT UNLESS MORE
Mostly Georgia and Alabama. Licensed in Florida but I don’t actively practice there.
-
Generally 2. I try to research to parcel creation if possible which isn’t necessarily the same as parcel line creation. There are times retracing old tracts that I’ll take it back to sovereign.
Texas.
-
Start with #3. If all is harmonious and unambiguous (no patent ambiguity) in the title record, there is no need to research further. You can’t use extrinsic evidence to create ambiguity. If, when attempting to lay the boundaries upon the ground a latent ambiguity is discovered, then additional research may be required, not for the purpose of explaining a term in the deed, but to determine the conditions surrounding the conveyance. The evidence needed to explain a latent ambiguity is different that the evidence used to explain a patent ambiguity. If no patent ambiguity exists, then the terms of the deed are explained and the rules of construction are fulfilled; i.e. title law.
#1 is required when there is a patent ambiguity which occurred at the outset of the title and you need to chase the chain back to its origin to discover the circumstances surrounding the ambiguity and thus explain it. If the ambiguity arose during the immediate prior transaction, there is no need to chase it to its origin. The additional research required is for the purpose of explaining the terms in the deed and overcoming the ambiguity. #1 may also be required when you need to discover the circumstances surrounding the initial conveyance to resolve a latent ambiguity.
You never know how far back your research will take you. If the ambiguity is discoverable at the outset, you only need to chase it back as far as is necessary to explain the ambiguity. Patent ambiguities are resolved by gathering extrinsic evidence which may be found in the earlier deeds, earlier surveys or testimony of the landowners. All resolution is not found in the title records. The same evidence may be used to explain a latent ambiguity, but for an entirely different line of reasoning under the law. In fact, it supplies evidence for application of an entirely different body of law; i.e. boundary law.
JBS
-
I’m with you. Research and find the evidence that leads you to the boundary location. All you may need will not be found in the title records. The boundary establishment facts may be outside of what is in the title records. I go as far as I need to to be able to provide a defensible opinion of where the boundary is located. The title records may or may not be the main facts.
-
You never know how far back your research will take you.
You can never be sure, but at least in the PLSS it’s pretty simple to figure out when the oldest record was. Also with the 40 year rule it has become less important to back beyond that. 😉
I’ve never paid much attention to it but some recent Supreme cases make me wonder if it’s more important than just a CYA for title people.
-
1, 2, or 3, whatever the current survey calls for.
I am currently working on one now that will solve a mystery for the adjoiners. Thankfully a good friend had surveyed in the area, and had some old copies of surveys that are shedding light on the situation.
-
So for all of those who chose #1…You do research for each parcel, lot or whatever type of property you are surveying back to the original owner?Wouldn’t that be the King or Queen of XXX that told someone to go find new land? I work mainly in Florida, and we have to REALLY FORCE the attorneys to tell the title companies to search for anything before 1900. I know, we aren’t Mass, but come on, title and deeds are just that. why do we need to explain that Spain sold Florida and all that….. really?
-
> # 1
>
> Ontario Canada
It is noteable that both people responding from Ontario trace the entire chain of title. Does this have anything to do with the Torrens System? Is it common practise or mandated by law? -
2)
I would trace the chain of title back to a common grantor, not necessarily back it origination. In over 2 decades of work even that has only been necessary a few times.
-
> So for all of those who chose #1…You do research for each parcel, lot or whatever type of property you are surveying back to the original owner?Wouldn’t that be the King or Queen of XXX that told someone to go find new land?
No, you research the conveyance by which each boundary of the parcel was created. That began in some cases with land grants made by Spain, but I’d imagine that parcels in Florida with boundaries that run along Spanish land grants are few and far between. So if a boundary was created by the patents issued by US of A in reference to the government subdivision, then that is far back as the research need go. I’d imagine that in urban Florida even parcels with a section or quarter section line as a boundary aren’t exactly the most common sort of parcel, so one is more likely dealing with boundaries created by conveyances after the land left the ownership of USA.
The general principle is simply to identify the last point in time at which land on both sides of what is now a boundary was owned by the same party and examine the conveyance by which land on one side of the boundary was first conveyed out of that common ownership. That was what created the separate titles along the boundary.
-
> ??????
> ?? ?????, ???? ????? ??????? ?? ?????, ????? ????????? ???????.
???????? ?? ???????. -
“No, you research the conveyance by which each boundary of the parcel was created.”
So that might be 4 different conveyances on a 4-sided property? What if one or all of said conveyances were flawed or ambiguous or conveying something that the seller didn’t own?
Who eats a bad opinion? Title insurance or malpractice insurance?
Dave
-
> “No, you research the conveyance by which each boundary of the parcel was created.”
>
> So that might be 4 different conveyances on a 4-sided property? What if one or all of said conveyances were flawed or ambiguous or conveying something that the seller didn’t own?It’s assumed that to determine that the land was under common ownership you examined both the deed by which the original grantor held record title and the instruments by which that same party conveyed the lands on the respective sides of the boundary to be able to show which was the prior conveyance.
You’re wondering whether if the deed was forged or had some technical problem that called it into question, someone would sue the devil out of you? The answer is that surveyors deal mainly with boundaries as a rule and are not psychics. If the instrument was apparently regular on its face, unless you agreed to perform a psychic reading on the quality of the record title, there should be no problem.
-
#2 “Generally”.
In the county where I live and have done the majority of my work, the courthouse burned in 1883 so no records are available before that. Except, of course the original Land Lot surveys of which there is (far all intents and purposes) no monumentation.
Andy
Log in to reply.