Putting together a Boundary Line Adjustment and I need to write a description for the small parcel that is trading 3 acres with the large parcel (they won't need to have their deed redescribed).
I end up with 26 acres, not really thinking about it I look on the GIS and the GIS has the parcel listed at 32 Acres.
????
That is a YHuge difference for this area and looking at it, it looks like there are two adjoiners included into the 26 Acres.
mmmmm, this could get interesting..........
MightyMoe, post: 392727, member: 700 wrote: Putting together a Boundary Line Adjustment and I need to write a description for the small parcel that is trading 3 acres with the large parcel (they won't need to have their deed redescribed).
I end up with 26 acres, not really thinking about it I look on the GIS and the GIS has the parcel listed at 32 Acres.
????
That is a YHuge difference for this area and looking at it, it looks like there are two adjoiners included into the 26 Acres.mmmmm, this could get interesting..........
Who's been paying taxes on what? 3 desperate tracts sold in one conveyance and erroneously aggressive f hated by the county? Fun fun fun.
MightyMoe, post: 392727, member: 700 wrote: Putting together a Boundary Line Adjustment and I need to write a description for the small parcel that is trading 3 acres with the large parcel (they won't need to have their deed redescribed).
I end up with 26 acres, not really thinking about it I look on the GIS and the GIS has the parcel listed at 32 Acres.
????
That is a YHuge difference for this area and looking at it, it looks like there are two adjoiners included into the 26 Acres.mmmmm, this could get interesting..........
If both lots change, both deeds need to be rewritten.
Paul in PA
Paul in PA, post: 392746, member: 236 wrote: If both lots change, both deeds need to be rewritten.
Paul in PA
Its not required when the owner is a large tract. But the old tract will get refiled with an exception and an addition, its not realistic to do a M&B description for a tract that is many sections
Rankin_File, post: 392734, member: 101 wrote: Who's been paying taxes on what? 3 desperate tracts sold in one conveyance and erroneously aggressive f hated by the county? Fun fun fun.
I know who owns part of it, not real clear on a strip that was granted by court degree in 1913, since then there have been no transfers recorded. The grantee was a utility that is long defunked, probably the current owner is a regional utility, but its not my problem so i havent tried to track it down. The property is fenced, and has monuments that fit the deed from 1913.
This survey will get my client off the tax roles for 6 acres. But it's ag land so taxes are minimal.
Ok, I'll ask. Why is it not realistic to do M&B for many sections? I do so frequently. And I guess I am not understanding why the property would not need a new description if the dimensions or acreage of the parcel is changing. How will someone following you know what was done if a new description is not written? (I am not familiar with exceptions and additions)
The new description is the old description less the tract severed. No need for a second description in full.
For one thing there is no need to survey the entire large tract to do what you are doing. It sounds as though in this case the large tract may be a couple three entire sections. There would be no need to survey the other sections involved.
Monte, post: 392762, member: 11913 wrote: Ok, I'll ask. Why is it not realistic to do M&B for many sections? I do so frequently. And I guess I am not understanding why the property would not need a new description if the dimensions or acreage of the parcel is changing. How will someone following you know what was done if a new description is not written? (I am not familiar with exceptions and additions)
I'd be glad to resurvey the 1/2 township, but the cost of the survey would swamp any value gained by the trade of the 3 acre parcels, just like Holy says, the two 3 acres tracts will be added and subtracted when the large tract is sold. They may or may not file a corrective deed for this, I will write the descriptions and give them to the lawyers, what they do after that is up to them.
A boundary line adjustment is an exception to the subdivision rules by state statute and it's not necessary to resurvey a large ranch for a tiny adjustment. The small parcel falls within the rules for a corrective description, has a residence, is under the size for the zoning requirements, ect............
MightyMoe, post: 392752, member: 700 wrote: Its not required when the owner is a large tract. But the old tract will get refiled with an exception and an addition, its not realistic to do a M&B description for a tract that is many sections
Adding an exception is indeed a change to a description, as is adding an addition..
Paul in PA
Paul in PA, post: 392847, member: 236 wrote: Adding an exception is indeed a change to a description, as is adding an addition..
Paul in PA
Yes, but it has nothing to do with me at that point, I give the owners the two descriptions, if they add and except them it's up to them.
There is no requirement for them to do so.
MightyMoe, post: 392853, member: 700 wrote: Yes, but it has nothing to do with me at that point, I give the owners the two descriptions, if they add and except them it's up to them.
There is no requirement for them to do so.
How then do you expect me to follow your footsteps?
If neither of them file, then nothing has happened?
If someone with standing gets a hold of your survey, and nothing was filed, could that someone sue you for violation of the Statute of Fraud or Slander of Title?
Paul in PA
Paul in PA, post: 392857, member: 236 wrote: How then do you expect me to follow your footsteps?
If neither of them file, then nothing has happened?
If someone with standing gets a hold of your survey, and nothing was filed, could that someone sue you for violation of the Statute of Fraud or Slander of Title?
Paul in PA
????
SIGH!!!
Like I said, the smaller tract has to be rewritten, the 3 acres out of the 10000 acre tract will be deeded to the 26 acres, you know a warranty deed filed in the courthouse, the 3 acres out of the 26 acres will be deeded to the owners of the 10000 acres. The smaller tract will have to file a corrective deed (as I said above) as a metes and bounds description adding the 3 acres and removing the 3 acres deeded to the 10000 acres.
Also there is a requirement to file a ROS which is being reviewed by the county........
As far as the 10000 acres goes I'm not dealing with that, if they refile all that, that's up to them, can't imagine why they would for this.
No surveyor HERE will have any trouble following it............
MightyMoe, post: 392878, member: 700 wrote: ????
SIGH!!!No surveyor HERE will have any trouble following it............
As a retracing surveyor I may not be given your survey, only some record deeds.
Paul in PA
In this part of the world surveys and deeds are frequently recorded/filed in different places but we do our own research in both places or all places, as the case may be. Relying on the clients to produce them for us is completely futile. Also, no reference will normally be made to a specific survey on a deed. In PLSSia we normally do a ton of research before we ever think of going to the field. In my home county there are about 20 different file sources that can provide information on a specific job. Most of the time it only takes a check into one or two of those places, but, as required, we keep digging.
I once surveyed a tract with riparian rights on a large creek in Anderson County, Texas. It was called 100 acres. When it was finally done, I had 152 acres. The adjoiner across the creek was a timber company you used to could talk to. I called the head surveyor for Temple and he pulled all the records they had. They had been recognizing the creek, in the location I'd found it in, for nearly 40 years, and painted lines as such. Still, I was perplexed so I went down and looked at the call distances and found the old channel. We mapped the old channel and found right at 102 acres.
Old aerial photography from the 50's (the oldest I could get my hands on) showed the creek in the current location. I couldn't say whether or not the creek move was avulsive or via erosion and accretion. So, because of that, I went to the creek as it stood now and my client, who'd bought the tract off the old deed (100 years old ish), wound up cutting a fat hog on that one. We did MANY more jobs for this guy after this. 🙂 That client wouldn't pay the initial invoice. He said I asked you to survey 100 acres and you found an extra 52. How much extra work did you have to do to prove it he asked. We recalculated the bill and he paid with a smile on his face. He also got all the minerals that went with the tract and leased them for a mint right after we finished the survey. Nice bonus for him.
Paul in PA, post: 392912, member: 236 wrote: As a retracing surveyor I may not be given your survey, only some record deeds.
Paul in PA
Then you better go find it, it's not very difficult since it's sitting in the clerk's office.
The fact that an ROS was to be filed was not originally included, so I deduced nothing may be put on record.
Paul in PA
Paul in PA, post: 392939, member: 236 wrote: The fact that an ROS was to be filed was not originally included, so I deduced nothing may be put on record.
Paul in PA
The process for a Boundary Line Adjustment here is that the piece (or pieces) being granted are filed as a deed, in this case the Smith (large tract) is granting to Jones (the 26 acre tract) 3 acres cut off by a river that will clear up access for Jones to his tract. In exchange Jones will grant to Smith 3 acres on the side of the river the Smith tract is mostly on. The Jones tract needs a corrective deed and it needs to be filed, but the Smith tract, being a large parcel with no residences, doesn't need to have a corrective deed written.
Would it be a good idea,,,,,,maybe, but it's the call of the attorneys and the Jones deed is very complicated, so it wouldn't be cheap to refile it; I write descriptions, I don't file deeds it's their call, my guess is that they won't, but if they do wish to I will be happy to assist them.
Since this is ag land there will need to be a statement on the grant to Jones that will exclude it from ever being sold as a separate parcel.
In addition to the two grants there will be a corrective metes and bounds filed for the 26 acres (that one is a requirement) and a ROS witch is referenced on them.
It's fairly simple, if the large tract is granted at a later date the title people should pick up the exceptions and inclusions, if they don't it's on them.
I've looked at a few Eastern State Deeds..."beginning at an iron pipe in the middle of Colonial Trail Road, thence North 25å¡15' West 125.1 feet to an iron pipe, thence...etc..." There is no tie to anything. I found one because I was reading an old case from the 1890s which involved trying to retrace 18th century surveys for the original patents. The Court recited some of the descriptions which called for other surveys but there were big problems. So I found the modern Deed of the same property and it dropped all of the references to the original surveys, just beginning at a pipe, etc. So I could see where you would have to retrace the entire property in order to make one little change.
The Deeds I have seen don't tie to anything, kind of weird to a westerner. Everything out here is tied to the PLSS land net. So if the property owner owns 25 sections and they need one section line, we can do that, no need to resurvey the entire 16,000 acres. Deeds are generally tied to a Section corner or subdivision lot corner, something with a fairly definite tie to the land net.
Dave Karoly, post: 392975, member: 94 wrote: I've looked at a few Eastern State Deeds..."beginning at an iron pipe in the middle of Colonial Trail Road, thence North 25å¡15' West 125.1 feet to an iron pipe, thence...etc..." There is no tie to anything. I found one because I was reading an old case from the 1890s which involved trying to retrace 18th century surveys for the original patents. The Court recited some of the descriptions which called for other surveys but there were big problems. So I found the modern Deed of the same property and it dropped all of the references to the original surveys, just beginning at a pipe, etc. So I could see where you would have to retrace the entire property in order to make one little change.
The Deeds I have seen don't tie to anything, kind of weird to a westerner. Everything out here is tied to the PLSS land net. So if the property owner owns 25 sections and they need one section line, we can do that, no need to resurvey the entire 16,000 acres. Deeds are generally tied to a Section corner or subdivision lot corner, something with a fairly definite tie to the land net.
I will agree that it's always better to correct the deed record by refiling a corrective deed with the exception included, I have just finished a survey where the SE1/4 belonged to a ranch, they sold a strip to the DOT as a warranty deed for a highway, then sold all the lands west of the highway(back in the 40's).
Much later they sold the ranch and used the existing legal so it just referenced the SE1/4 (this does happen, I don't think it's that big a deal but,,,,,). The title people missed including the exceptions, which is basically unforgivable, tax maps showed it all, if the deeds would have been corrected at the time (in the 1940's) it could have been avoided (in the 1980's) filing a deed that was confusing.
Then the title people decided to correct the mess they would issue quit claim deeds. I tried to explain that it didn't accomplish anything, they said that the next transfer would include the quit claims as exceptions which of course begs the question,,,,,,wouldn't it be better to include the original deeds from the 1940's as exceptions. The deed showing the SE1/4 as the ownership is STILL the deed of record, nothing changed, the next guy could STILL miss the two original deeds and the quit claims. But what do I know.
