108 Opinions on Senior Rights!

Quite a turnout on that one. It was an interesting read for sure. I had no idea there were so many other professions represented here on Beer Leg.

Doctors
Lawyers
Judges
Indian Chiefs

Oh, and one PhD in Political Science and Economics.

Glad you two guys seperated this out, 108 is more responses to a guy that signed in a few days ago...than TDD GOT IN A YEAR!!! Maybe occupy wall street!!

I'm a supporter of Senior Rights

They should have the same rights as us younger people.

I'm a supporter of Senior Rights

Now that was just nasty.

Don

I'm a supporter of Senior Rights

LOL I agree.

I'm a supporter of Senior Rights

Surely everyone realized what a phony started that thread. Just one of our regulars using a new name to stir the pot and rile up the riffraff. And it worked, too.

BTW, it was not me.

I have a divine right..............

There is a joke that goes back to at least the mid 60's that included a charming and otherwise lovely women's libber being braless while protesting some sort of snub by stating, "I have a divine right......." The male's comeback started with, "You have a heavenly left as well, but,........."

I have a divine right..............

braless never bothered me one bit, still doesn't!

Lex Mercatoria

> Surely everyone realized what a phony started that thread. Just one of our regulars using a new name to stir the pot and rile up the riffraff.

Lex Mercatoria

"Lex mercatoria (from the Latin for "merchant law") is the body of commercial law used by merchants throughout Europe during the medieval period. It evolved similar to English common law as a system of custom and best practice, which was enforced through a system of merchant courts along the main trade routes. It functioned as the international law of commerce. It emphasised contractual freedom, alienability of property, while shunning legal technicalities and deciding cases ex aequo et bono."

Here's my understanding of Senior rights and how they might apply in the previous problem:

Senior Rights are a method of determining who gets what first in a case where there is not a simultaneous conveyance.

So in the example, the eastern parcel "came out" first, making it the senior parcel, with the western parcel being a remainder piece, and therefore junior.

Now that I've determined who the senior parcel is, I'll apply the priority of calls. I find what I believe are the original irons set for the division as shown on the 1960 survey. They are 4 feet "off", but I recognize that the survey was performed in 1960, and it is conceivable that chaining errors could produce that type of error.

Also, it appears that all the adjoiners have accepted the irons as the bound since I am unaware of any dispute(s) up to this point.

So I hold the original irons and therefore the parcel is smaller by 4 x 1000 feet than what is called for in the record.

In my opinion, Senior Rights don't mean "more land." They merely means "the senior parcel is first." Here in Maine, I can think of a few projects where the senior parcel ended up with less that what was called for, with the junior parcel (as the remainder) "gaining" land.

(Gaining used in the sense of how the layman tends to think on it. Obviously the lines haven't moved, merely the measurements have changed.)

EDIT:
However, as Paul pointed out in another thread, the later sale of the western parcel was only the west 500', creating a gap between the parcels where Jones or the heirs of Jones retain the remainder, a 4'x1000' strip...

> EDIT:
> However, as Paul pointed out in another thread, the later sale of the western parcel was only the west 500', creating a gap between the parcels where Jones or the heirs of Jones retain the remainder, a 4'x1000' strip...

All over again.....

"The strip-and-gore doctrine is intended to avoid litigation by presuming that "a grantor has no intention of reserving a fee in a narrow strip of land adjoining the land conveyed when it ceases to be of use to him, unless such fee is clearly reserved." Cantley v. Gulf Prod. Co., 135 Tex. 339, 143 S.W.2d 912, 915 (1940."

OK, Assume Jones Does Not Intend To Reserve The 4'

The most likely reason is that he intended to transfer it to Eastman in the past, not to Westerly now.

Paul in PA

OK, Assume Jones Does Not Intend To Reserve The 4'

You don't have to assume nothing: as clearly stated, the 4 feet "strip" does not exist, never has, never will, unless Jones clearly reserved it. Thereore, if the 4 foot "strip" never existed, how could anyone intend to transfer something doesn't, or hasn't existed?

These basic concepts are really not that hard to grasp. One just has to make an attempt.

OK, Assume Jones Does Not Intend To Reserve The 4'

> You don't have to assume nothing: as clearly stated, the 4 feet "strip" does not exist, never has, never will, unless Jones clearly reserved it. Thereore, if the 4 foot "strip" never existed, how could anyone intend to transfer something doesn't, or hasn't existed?
>
> These basic concepts are really not that hard to grasp. One just has to make an attempt.

Your double-negative might actually be more true than one might think at first. "You don't have to assume nothing", obviously implies you have to assume something. In this case you must assume a 4-foot strip never existed based on the original data.

I agree that someone should really "reserve" some property if they don't intend to transfer all they own.

OK, Assume Jones Does Not Intend To Reserve The 4'

Thanks Adam, you have to excuse my red-neckisms. Sometimes my education doesn't always not override my up-bringin'

Don't you know what I don't mean, Sometimes?

😉

Brian

Thanks for not taking offense. I did forget to put a smiley-face on the end of my post and sometimes people get offended when I forget that.

Typos are very easy to make when just typing away on a message board. I especially have bad sentences when I type one thing and then back-space and try to change it. I leave some words sometimes that shouldn't be there.

Anyway, no personal offense intended above.