Here's a fun one.
We have a 0.5 acre parcel that was cut out of a much larger parcel (which has a very poor description like every other parcel around this) in 1989. The parcel that was cut out has a good meets and bounds referenced to solid and old monuments which we recovered. The problem is that when we run out from the stone monument to the "easterly shore of the lake" we are around 100' short. The parcel closes perfect and the area fits but we are really far from the lake, which is strange if they were intended to have access to the lake. The parcel was sold with a lot of restrictions about it only being for a boat storage building and nothing more, etc. There are remains of a small wood building but at the far end of the property away from the lake. The title of the lake and the adjoining properties is a disaster that I don't really want to get into and the client won't pay for me to get into. However the parcel it was cut out of seems to go well into the lake.
I feel it goes to the lake shore as the deed says but I'll admit it is strange that we have so much room, that there is a lot of old growth in that zone near the lake, and that the building is so far from the lake at the end of a drive. The client (a land trust) for some reason does not want anything to do with the lake (even though they own about half of it already) and is contending that we are incorrect on our survey. The original parties are dead so not much help there...we're dealing with an estate both for our parcel and the parcel it was split from.
I think the title attorney is leaning to my side...we have a meeting next week.
Tom
Maybe there ain't as much water in the lake as there used to be ...
In Louisiana we have a whopper of an intermittent lake. Frank Willis won a spectacular court case concerning Catahoula Lake. It goes up and down with the seasons.
I thought about that...but the older trees near the lake make me lean away from that...and this was only split off in 1989.
> Here's a fun one.
>
> We have a 0.5 acre parcel that was cut out of a much larger parcel (which has a very poor description like every other parcel around this) in 1989. The parcel that was cut out has a good meets and bounds referenced to solid and old monuments which we recovered. The problem is that when we run out from the stone monument to the "easterly shore of the lake" we are around 100' short. The parcel closes perfect and the area fits but we are really far from the lake, which is strange if they were intended to have access to the lake. The parcel was sold with a lot of restrictions about it only being for a boat storage building and nothing more, etc. There are remains of a small wood building but at the far end of the property away from the lake. The title of the lake and the adjoining properties is a disaster that I don't really want to get into and the client won't pay for me to get into. However the parcel it was cut out of seems to go well into the lake.
>
> I feel it goes to the lake shore as the deed says but I'll admit it is strange that we have so much room, that there is a lot of old growth in that zone near the lake, and that the building is so far from the lake at the end of a drive. The client (a land trust) for some reason does not want anything to do with the lake (even though they own about half of it already) and is contending that we are incorrect on our survey. The original parties are dead so not much help there...we're dealing with an estate both for our parcel and the parcel it was split from.
>
> I think the title attorney is leaning to my side...we have a meeting next week.
>
> Tom
Is the lake man made? Does it have a dam? I'm thinking the lake shore may be a given elevation and that's why you are so far from the actual water's edge.
Just my 2 pennies...
Meander Line
I don't even see any problem whatsoever. Run your traverse along the shoreline as close as you can, show ties to the "current" waters edge, and move on.
You can calculate your area of your survey, and show an approximate area of the area between your meander line and the current shoreline. Pretty simple really. It was very common in my old home state of MI.
If they don't want to pay you to "fix" the seeming title problem, they still need the survey to identify said problem. Little things lead to bigger things.... sometimes. Don't let their problem become your problem, unless of course $$$
Just be careful on free advice.
0.02%
What state? In NY it would go to the center of the lake if the grantor had title that far, or as far as the grantor had title (short of center). At least, without more evidence they intended to restrict the sale short of that.
>The parcel was sold with a lot of restrictions about it only being for a boat storage building and nothing more, etc
If that isn't a zoning rule, then it sounds like what the buyer got was little better than an easement.
It is in NY but it specifically calls out "to the easterly shore" and "along the easterly shore". So I would interpret that as being specific. If it had called out "to the lake" then "along the lake" I would think differently.
For example...we have a creek running through our town. Deeds on the westerly side call out "to the edge of the creek" and "along the creek" and deeds on the easterly side call out the westerly edge of the creek.
I have always thought that when there is a specific call to say the easterly line of the lake rather than to the lake in general, the intent is to that edge of the lake.
Tom
It was certainly a fee sale. We see these types of restrictions all over the place. They also had to give the people who sold it to them first right to buy it back, etc.
Tom
Meander Line
They are questioning the intent of the parcel going all the way to the lake (seems pretty clear to me). I did what you suggested in the first place.
Tom
I agree, the call is the easterly shore which is the limiting factor. If it said the the lake and the bed of the lake was owned by the grantor, then title would extend to the limits of the grantor's ownership as an appurtenance to the property unless specifically excepted. In New York now, on state owned waters when property is subdivided, the grantor must show the proposed riparian right lines as a part of the subdivision. This was passed in to law a few years ago.
Interesting. From the comfort of my chair 2000 miles away, I would ask:
Since this parcel was created in 1989, have you picked up the phone and called the grantor and asked them what they were thinking? How about the attorney that prepared it. Or a family member.
What good would a boat house be without access to water? There may be a subsequent document with some clues that is missing from your portfolio.
Dan
We are dealing with estates of both parties but the title attorney is reaching out to one of the estates tomorrow to see what she can dig up.
Tom
Ain't there some kinda recorded split, subdivision, plan, etc? in the planning, zoning, economic development office? 1989 wasn't that long ago.
One would think so, but no...just deeded off. If I remember correctly it was only about 15 years ago that this county stopped this from happening. It was really common for two lot splits until the early 70's in most of the area (outside of this county) and I've found deeded subdivisions well after that...
I just got a title report of the property that it was split from tonight...that's for tomorrow afternoon. Hopefully I'll find more details in there.
Tom
Most lake boundaries are at some level above the emergency spillway.
Some are at the vegetation line and will move as the normal pool level changes.
100ft from the waterline may be natural for that lake.
Yes, there used to be that argument, although a call to the shore would still have taken the boundary to the water (just not to the center). However, a couple years ago the NYS Court of Appeals did away with it. The current NY rule per the high court is that if it is near water the intent is to convey the bed of the water (basically, with a few caveats). Calls to the water or shore or bank caused too much argument (in the courts view). Of course there are problems with this new rule as well. How "near" is near enough. I think it's near enough if they called to anything that has to do with a water body. But this situation should only be a problem now if there was no call to anything to do with the water body. If there were only a metes & bounds with no call to "the shore", and you find your parcel is within a hundred feet; was the bed of the water conveyed? Is 100 feet near enough if not called out, 200 feet, 10 feet, a mile? Sometimes the courts attempts to simplify and clarify don't really hit the target.
Generally, the "easterly shore of the lake" is a called-for natural monument, that would trump bearing, distance, and acreage calls. The fact that the parcel is restricted for boat house is further evidence that the intent was lake access.
I'd probably do as other suggested, and show the record location based on the bearing and distance calls, then extend the lines to the shore of the lake, and explain the situation and my decision in a survey report. Of course, as is always the case, "the contrary may be shown".
But what if the bed of a lake is conveyed to one party (say a homeowners association) and the intent for some of the parcels around it is to only go to the edge of the lake? I can think of a few situations where the courts ruling would not apply in a practical way. Similar to the creek in our town. The deeds on one side call to the edge of the creek with no other indication. The deeds on the other side call the the far side of the creek. This makes sense because the old mills that own the creek used it to power their machines. The other side that just calls out the edge of creek with no other info are all residential.
Tom
I hope the NYS Court gets slapped silly over that one...