Should have had a survey...?

Yep, that's title insurance:mad:

he needs a good attorney...

That reminds me of the time I contacted a church to inform them they didn't own part of their building. At some point in the 1930's the original frame building was raised and a basement built under it. At the same time they made an addition extending further east. They purchased a 15-foot wide strip from the adjoiner at that time. In the 1970's the church sold to a different church organization. They deeded the original tract only. No one caught the fact that they owned the second tract. Since both tracts were church property they were generally ignored for tax purposes, so no one was getting an annual property tax statement which would have brought the error to light.

The lawyer and realtor have conveniently retired.

Sounds like they have come to some sort of solution, but he should have gotten the recommended survey. His biggest mistake was to believe ANYTHING the real estate agent told him. I consider them the lowest form of life based on personal and professional experiences. I wouldn't do work for one for any amount of money. I have only used a RE agent once, to purchase my current home, and it turned out that she and the seller's agent colluded to forge the supplemental disclosure documents so they could collect their fees. Didn't turn out too well for either of them, nor the Broker she worked for. Worked out pretty well for me though.

That's one of the biggest problems in this profession; people don't realize or understand the importance of surveys until they need one to fix a problem.

SPMPLS, post: 432644, member: 11785 wrote: Sounds like they have come to some sort of solution, but he should have gotten the recommended survey. His biggest mistake was to believe ANYTHING the real estate agent told him. I consider them the lowest form of life based on personal and professional experiences. I wouldn't do work for one for any amount of money. I have only used a RE agent once, to purchase my current home, and it turned out that she and the seller's agent colluded to forge the supplemental disclosure documents so they could collect their fees. Didn't turn out too well for either of them, nor the Broker she worked for. Worked out pretty well for me though.

Whoa!

This is a good example of a title problem, location of the parcels is apparently not in question.

It sounds like he received the advice to get a survey from his attorney, but got insurance instead.

"I believed my realtor. They're the ones that are supposed to be there for me to tell me the truth about my property, to know what I'm buying."

:):):):):)

Seems convenient that the bank foreclosed on just the house lot and then the owner (who was foreclosed on) came out of the woodwork to fleece the guy who bought it... Decent case for estoppel? I'd guess the prev. owner knew all along and waited for the "sucker".

This is really a legal problem as opposed to a survey problem it seems the backyard was mistakenly left out of the purchase before so the bank didn't have it in the DoT by mistake, maybe. I have feeling this being a foreclosure will cut off any legal theory which gives him the backyard.

A lot of people hate "location certificates" but even that would have caught the problem. I was wondering if that back property was landlocked, but it looks like there's access. It sounds like something that should have been disclosed. I would consider going after the Grantor, as they probably knew what they were selling. I would want to argue that their disclaimer doesn't cover fraud.

Edward Reading, post: 432654, member: 132 wrote: "I believed my realtor. They're the ones that are supposed to be there for me to tell me the truth about my property, to know what I'm buying."

:):):):):)

In related news; Canadian man buys Brooklyn Bridge

It must be a Canadian thing That's not anywhere in the commercial.

[MEDIA=youtube]5PVVFb1QV40[/MEDIA]

Talked to a realtor the other day. He has a tough building for sale. Historic district and in need of massive repair. No wonder it has been on the market for 2 years...
I asked that the home inspector said. He replied Oh no, we are told to let the inspector in, then go read a book and not ask anything...
He also wanted a lot line staked. Then tried to negotiate my fee... I have not responded too quickly.

PoorPDOP, post: 432645, member: 8412 wrote: That's one of the biggest problems in this profession; people don't realize or understand the importance of surveys until they need one to fix a problem.

And then they typically don't appreciate is value, people tend to not like the guys that are charged with pointing out the expensive problems attached to their real estate, but have no problem shelling out 500 an hour for attorney review, go figure.

The quote for the permanent exhibit in the Department of You Can't Make this Stuff Up:

"I seen pictures [of the backyard] right there in my listing," said Manning, adding he believed the real estate agent.
"They're the ones that are supposed to be there for me to tell me the truth about my property, to know what I'm buying."

Dave Karoly, post: 432648, member: 94 wrote: This is a good example of a title problem, location of the parcels is apparently not in question.

This is the sort of problem that even a $200 drive-by survey or a simple deed sketch would have caught.