Plan of lots shows Lots 1-4, numbering south to north.?ÿ My client??s deed reads all of Lot 1 and the southerly half of Lot 2.?ÿ The northerly abutter calls for all of Lot 3 and the southerly half of Lot 2.?ÿ Huh?
I research Locus back, and the description is consistent with the July 22, 1977 deed from the subdivider.
I take the abutter back, and the description is the same as the 1976 deed from the subdivider.?ÿ But there were deeds in March 1977, where they conveyed the southerly half of Lot 2 back to the subdivider, and he conveyed them the northerly half, correcting the mistake from the original deed, (so they now own Lot 3 and the northerly half of Lot 2, being contiguous).
Evidently, the lawyer who wrote the abutter's current deed just transcribed the description and reference from the grantors' original 1976 deed, not noticing the later conveyances.?ÿ Because of this, I'd think that he'd have no title to the northerly half of Lot 2, since his deed doesn??t mention it, and its description and reference is to the 1976 deed, and the grantors might still retain title.
It certainly doesn??t affect my client, but I do wonder if I should let the abutter know about it, and if he needs to try to get the people who sold him his lot in 2000 to convey him that piece, if they??re even still alive.?ÿ
He wouldn't have it by adverse possession, since he thinks he owns it by deed.?ÿ And there would be no color of title, since what is described in his deed is the wrong half of the lot.
Again, it's not really my problem, since the earlier conveyances fixed the error prior to the subdivider selling my client's lot.?ÿ
You should probably let them know, and hope there is title insurance.
And there would be no color of title, since what is described in his deed is the wrong half of the lot.
I think that's a great example of color of title actually; you've got 2 deeds claiming the same area.
@bstrand?ÿ
But it's to the wrong half.?ÿ He's occupying the northerly half of Lot 2, thinking it's his, not the southerly half, which is in his deed.
Right, but occupation isn't what colors title-- it's a defect in the deed.
What is Color of Title in Real Property?
??Color of title? is a phrase used in property law that refers to a?ÿtitle to real property. It may have the appearance of good and valid title to a parcel of property, but in reality, does not provide full, legally recognized title to the parcel. A person who holds property under color of title does not hold actual title for a variety of possible reasons, e.g.,?ÿadverse possession. Or, there is a significant defect in the written document supporting title, e.g., a deed, that makes the document invalid.
Thus, according to the color of title property laws, color of title, that is, atitle that is defective, fails to establish true ownership of land. Color of title is also sometimes referred to as ??apparent title,? because at first glance it may appear that the documents establishing title are legally valid. In fact, however, they are not. Color of title is based on written documents that purport to establish title, but are not legally sufficient for that purpose.
For example, suppose a buyer purchases a parcel of real estate. By the close of the sale transaction, the buyer should have possession of the deed, which gives the buyer title in fee simple, i.e., fullownership rights to the parcel. However, if there is some type ofdefectin the deed, such as its failure to comply with the real estate standards in the area, then the defect may render the title invalid.
Taking this example one step further, suppose the buyer and the other parties to the transaction do not notice that there was an error with the documents supporting the title. So, as is required with most real estate purchases, the buyer submits their real estate paperwork to the local registry office or to the countyrecorder of deedswhere the property is situated.?ÿ?ÿ
Without inspecting the documents further, all of the parties most likely believe that the buyer??s title is valid. Yet, because of the errors in the terms of the written documents supposedly verifying title, the buyer does not possess true title. Instead, the buyer has ??color of title.? A person who possesses land under ??color of title? only cannot convey title to others.
He wouldn't have it by adverse possession, since he thinks he owns it by deed.
Does your state's adverse possession statute require an intent to take land that they know they don't own? Massachusetts does not, and I have seen a number of cases where a land owner legitimately thought they owned the parcel by deed, but did not. A successful claim of adverse possession in court yielded marketable title when the issue came to light.
@bstrand?ÿ
Yes, I get that.?ÿ But in this case, the abutter's deed calls for a piece of land that my client is both occupying and has title to, and the abutter isn't occupying and really has no interest in.
The abutter is occupying a piece that he has not title to, and isn't in his deed.?ÿ But apparently, as Peter Lothian points out, he may still have a claim.
The deed is broken. The actions of the owners are clear. Spending $$$ to answed which legal theory may apply is a useless pursuit.
Walk the owners through (cooperatively) cleaning it up by the appropriate method for the jurisdiction or refer them to someone who can.?ÿ
Yeah, they need to fix it cause the description of the northerly owner is not only a mess for him he is coloring the title of your client.
It's a simple fix for your client and it "should" be done by title insurance assuming anyone has title insurance. These really are the easy one.
They can have the northerly owner sign a quit claim deed and your client's deed is fixed, the northerly owner may have more issues.?ÿ
All you can do is bring the problem up, it's up to the owners to correct it.?ÿ
I see what you're getting at, but disagree that it affects my client's title or property.?ÿ They have clear title, going back to the original owner, the abutter does not.?ÿ
My client is also occupying their title property, the abutter is occupying his along with another piece that he thinks is his.?ÿ His claim, if he attempted any, on my client's land should die with a simple review of the research/chains of title.?ÿ
I had a similar situation in the past with a client, where a piece was missed in probate.?ÿ I let them know that they might want to get it looked into and fixed.?ÿ They had no interest in doing anything about it
@jph?ÿ
Your client has a clean title chain, except that the last review by a title worker DID NOT NOTICE another person has a deed reading such that it claims ownership of part of your client's property for the abutter.?ÿ These things happen, generally unnoticed.?ÿ Finding such issues is a major role of the title insurance industry.?ÿ It is also a primary function of the survey industry.
Too many surveyors are handed a deed and then go stake out what it says.?ÿ They do not turn into title examiners, which they should.?ÿ Thank you for being one of the good guys.
You have found that someone has a deed which describes your clients property. This gives you ample reason to suggest that the north abutter sign a quit claim deed concerning that parcel described in his deed that actually is owned by your client. Thus you have made the north abutter aware of the deficiency in his deed and solved a potential future problem for your client.
Signing quit claim deeds gives the appearance of tranferring title. This potentially brings in P&Z, and only adds to the trail of crap that got you there. Document the problem and solution in accirdance with State law, or pass it to someone who will. A QCD is almost never the answer..?ÿ
I see what you're getting at, but disagree that it affects my client's title or property.?ÿ They have clear title, going back to the original owner, the abutter does not.?ÿ
IANAL so don't know if there is any real risk, but I wouldn't be surprised if the client tried to sell what he owns there would be delays while this got cleared up.?ÿ If someone had a deed that on the face of it said they owned my property, I'd be working hard to get it corrected.
Not the same situation, but my dad and uncle sold a piece of inherited property to a neighbor on a long term contract.?ÿ It got paid off shortly before Dad's final illness in 2002.?ÿ I don't know if he gave them a deed which they failed to record,?ÿ or if a deed was never made.?ÿ I discovered Dad's name was still on the tax rolls 17 years later and stirred things up. The recorder had no deed and if the buyer ever did they had lost it in a house fire. They got a new deed and associated affidavits signed by Mom and my uncle's daughter, now properly recorded.
I once helped a client by finding his right to use the lane that led from the county road to his house and land.?ÿ He assumed it would be found somewhere in his title insurance report but could not.?ÿ Of course that easement was not part of his land but was a burden on the adjoiner that separated this island from the county road.?ÿ I finally found the entry creating the lane from a deed action in 1877.?ÿ The adjoining deed mentioned this encumberance one more time and then that note was never repeated on any of about a dozen changes in ownership.
Where this can get messy is if the abutter has a loan that allegedly uses part of your client's property as collateral.
A quit claim deed may remedy the situation in many cases, but not all.
@lurker?ÿ
I'm not against what you're saying.?ÿ Just that I can imagine it playing out badly with the abutter.?ÿ Since it's just him signing over any rights to my client's land, but for him to get his title he needs to find the people who sold to him, or maybe even their heirs.
