FL/GA PLS., post: 426324, member: 379 wrote: I'll give you a Quit Claim Deed for the Brooklyn Bridge for $2500. 😉 (cash only)
[SARCASM]Don't pay that much. I sold it to him for only $1999.[/SARCASM]
Bill93, post: 426270, member: 87 wrote: I find that surprising. I thought a quitclaim just gave up any rights you had at the time of that document, and would have no effect on future acquisitions.
As usual, it depends. The title of the document doesn't determine what it does. The structure I see in most quit claims here is horrid. At the very least they would open the door for battles that should never happen.
My preference is to tell the story in a document that ties the survey, agreed line and new / old descriprions together. I have a few developed with an Attorney that have worked well.
roger_LS, post: 426329, member: 11550 wrote: Aside from planning issues, have you come across any situations in your research where quitclaims "don't work" as has been suggested.
You can't (shouldn't attempt to) fix a boundary location issue with a title document. Unless, of course if the location issue is caused by a failure in the title document. Then you correct the error contained in the original title document using the appropriate correction instrument.
A quitclaim exchange, like others have said, makes it appear that you're creating a new boundary and exchanging property. Triggers all sorts of unintended consequences from easement and lien-hold interests to P&Z issues.
A corrective deed will reach back in time and correct the mistaken language (or scrivener's errors) used in the original conveyance document. The boundary remains the same, no property is conveyed, and the parcels originally conveyed are repaired as if they always were correctly described in the first place. The corrections will domino up the chain of title and reform every deed, mortgage, etc. that relied upon or used the original description.
If you can't get the corrective deed for some reason, then a boundary line agreement between the owners (mutual owner's affidavit) can repair the ambiguity (uncertainty) in the description and correctly (or more precisely) define the location of their common boundary without having to muck up the title chain. Not as good of a fix as a corrective deed, but offers an alternative that will work in most jurisdictions.
I've always seen them put together where attorneys have added language specifying their purpose so as not to be confused with a Boundary Line Adjustment or grant of property, but maybe this could still cause problems, don't know. If you were going with the corrective deed route I assume you'd need to get both deeds re-written in the entirety and signed by respective owners as opposed to a description of just the common line(s) Is that right? And would the grantors also need to be signing?
JBStahl, post: 426360, member: 427 wrote: You can't (shouldn't attempt to) fix a boundary location issue with a title document. Unless, of course if the location issue is caused by a failure in the title document. Then you correct the error contained in the original title document using the appropriate correction instrument.
A quitclaim exchange, like others have said, makes it appear that you're creating a new boundary and exchanging property. Triggers all sorts of unintended consequences from easement and lien-hold interests to P&Z issues.
A corrective deed will reach back in time and correct the mistaken language (or scrivener's errors) used in the original conveyance document. The boundary remains the same, no property is conveyed, and the parcels originally conveyed are repaired as if they always were correctly described in the first place. The corrections will domino up the chain of title and reform every deed, mortgage, etc. that relied upon or used the original description.
If you can't get the corrective deed for some reason, then a boundary line agreement between the owners (mutual owner's affidavit) can repair the ambiguity (uncertainty) in the description and correctly (or more precisely) define the location of their common boundary without having to muck up the title chain. Not as good of a fix as a corrective deed, but offers an alternative that will work in most jurisdictions.
The corrective deed is the best solution, one owner being the government could probably do it, but the other owners have passed, I don't know if the successors could sign for it, I figure the one I went to school with was about 10 or so when this deed was created.
roger_LS, post: 426369, member: 11550 wrote: If you were going with the corrective deed route I assume you'd need to get both deeds re-written in the entirety and signed by respective owners as opposed to a description of just the common line(s) Is that right? And would the grantors also need to be signing?
Getting down to the specifics would really require close review of the documents on both sides of the line. Typically, you'd have one document that first described the boundary (as opposed to the original document which was apparently modified in the 60's) and a second, adjoining document that may or may not have incorporated the revised language from the first.
If the second document does incorporate the language of the first, then really all that should be required is correction of the original document. In theory, all subsequent documents which refer to or incorporate the original description would automatically be reformed as if they used the [corrected] original language (which they did).
As a caution, the new description must conform to the original intent of the parties. You can't be creating or following a boundary that is different than the originally intended boundary. That's the whole point of a correction is to correct the erroneously described boundary.
Another word of caution is that there is variation in the latitude given for the correction. Ideally, the signature of the original grantor is all that is required to make the correction. Delivery to and acceptance by the grantee (which is presumed by the subsequent recording) works the same as the original transaction. When the original granting party is unavailable (dead), then most jurisdictions have no issue with the subsequent purchaser (successive owner) "steps into the shoes" of the original grantor and makes the correction. Some jurisdictions will limit the subsequent purchaser to someone who was in close proximity to the original conveyance who "should have" knowledge of the original intent.
The way the above quoted question is being framed, I get the impression that the original boundary was described one way, revised later by an erroneous survey (or scrivener's errors), then that revised language was incorporated by the adjoining property description (possibly a remainder?). In that case, reforming only the first document would be necessary. The grantor (or successor grantor) of the first document would sign the correction. Most statutes that define the requirements for corrective documents require a statement explaining the purpose of the correction. That's the opportunity to give any particulars including a note for correcting subsequent documents and potentially adjoining documents (which may require the signature of the adjoining grantor or, perhaps, a second corrective document).
Each situation is unique, so there really isn't a "canned" approach for a fix. You do what makes the parties satisfied (including, sometimes, their attorneys, their lenders, the county recorder, the title company, etc.). Usually the fewer third parties at the table, the simpler the resolution.
If you can define specific errors (transcriptions, missing courses, reversed quadrants, etc.) a scrivener's affidavit, owner's affidavit or surveyor's affidavit may be all that is necessary to identify the appropriate corrections that need to be incorporated. My only caution to using one of these is to watch how the affidavit will be indexed. It needs to be indexed against both adjoining properties and it needs to be discoverable by a future search.
JBStahl, post: 426384, member: 427 wrote: Getting down to the specifics would really require close review of the documents on both sides of the line. Typically, you'd have one document that first described the boundary (as opposed to the original document which was apparently modified in the 60's) and a second, adjoining document that may or may not have incorporated the revised language from the first.
If the second document does incorporate the language of the first, then really all that should be required is correction of the original document. In theory, all subsequent documents which refer to or incorporate the original description would automatically be reformed as if they used the [corrected] original language (which they did).
As a caution, the new description must conform to the original intent of the parties. You can't be creating or following a boundary that is different than the originally intended boundary. That's the whole point of a correction is to correct the erroneously described boundary.
Another word of caution is that there is variation in the latitude given for the correction. Ideally, the signature of the original grantor is all that is required to make the correction. Delivery to and acceptance by the grantee (which is presumed by the subsequent recording) works the same as the original transaction. When the original granting party is unavailable (dead), then most jurisdictions have no issue with the subsequent purchaser (successive owner) "steps into the shoes" of the original grantor and makes the correction. Some jurisdictions will limit the subsequent purchaser to someone who was in close proximity to the original conveyance who "should have" knowledge of the original intent.
The way the above quoted question is being framed, I get the impression that the original boundary was described one way, revised later by an erroneous survey (or scrivener's errors), then that revised language was incorporated by the adjoining property description (possibly a remainder?). In that case, reforming only the first document would be necessary. The grantor (or successor grantor) of the first document would sign the correction. Most statutes that define the requirements for corrective documents require a statement explaining the purpose of the correction. That's the opportunity to give any particulars including a note for correcting subsequent documents and potentially adjoining documents (which may require the signature of the adjoining grantor or, perhaps, a second corrective document).
Each situation is unique, so there really isn't a "canned" approach for a fix. You do what makes the parties satisfied (including, sometimes, their attorneys, their lenders, the county recorder, the title company, etc.). Usually the fewer third parties at the table, the simpler the resolution.
The original was done in the 1960's and was never changed, in fact the same family owned the ranch until this year, the government owns to the south. There have been no changes to the language in the description.
MightyMoe, post: 426386, member: 700 wrote: The original was done in the 1960's and was never changed, in fact the same family owned the ranch until this year, the government owns to the south. There have been no changes to the language in the description.
That makes it pretty straight forward, then. Best option: One document created the line; file a correction for that document, all the others fall in line automatically. For more information search the doctrine of reformation. It's really the only viable way to reach back in time to fix a mistake in a conveyance.
A scrivener's affidavit would be able to suggest the correct numbers in the metes and bounds, but it's not binding upon all of the non-signatory parties. Couple it with your surveyor's certification on a filed (or attached) survey and you'll strengthen the impact of the affidavit. It really comes down to the believability of the affidavit and certification. If it makes a logical modification, subsequent purchasers are more likely to incorporate it in their next conveyance (reliance). That's when the affidavit will gain momentum.