In 1941 Joe Blow, the president of Some Co., Inc., conveyed a parcel of land to Some Co., Inc.
In 1945, Mr. Blow conveyed another parcel to WeinieWidgets Corp., which was unrelated in any way Mr. Blow or to Some Co., Inc.
A large portion of the 1945 conveyance overlapped what he had already conveyed to Some Co., Inc. in 1941.
In 1959,?ÿ?ÿWeinieWidgets Corp. sold a portion of the 1945 parcel to Mr. Smith for his residence, part of which WWC had clear title to, and part of which they did not.?ÿ Mr. Smith has now owned the property for 59 years, has paid taxes on it as conveyed to him by WWC, and has improved the overlap portion by constructing two storage sheds thereon.?ÿ There are no fences or other visual cues as to the location of the boundary.?ÿ No one has ever disputed his ownership of the overlap area.
My quandary: In surveying the former Some Co., Inc. lands, do I:
1) act in the "quasi-judicial" role, and map to the limits of the 1945 conveyance,?ÿ to which I believe Mr. Smith has by now gained unwritten title, and show the area of overlap (0.10 Ac.)?
or:
2)?ÿ map to the limits of the 1941 conveyance, show the area of overlap, and let the lawyers sort it out?
If I do map it to the 1945 deed, the boundaries will coincide with everyone's expectations, while mapping to the 1941 deed will likely make me very unpopular with Mr. Smith and doubtless lead to some costly litigation.
Your state law and case law may give you a clean answer, but I doubt it.
I also doubt that AP is the clean answer either.
Mapit. Your choice for labels, but it needs to be clearly depicted.. then suggest a boundary agreement. Keep It Out Of Court.
This will come up again, it is time to clear the record... that is our job
Survey the lot as conveyed to Mr. Smith. Show the Some Co. lines as overlapping the Smith Property. You should not be concerned about saving Mr. Smith litigation expenses, you are?ÿthe surveyor. If you do not bring this to Mr. Smith's attention your negligence?ÿmay make you liable for loses in the future.
As I see it this, is not Adverse Possession. Mr Smith has Color of Title and appears well aware of what he bought and where those lines are. Mr. Blow as President of Some Co. may have intentionally or unintentionally conveyed away the Some Co. rights to the "overlapping?" lands. In addition the storage sheds may indicate that Some Co. acquiesced to the possession and use.
Paul in PA
I agree that Mr. Smith would win in court, slam dunk.?ÿ But perhaps for different reasons. Since Blow had effective control of the whole parcel conveyed in 1945 I'd say that?ÿWeinieWidgets Corp had title to the whole thing, in spite of the 1941 corporate hocus-pocus, at the time of the 1959 sale.
Presumably Blow stood by in 1959?ÿ and watched Smith take possession and build. If so, that ended any claim, by estoppel.?ÿ?ÿ
Best answer is combination of A & B. I wouldn't make any map until I'd met with the client to explain all this.?ÿ Then eventually follow up with a?ÿ letter and/or explanation on the face of a map. A good lawyer, one that is interested in solving the problem rather than running up fees, can probably resolve this once and for all.
Looks like adverse possession with color of title however other legal principles may be at play.
This is really a question for the legal profession, you can locate the various boundaries but which one is THE boundary is outside the scope of Land Surveying. If the parties are agreeable to a friendly solution then you can prepare descriptions to be used in Q/C Deeds to implement the solution.
@sergeant-schultz said..."In surveying the former Some Co., Inc. lands". Smith is occupying land he does not have title to.
In that case show the line of "Some Co., Inc. lands" and then dashed lines for the overlapping Smith deed description.
It all depends on who is more aggressive, and who has pockets that are deep enough.
(Smith _probably_ never knew of the overlap, and Not having title. "you can't sell what you don't own prevails)
?ÿ
PS: please lobby for an amicable resolution Before you file that map!
This may be a situation where title insurance actually will be helpful.
I just had one where the title insurance had to fix some messes created by double deeding the same piece, and they weren't involved until long?ÿafter the deeds had been first transferred way back in the 30's. So maybe?ÿfor this rare instance; it's worth a shot for the landowners.
Show what you find, otherwise you're like the doctor who doesn't give out bad news so not to upset the patient.
As surveyors we can fix some things; accept an old monument for the C1/4 even though it's not at the perfect math, hold?ÿbounds calls over metes calls, but there is a limit.
?ÿ
Your State law will drive the mechanics of this. My opinion is no lawyer should be involved unless one or both parties demand a fight.
As for status a few things come to mind. The fact patterns for AP and AQ vary enough by state that I wouldnt make that call without some study. I would say the fact pattern creates an ambiguity in boundary location. That opens the door for an agreement.?ÿ
Again, State law drives the form an agreement ahould take. I would avoid the quit claim solution at all costs. An agreement will describe the problem and solution. Future owners, insurers and Surveyors will follow it with ease. A series of quit claims generally adds one more apparent transfer of property to an already screwed up situation. It also invites the scrutiny of overzealous tax and planning authorities.
The only other time I would involve an Attorney is when I need a court to order a solution. That takes a little experience reading personalities, but most of us have that...
Normally I agree Q/C Deeds and Lawyers are a poor way to clear up boundary conflicts but in this case there is a paper overlap, at least as far as I understand the OP. If I was a Title Company asked to insure Mr. Smith's title I would want a Q/C Deed from Some Company to extinguish the overlap. Since Sgt works for Some Company it should be easier to explain that a mistake was made by Mr. Blow decades ago and in order to lose the potential deep pockets liability for someone that may get hurt on Mr. Smith's apparent record ownership they should clear up the mistake with a Q/C Deed.
Sometimes later Deeds that are different were an attempt to more precisely describe the boundary in an earlier Deed. There appears to be an overlap but there isn't really one. An example could be the south 3 acres of a lot then later the north 3 acres of the south 6 acres was described as beginning at a point 136' north of the southwest corner of the Lot which technically overlaps a foot into the senior south 3 acres if you do the math but all subsequent Deeds including in the south 3 acres assume it is 136' wide. That's not an overlap, just a different way to describe the same tracts.
As i age, I more tend to see the idea behind "landmarks prevail over old, non-enforceable deeds".
Charge well, show the plat to the old land marks. Let her rip, potato chip. Lable them "ancient landmarks".?ÿ
If and when you survey the adjoiners land, call it the same "ancient landmarks".
Live and let live.
N
Except in this case there are only two landmarks (sheds) and they would not memorialize the lines in question.
While I encourage the Surveyor to walk the owners through solving it, I adamantly caution the Surveyor not to impose a solution not clearly founded in law.
It's the owners problem to solve and the Surveyors to make a living helping them..
As i age, I more tend to see the idea behind "landmarks prevail over old, non-enforceable deeds".
Charge well, show the plat to the old land marks. Let her rip, potato chip. Lable them "ancient landmarks".?ÿ
If and when you survey the adjoiners land, call it the same "ancient landmarks".
Live and let live.
N
I am usually a lot less worried about liability than most on here, but that is way more liability than even I would be willing to take on.?ÿ
What you are doing is predicting what a court would say, your prediction is likely right, but there may be a very expensive process to get there, and trial courts are very unpredictable.?ÿ
The "ancient landmarks" of many court decisions are monuments that mark the line. There aren't any here. The sheds are good evidence for an argument of adverse possession, but only the courts, or the landowners can clear title to an adversely possess parcel. A surveyor can't do that.
What a surveyor can do is help the landowners solve this without going to court.?ÿ
I'm surprised that quit claim deeds aren't a viable solution when both owners have held to a common (though not of record) line by acquiescence.?ÿ I'd guess that 30% of all transfer deeds not involving a simple subdivision lot I've?ÿ been?ÿ involved in are quitclaims because a bank didn't want to get into a warranty deed situation.?ÿ
Kick the can down the road, make the Title company take the risk, that's how the game is played.
?ÿ
Title companies here won't touch a quit claim deed other than simple relative elimination type actions in an estate.
The surveyor has no power to decide title based upon use or any other reason other than what is found in the records search.
We show the facts based on what deeds convey and locate where improvements have been put in place.
Land owners parley ownership for the duration of their coexistent of being adjoining land owners.
?ÿ
?ÿ
I know one lawyer that will shy away from Quit Claim Deeds and prefers to write a Deed Without Warranty. I don't know why.
James
On matters of location, that is for the Land Surveyor to determine.?ÿ Title is not at issue although title and location issues are often conflated. Conflicts in location evidence are not title conflicts.
On matters of true title conflicts then the property owners need to clear that up.
This is the distinction that it is helpful to make.
In the case of the O.P. it is not possible to determine from the information provided whether it is a location conflict or a title conflict.
The Surveyor has no power to resolve the issue, but they absolutely should have the expertise to walk the owners through a solution...
No professional has any power at all; that is not why professions exist.?ÿ A profession operates within a scope of service within which the public can seek a professional opinion.?ÿ The boundary client can ask where is the boundary? and the Land Surveyor can answer with an opinion hopefully based in relevant evidence.?ÿ The adjoiners can disagree and either seek agreement with their neighbor or submit their complaint to the Court system.
Professionals that offer title opinions are either 1) Lawyers who have no power other than to offer an opinion or 2) title companies which may issue a Title Policy binding the company to the risk that their opinion is wrong.
In both cases the property owners may either agree or submit their problem to the Court system.?ÿ In the case of boundary surveys in the vast majority of cases the property owners silently agree by using the stakes set by the Surveyor.?ÿ If the property owners are willing to agree on a solution then the Lawyers and Land Surveyors provide a service which involves employing the proper forums (for example Local Planning processes) and formats of executable documents.
?ÿ
