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.
?ÿ
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.?ÿ 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 ?ÿproperty 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
I wouldn??t touch this with a 10ft/3M pole except to say you need an experienced Real Estate Attorney admitted in your jurisdiction to sort your title out for you. Title is a very complicated subject especially when you start adding in inheritance and reversions. If you want to twist your brain into knots pick up a law school property outline (a basic textbook in the subject Law students use to try to get an initial handle on a subject).
The conveyance mentions the vesting deed and that she is tenant for life .
I have no idea what this fully means but she is guaranteeing the title to the property
A couple key phrases that jumped out to me. ?ÿWondering if she actually held clear conveyable title or if she only had the right to live there???
@brad-ott That's what I was wondering, too.
@jay1980
Anyone wishing to comment should note that the post comes from the UK.
@jay1980
This sounds like more of a Real Estate Law problem than a surveying question. It seems much more about title - meaning who owns what - than about deed - meaning what is owned, and perhaps more precisely, where. (And at which the great minds of this site are experts.) And unfortunately for you, I believe most of the surveyors here are in the USA so their "mileage may vary" anyway.
That said - from what I know, I don't see how Claire could legally have sold 2, unless perhaps she was also the Trustee and the proceeds of the sale went to the daughter (upon reaching age 21 or marrying.) From what you describe, I do not see how she should have had a life tenancy, either. Do you have any information as to the daughter's age or marital status at the time of the husband's death? Had the daughter perhaps died before him? There must be some other piece to this puzzle.
Edit: Oh - another thought occurred to me. Was this long enough ago that it was a time when women were not "able" or "allowed" to own property? I would guess that perhaps if her husband died and left it to her in a will, that might be termed a life tenancy (and upon her death it would transfer to closest male kin, I expect.) But during her life she would still be allowed to sell it and act as the owner (perhaps with some sign-off or approval of said kin?) I think that would still depend on the daughter being out of the picture, but it at least makes that part more sensible to me.
My only other suggestion would be to trace back (if possible) to where these two parcels were created - either separated from one another or out of a larger property. If this business with Claire and her husband's will is the oldest record available.... um, ouch, I guess.
Good luck to you!
@jay1980 I agree with you that this situation is more of a legal one. A few things that come to mind is that Claire, outside of the will from her husband, was granted life tennancy. Like you asked, is this a result of the daughter, to whome the property was to pass, being no longer in the picture?
@jay1980 I agree with you that this situation is more of a legal one. A few things that come to mind is that Claire, outside of the will from her husband, was granted life tennancy. Like you asked, is this a result of the daughter, to whome the property was to pass, being no longer in the picture?
I have no clue to legal or title issues in the UK but If I wanted my daughter to have the property after my death and I wanted my wife to be able to live on the property until her death then the above will would make sense to me. But under my scenario, the wife would not be able to convey title to anyone since the title would be in a trust to the daughter and the daughter once turning 21 would be obligated to the life tenancy of the wife. I would start by trying to figure out how the wife (Claire) gained title to the property. The trustees seem to have failed in their duty by giving title to Claire unless the daughter was dead and had no heirs. If the daughter is making a claim to the property I think she might have a go at it. Or even if an heir to the daughter is making a claim.?ÿ
No problem, you own it.
Do we have UK surveyors here??ÿ
@dmyhill Yes, I'll try and have a decent look at it later today.
OK, right, here we go, settle yourselves down with a large coffee.
The first thing to comment is that English Law works on the principle of "General Boundaries".?ÿ This means that nothing has to be measured or defined by coordinates (unless you want to). The boundaries are usually defined by description, which might be text or might be a plan. The boundaries are taken to be related to the features shown on the plan (or described) but may not fall on or in the feature (ie it could be a face of the wall, or the centre : it could be the root line of a hedge or it might be offset from the hedge centre by a (un) specified distance).
You always need to read the plan and the Title Description together - we only have the plans here so some information isn't available (as alluded to by others on this forum).
Now we have two tintings on the first plan, but no indications as to what they are. I surmise that it is most likely that :
1)the Green land is the garden of No.2 and is owned by that property but that No. 1 has some form of permitted access to same.
2) the Blue land is the garden of No.1 and was NOT owned by that property at the time the plan was prepared.
Question - Right of Way - what is the purpose of the ROW, given that it appears to provide a foot access (conventionally a vehicle access would be shown at about the scale width) from the end of the garden No.2 to a rear access lane which then leads directly to the front of the properties.
Possible answer - it was needed so that both properties could bring something to the rear, without carrying it through the house - suggestion, coal?
The small outbuilding - numbers 2 and 3 in the terrace have small outbuildings at the rear, that at No.3 being about twice the size of that for No.2 or No.1. Number 4 has a direct access facing onto the back lane but no rear outbuilding.
I would suggest that the building "A" is probably a coal store (or possibly an outside toilet) which was constructed for the use of No.1, but not documented. (It might be that the owner of the blue land would not permit the construction but the original neighbours in No. 2 were more co-operative. It may well be that No.1 and No. 2 were related (parents and son/daughter) so that such an agreement would be easy.
The larger size outbuilding behind No.3 might be a double coal store, part for No.3 and part for No.4 (setting the precedent for both the other coal stores to be behind No. 2.
If the usage of the newer store behind No.2 continued for more than 12 years after the original occupants of No. 2 had moved then No.1 couid make a claim for adverse possession (assuming an agreement for sale between the two of them couild not be reached).
We don't have sufficient details of the family and who died when, but the initial arrangement was that Claire was effectively caretaking the property until the daughter was old enough to make her own considered decisions. Could the reason that Claire appears to have ownership be because the daughter had some form of mental impairment and could not take decisions for herself? A Court might then appoint Claire as the Trustee and, with that, give a lifetime right to occupy. On a sale the proceeds would go to the daughter (if alive) or to her estate. ....then follows lots of legal discussion, which probably doesn't concern us land surveyors.
We don't know if No.1 purchased the original Blue Land at some later stage of events, but if so then it would have been part of the overall purchase by Claire documented by plan 3 (so later she wasn't buying her own land twice but buying the land she had on lease plus some new land).
The map styles suggest that the first map dates from around 1880: the second map is around 1920: the third map is a tracing which has been hand annotated.
OK, finish your coffee and take something for that headache you have acquired!
?ÿ
@chris-mills Thanks for the explanation on how boundaries are delineated and documented there in the UK. After having traveled around there a bit and not seeing much at all in the way of boundary markers and many having no doubt ancient origins, how these are treated there has always been something of an enigma to me.?ÿ
Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get me.
PLSSia isn't as simple as the term implies. Believe or not there are complexities here as well. The term originated from a certain individual operating near Austin to signify how much more simple it is than places like where they work. I wonder about that when most original posts and mounds and accessories were destroyed with a few years of when they were set. If we had to start our surveys at an original PLSS monument we'd be screwed. Points of local control R us. Problem is the number there are to choose from.?ÿ
I am going to claim credit for the first use of PLSSia.?ÿ According to my wife, I have been wrong before.?ÿ But, I'm fairly sure this is correct.
I also claim credit for the oft-used 0.04'.
I won't argue with that. The follow from Austin sure glommed onto it fast.?ÿ
@norm?ÿ
He did do that, for sure.?ÿ It was an easy way to poke at thousands of us by use of a single term.
Oh wow guys what can I say....
I didn't realise anyone replied to my post until this very day and I cannot thank you enough!!!
Chris you are amazing and I could literally pick your brains all day!
You have grasped the properties/history/usage that has taken me over a year by piecing maps/conveyances/wills/photos together like a jigsaw.
I have some new information to add which may be of help?
It may well be that No.1 and No. 2 were related (parents and son/daughter) so that such an agreement would be easy.
You're spot on!
On the 1st map I included, when only the green land is owned, the properties are in the ownership of two family members. Grandmother & granddaughter.
It is during their ownership that the little building appears on the land approx between 1900 to 1911 it is erected.
I believe the granddaughter permitted the construction of the building that would be used by her grandmother for the following:
- Giving her grandmother the only possible rear exit she/the property could use/have.
- To be used as a coal store and possibly even a wash house/scullery
At this time there was an earth closet at the bottom of the garden, that both properties no doubt used.
The ROW at the bottom was undeniably used as a coal route, we still use it today for the same purpose:)
The grandmothers/her family's use of the building continues for over 20 years until the properties are next sold to a non-relative in 1927.
This is why I wonder if the grandmother/property acquired an easement during this time and this has continued for that properties successors.
One thing I have got wrong.....
It was No 1 that the grandmothers nephew ?ÿinherited (Claire's husband)
Claire then sells t No 1 as a house and garden with rights, easements and appurtenances. The easements surely must include this building?
It is No 1 Claire is Tenant for Life.
When Claire sells No 2 the conveyance states:
"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 can't help but wonder what the remainder or reversion expectant are id they don't relates to No 1's usage/occupation of this land. It seems she is assuring the title to and further assuring the same hereditaments/land/buildings after her death.
If she is a life tenant in No 1 and is using those buildings until she dies is this why she assuring them back to No 2 when she dies.
Once again, to each and everyone....Thank You 🙂