-
Boundary Puzzle/Advice
Hi There,
I am sincerely hoping one of you may be able to solve a boundary mystery I have which has been driving me totally crazy or at least maybe be able to provide an interpretation?
Please can I attach the first Map which shows two adjoining properties. Only the land in green is owned by the properties. The internal party wall between the two properties runs in line with division of the blue and green land.
Please ignore all bits you think are irrelevant but hope it may help someone provide an opinion.
At this time both properties are described as a house and garden. I can only assume/presume they share the same green land.
I have found a deed granting the two properties a free and uninterrupted right of way that I have marked on the map in red.
The next Map I attach shows all the same black lines/markers in the same position as the previous map. The only difference you will notice is the addition of a building marked A attached to the rear wall of property No 2.
If property No 1 does not own/have access to the blue land, it appears their only possible way to access the ROW is by using/going through the building marked A and using the green land?
This is the then scenario.
Claire is the beneficiary of her husband’s Will. He leaves his house & garden No 2 where she can have the rents and profits until their daughter Annie attains the age of 21 or marries under that age. And from and after my said daughter attaining the age of 21 years or marrying whichever shall first happen I DEVISE the same unto my said daughter absolutely. Trustees are appointed and a trust is made.
When Claire’s husband dies, a Vesting deed is made with the Trusteees for giving effect to The Settled Land Act. The vesting deed states Claire is tenant for life in possession of property No 2. The trustees declare that ALL that house & garden with the rights, easements and appurtenances known as No 2 are vested in Claire in fee simple.
The house Claire is receiving from her husband is numbered 2 on the map and unless I am being foolish she also receives the garden coloured green.
A few months later, Claire then purchases the adjoining property No 1. The conveyance describes that property as a house and garden with rights, easements and appurtenances.
This is incredibly confusing to me as she already owns the garden which was vested to her when her husband died.
Anyhow, Claire now owns both the properties. Two properties, one piece of green land.
Claire’s No 1 property is in occupation/usage of the building marked A on the map and also the green garden situated on the land vested to Claire.
Claire is tenant for life of No 2 but decides to sell the property.
The conveyance mentions the vesting deed and that she is tenant for life .
It also mentions, so far as regards the remainder or reversion expectant on the equitable estate of the Vendor in the hereditaments hereby assured and the title to and further assurance of the same hereditaments after her death the covenants on her part implied by virtue of the Law of Property Act 1925 shall extend only to the acts and defaults of the Vendor and persons now or hereafter claiming through or in trust for her.
I have no idea what this fully means but she is guaranteeing the title to the property and green land not only for now but for the future. I wonder if this could be because No 1 are using the land and building situated on No 2.
The same day she also sells No 1 on a separate conveyance and it is described as a house and garden. No vesting deed or remainders reversions etc are referred to in the conveyance of No 1.
The third and final map is a conveyance plan showing a piece of land being purchased by the new owner of the properties. This land belongs to property No 1.
Many, many years later, I come to purchase property No 2. The title deeds are required to register my property. The vesting deed and conveyance Claire made years ago is used to register my property and create my title plan.
The title I am given is that of the house number 2 and all the garden marked green. My title plan has all the same markers shown in the maps from when Claire owned the property. I am told the garden is not shared but I am informed No 1 have a right to occupy the building marked A.
Years after living in my property I am now informed this is incorrect and the boundaries have been recorded incorrectly .
If you had to guess where the boundaries between these two properties lie, what would be your interpretation?
What land does property No 2 own?
Finally, property No 1 must have had some permission in the past to occupy this building as they would not reach the ROW they have at the bottom of my garden?
I’m finding it very difficult to understand how Claire was allowed to convey good title to No 2, whilst No 1 was in occupation of this building but my title is now in question all these years later.
I am simply informed the boundaries are wrong or it could be adverse possession.
Thank you
Log in to reply.