Dealing with a boundary situation where a survey in 1975 made a line bend where it had been straight and continuous since first being described in 1896. The first subsequent deed after the survey showing the bent line has a meaning and intending clause that I have not seen, wondering about opinions regarding how to interpret its meaning. I have my own ideas but want to get some feedback. The clause reads as follows:
Being the same premises conveyed by us to Person A by deed dated Jan 1 1962, and recorded in the XX County Registry of Deeds, Book XXX Page XXX, however the same may have otherwise been described therein. ~then there is a sentence that was X'd out by a typewriter~ Also being the same premises conveyed to us by deed of Person A dated Jan 1 1968 and recorded in the XX County Registry of Deeds, Book XXX Page XXX, however the same may have otherwise been described therein.
That's one of those "We don't know" clauses that lawyers just love. In my area there is a variation of this. it says "The intent of this deed is to convey unto Party X all that land sold to Party Y as recorded in Book xxx at Page YYYY, whether properly described herein or not."
Lawyers can do the impossible.
Maybe I don't understand the question. But if I do, it appears that a new surveyor shows a bend in a line that was once straight per a legal description. That, I would assume, is a land surveyor's interpretation of where the earlier description put the property. Since the earlier or original property legal description that created the property calls for a straight line, the "clause" is to show that the intent is to carry the same chain of title on the same property that does not have the same verbiage verbatim.
Yes, the surveyor bent the line, ignored called for monuments in doing so, and also ignored an unequivocal call for a straight line in both the deed he was retracing and the abutting deed. Historic aerials show me a very good line of occupation along the straight line up until the survey was completed.
I understand their intent in the clause is to carry the chain forward. It appears there may have been some shady goings on though. Of course, everyone involved is dead so there are no brains to pick.
It sounds like you ran across a good example on why to have the clause in there.
Kind of classic case of why lawyers should stick to law and not write descriptions, leave the property location issues to surveyors and they provide the descriptions.
1975 guy just gave his "opinion" on the location of the line. Another classic case of "record & measured". Shouldn't change the description though, just shown on his map. Which hopefully was recorded.
If this kind of stuff wasn't so common it could be much harder to deal with. Seems more prevalent from problems from 30-50 plus yrs ago, and I think most states have addressed it. Title companies sure haven't, aside from exceptions. I could be wrong.
Just out of curiosity, are you going to show the bent line in a lighter color and label it as "line per deed book xxx page xxx" and then show your opinion of the true boundary as a darker line or do you just ignore it and show the correct boundary?
I'm not doing the survey, so I don't know as much about it as you, but I'm thinking I would show both lines especially if it's been erroneously described for so long. (I'd probably do that, but without calling it out as an 'area of unclear title'.)