?ÿ7 tracts were created by the State when they Purchased the right of way for a proposed Highway. These tracts were devided out of larger Abstract Tracts. The individual 7 tracts were taxed by the Appraisal District since their existence 1937.
When we Purchased a 10.04 tract all 7 tracts were inside the 10.04. All 7 individual Tracts added up to 10.04.
The Appraisal District kept the 7 tracts taxed as they had been until last year,they basically wash them into one tract but still maintained the legal discription of each tract leaving out the acreage for each one.
Are these 7 tracts valid?
Where do I send my contribution or donation ?
Thanks?ÿ
A?ÿ
If you've got Deed references for each tract, they are still valid tracts. And nobody ever did an agregation of lots of course.
The Appraisal District is simplifying their records and paperwork from 7 invoices to 1 because they are under the same name.
?ÿ
You will get decent feedback and responses this week from smarter folks than me. ?ÿSee the link in my signature line below to send your appropriate appreciation to our lovely host and hostess.
Taxing, planning, zoning and ownership are all different functions. Those are all treated differently by jurisdiction.
A recent case in the northeast found unity of title extinguished a platted Lot line. Other places you have to eliminate lines by an intentional act, still others require planning approval. It is not possible to get a reliable answer without a lot more information. Any answer from another jurisdiction is more likely to be wrong than right...
Hire a good title attorney?ÿ
Is there such a thing?
So far I have found 4 of the tracts in Deed... Also, found public Right of way Deed with Owner Date and State aqcuition .County Engineer ?ÿstill
will not acknowledge these tracts.
Like Bionicman said, different jurisdictions will look at this situation differently.
The one thing that should be true across all jurisdictions is that the action by the appraiser or assessor has no effect on how the title is held.
In some states, the mere fact of holding contiguous parcels under the same ownership creates an automatic merging of those parcels.?ÿ I think that used to me more common than it is now.
Most, as far as I know, do not consider the contiguous parcels to be automatically merged, but it may depend on one or several different facts for any particular situation.
Does your deed describe each of the 7 tracts separately, or is the area described now by one description?
Were the tracts separate in ownership when you bought them?
Were they described as one tract at any point in the chain of title after they had once been separated?
Was there ever an attempt to merge any of the parcels through the local Planning Department?
Has the local government ever passed an ordinance to the effect that contiguous parcels held under common ownership for a certain period of time would be considered to have been merged?
Do your State property or subdivision codes address this matter directly?
?ÿ
Since your question is really more of a quality of title question than it is a property location question, you would do best to find a local attorney who specializes in real property law to get an opinion based on the laws where the property exists.
?ÿ
Is there such a thing?
Yeah, I know a few
Under the Common Law merger doctrine a property owner could not have a boundary with himself.?ÿ Acquiring adjoining parcels erased the boundaries between them; selling them off again separately recreated the boundary.?ÿ This came up in a boundary case in Colorado or Wyoming, don't remember which, where the Court said the boundary between two parcels was previously established but since they had been joined in ownership then severed again the old established boundary no longer applied.?ÿ I think that came with a pretty strong dissent too.
This is the same with easements.?ÿ I personally think this part of the law should be revised by Statute so that if I own 5 separate legal parcels I can give myself easements across them.?ÿ It creates an issue with minor subdivisions where an owner was allowed to subdivide his parcel into separate lots (not possible under the common law until a deed was delivered to another person) but the easements can't be created needed to serve parcel 2 across parcel 1 unless the easement goes to someone else (usually a public entity or utility).?ÿ The concern is when the minor subdivision lots get deeded out the access easement, for example, could get forgotten then the rear lot owner is left with an implied easement only.
Here is the 1937 State Department Stationing 489 +19 in front of our Property.?ÿ
Also the tracts with subdivision rule
Here is the 1937 State Department Stationing 489 +19 in front of our Property.?ÿ
Also the tracts with subdivision rule
Under the Common Law merger doctrine a property owner could not have a boundary with himself.?ÿ Acquiring adjoining parcels erased the boundaries between them; selling them off again separately recreated the boundary.?ÿ This came up in a boundary case in Colorado or Wyoming, don't remember which, where the Court said the boundary between two parcels was previously established but since they had been joined in ownership then severed again the old established boundary no longer applied.?ÿ I think that came with a pretty strong dissent too.
This is the same with easements.?ÿ I personally think this part of the law should be revised by Statute so that if I own 5 separate legal parcels I can give myself easements across them.?ÿ It creates an issue with minor subdivisions where an owner was allowed to subdivide his parcel into separate lots (not possible under the common law until a deed was delivered to another person) but the easements can't be created needed to serve parcel 2 across parcel 1 unless the easement goes to someone else (usually a public entity or utility).?ÿ The concern is when the minor subdivision lots get deeded out the access easement, for example, could get forgotten then the rear lot owner is left with an implied easement only.
I worked in the County of Park, as the GIS technician so I can say that I worked inside this guideline when doing lot consolidations, combos, splits, etc.?ÿ They were all surveyed, then presented to us in the assessors office, GIS, etc.?ÿ A land owner cannot issue themselves an easement for that very reason, because the "island" parcel would in effect never be accessible.?ÿ Has it happened? I left there for many reasons.?ÿ ?ÿ;)
?ÿ
Is there such a thing?
I had a title attorney once call me and ask me to explain to him how a state appeal court decision regarding an abandoned street car right of way affected the property being developed.?ÿ
A?ÿgood title attorney, like a good surveyor, knows his?ÿlimitations and knows when to call in the?ÿ"Pros from Dover"?ÿ
Under the Common Law merger doctrine a property owner could not have a boundary with himself.?ÿ Acquiring adjoining parcels erased the boundaries between them; selling them off again separately recreated the boundary.?ÿ This came up in a boundary case in Colorado or Wyoming, don't remember which, where the Court said the boundary between two parcels was previously established but since they had been joined in ownership then severed again the old established boundary no longer applied.?ÿ I think that came with a pretty strong dissent too.
This is the same with easements.?ÿ I personally think this part of the law should be revised by Statute so that if I own 5 separate legal parcels I can give myself easements across them.?ÿ It creates an issue with minor subdivisions where an owner was allowed to subdivide his parcel into separate lots (not possible under the common law until a deed was delivered to another person) but the easements can't be created needed to serve parcel 2 across parcel 1 unless the easement goes to someone else (usually a public entity or utility).?ÿ The concern is when the minor subdivision lots get deeded out the access easement, for example, could get forgotten then the rear lot owner is left with an implied easement only.
I worked in the County of Park, as the GIS technician so I can say that I worked inside this guideline when doing lot consolidations, combos, splits, etc.?ÿ They were all surveyed, then presented to us in the assessors office, GIS, etc.?ÿ A land owner cannot issue themselves an easement for that very reason, because the "island" parcel would in effect never be accessible.?ÿ Has it happened? I left there for many reasons.?ÿ ?ÿ;)
?ÿ
I don't understand your "island" comment.
I'm thinking of the case of a Minor Subdivision Map which creates two parcels, a front parcel and a rear parcel and it shows a proposed access easement down one side of the front parcel to get to the rear parcel; makes a lot of sense.?ÿ The Map in those cases doesn't create the easement because an easement is an interest in the land of another.?ÿ As long as the Title Company includes the appurtenant easement in the first Grant of the rear parcel then there is no problem but if it gets forgotten then the rear parcel owner only has an implied easement.?ÿ I don't see a problem with allowing the Subdivider to have an easement in himself appurtenant to the rear parcel but it would take an act of the legislature to modify the common law.
Under the Common Law the map didn't even create the Lots, it only amounted to a graphical description of potential lots.?ÿ The Subdivision Map Act over-rode the common law in California sometime in the early 20th century and allowed maps to create lots but as far as I know that is not the case with easements other than those dedicated to the public or another entity, usually a utility company.
Under the Common Law merger doctrine a property owner could not have a boundary with himself.?ÿ Acquiring adjoining parcels erased the boundaries between them; selling them off again separately recreated the boundary.?ÿ This came up in a boundary case in Colorado or Wyoming, don't remember which, where the Court said the boundary between two parcels was previously established but since they had been joined in ownership then severed again the old established boundary no longer applied.?ÿ I think that came with a pretty strong dissent too.
This is the same with easements.?ÿ I personally think this part of the law should be revised by Statute so that if I own 5 separate legal parcels I can give myself easements across them.?ÿ It creates an issue with minor subdivisions where an owner was allowed to subdivide his parcel into separate lots (not possible under the common law until a deed was delivered to another person) but the easements can't be created needed to serve parcel 2 across parcel 1 unless the easement goes to someone else (usually a public entity or utility).?ÿ The concern is when the minor subdivision lots get deeded out the access easement, for example, could get forgotten then the rear lot owner is left with an implied easement only.
I worked in the County of Park, as the GIS technician so I can say that I worked inside this guideline when doing lot consolidations, combos, splits, etc.?ÿ They were all surveyed, then presented to us in the assessors office, GIS, etc.?ÿ A land owner cannot issue themselves an easement for that very reason, because the "island" parcel would in effect never be accessible.?ÿ Has it happened? I left there for many reasons.?ÿ ?ÿ;)
?ÿ
I don't understand your "island" comment.
I'm thinking of the case of a Minor Subdivision Map which creates two parcels, a front parcel and a rear parcel and it shows a proposed access easement down one side of the front parcel to get to the rear parcel; makes a lot of sense.?ÿ The Map in those cases doesn't create the easement because an easement is an interest in the land of another.?ÿ As long as the Title Company includes the appurtenant easement in the first Grant of the rear parcel then there is no problem but if it gets forgotten then the rear parcel owner only has an implied easement.?ÿ I don't see a problem with allowing the Subdivider to have an easement in himself appurtenant to the rear parcel but it would take an act of the legislature to modify the common law.?ÿ And I agree, but the planning department and others think not so much....
Under the Common Law the map didn't even create the Lots, it only amounted to a graphical description of potential lots.?ÿ The Subdivision Map Act over-rode the common law in California sometime in the early 20th century and allowed maps to create lots but as far as I know that is not the case with easements other than those dedicated to the public or another entity, usually a utility company.
I was merely discussing one a several situations that existed before and now after I left. They have parcels with no implied easements, illegal lots, illegal lot consolidations, no deeds, no records,?ÿ no, no, no, no,no,no!!! Don't even get me started on the section corner that is incorrectly located, accepted, platted and used for design of several subdivisions, now askew and out of whack... yikes!
I was asked to draft up a parcel for a couple that had bought a tax lien, had perfected it , and purchased it though the county process. As I dug deeper, the "parcel" turned out to have been a concoction that someone had submitted to the county decades prior, and in fact was bogus. Refund? Ubetcha. Eyes opened.?ÿ Parachute mounted.
What else could you expect from Cartman, Kenny, Kyle and Stan??ÿ Park County is very different.
I feared that it was a severely career limiting move going there, and escaped to find better work, mentors, and a brighter future.?ÿ
I'm off topic sorry.?ÿ?ÿ
When the new Highway came through creating the tracts,you are saying in your experience that the County did Survey all tracts left over? Every tract was identified ?ÿwith ?ÿexact acreage example 2.59,1.29,3 etc.which it was.The Appraisal District taxed ea. Individual Tract for over 80 years and only recently the County terminated without notification.?ÿ
Sub division rule #2 if Tracy was a result of acquisition of a public right of way.
I have pulled a Title Search and can only find tracts as being in part of a parent Tracy. Does Most of the Counties hold back Surveys from the Public or where can I find meted and bounds because they have to exist somewhere?
?ÿ