Another LS in our company is working on this one, but I find it interesting. In 1999 "Uncle Glenn" sold 2.00 acres out of his 25+ acres to Mrs. Mary. Recently we were hired by Bailey, niece of "Uncle Glenn" to survey off 1.5 acres from his remaining property for her to build on. The new parcel is to adjoin Mrs. Mary's West sideline (the new line created when the 2.00 acres was split off in 1999). We couldn't find the 1999 corner on the road (south end of common line) at the computed position. "Uncle Glenn" took us straight to a 1/2" rebar at the base of a large oak. It was 50' from our computed position based on other irons found. So we went and asked Mrs. Mary. Her adult son took us straight to the same rebar. So we located all of Mrs. Mary's corners, all of Uncle Glen's corners on the parent tract to prove/disprove the corner in question. On the North end of the common line, neither land owner had a clue where the corner was. There are no lines of possession on the line in question but there are areas where its clear who uses what. The surveyor that surveyed Mrs. Mary's property is deceased but I've followed his work many times with no problems. We can put the line where Mrs. Mary's plat says it should go but both are adamant the they sold to/bought to that pin. Uncle Glenn and Mrs. Mary are willing to sign affidavits stating that the iron in question has been relied upon as the corner since 1999. I just don't know if that will happen when one of them realizes that their acreage will be short (by about a third of an acre) due to the difference. I would call it reliance on a pin set in gross error. Can land owners acquiesce to it? We might find out. Thoughts?
What do the deeds say, and did you find anything at the computed position 50' away from the pin they seem to like?
Mrs. Mary's deed refers to the 1999 plat. We didn't find anything at the computed position... Not a stitch of flagging, not a cut limb, nothing
Seems to me the grantees should get what they were conveyed.
So if Mary & Bailey can get their full share, and Glen is left short, oh well.
It's not exactly clear if your scenario would benefit Glen & Mary at the expense of Bailey, or vice-versa, or how that looks?
I left that part vague on purpose. There is currently no dispute since they both agree that the rebar marks their common corner. There will be if we put the deed line on the ground.?ÿ
Is it possible the bearing on the line, and maybe the opposite line, is bad, i.e. S10E instead of S10W?
Interesting thought. I'll have take a look and see if that would make sense.?ÿ
Well, the short answer to your direct question, is of course existing abutting/adjacent land owners can aquiesce to a different boundary line. Especially if they are/were the only/original grantor/grantee to the transaction, and no other property is affected.
HOWEVER, if 3rd party rights already exist because of this previous transaction that will be affected by said acquiesence, then there could (will) be a problem.
It sounds like Bailey (or anyone else) does not have bona fide 3rd party rights becuase she will be taking subject to X down line.
Not sure I have the complete picture of the scenario, but it sounds like none of this really matters anyway? Give Bailey her 1.5 acres of Glen's remainder, and you're done.
Unless the 0.5/1.5 acres is supposed to come from Mary?
I left that part vague on purpose.
I never understand why folks "withhold information" when they ask for help, or tell a story. (We're not the police, you're not under arrest, this is why attorneys get paid so much, and this is why answering cold calls on the phone is abysmal.)
Eventually, the details do/will come out, and when they do, all it does is make your position look extremely bad/biased.
If you are looking for a "correct answer", and you know there has been a "mistake" and have ample evidence to support your claim, then shine some light on the problem and take steps to correct it.
Correct answers are not always comfortable, and we have plenty of suveyors around here that go along to get along, which is how the land surveying gets so screwed up. Our reputation as a profession gets soured as a result.
So, if the only discrepancy (mistake?) is isolated to Glen & Mary, update the deeds & plat to reflect the actual conditions, and then proceed with the next split to Bailey.
If you knowingly create a conflict without disclosure of material fact, then yes, you probably have some culpability concerning said transaction, and rightfully so. You might not feel the pain right away, or directly, but could eventually come at the expense of liability, or reputation.
It appears you are out of Georgia (non-PLSS)? I am not licensed in Georgia (only PLSS area). Is it common that an actual "deed" says, "see plat", and does not give some form of legal description? That seems unlikely, but if so, that would be a really poor way (improper even?) to convey land.
Congratulations! You've won the "we found a mistake in previous work, now WTF do we do" award?!
I didn't say which party would be favored because it doesn't affect the answer to my question. Yes, in Georgia many times the deed refers to the recorded plat and makes it part of the description. Glenn wants to convey land to his niece that adjoins Mary. So we have to determine her line to know where Bailey's will begin.
So we located all of Mrs. Mary's corners, all of Uncle Glen's corners on the parent tract to prove/disprove the corner in question.
You keep dancing around this deed issue. Does the legal description in the deed match the legal description on the plat, and does the plat match the legal description printed on it?
Does Georgia require all adjacent properties to coincide with the same endpoints as the neighbors? Because your discussion implies, but does not directly state, that all three properties have a common point between them, and that is what you are trying to mitigate or use in the subsequent line/position. Also, you did not indicate whether the found pin 50' is or is not on line of the adjoioning original plat.
If you're trying to make all 3 properties have a common point between them, then I see your problem. However, is there something that says all 3 have to coincide?
If you reesetablish the adjoining line between Mary/Bailey and set the Bailey pin at the computed location to give her proper area (which may satisfy the original plat), what harm does it cause to Mary/Glen? They have a jog between them that they agree on that does not affect Bailey, and Bailey's property is still dependent on the line between them, but gets her the "proper" location with respect to the plat.
As for Glen/Mary (The Public): "What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so."
I??m not familiar with Georgia boundary law in particular but most states allow the adjoiners to agree to a physical boundary even if it is founded in a mistake. Since the neighbors agree that the rebar marks their boundary there really isn??t a problem. A recorded boundary location agreement would solve the conflict for posterity. Since the common boundary is settled nothing prevents Uncle Glenn from using it for a boundary of a new lot.
Maybe there is an easement (unrecorded?) boundary which is on the "inside line" of the easement with respect to the plat exterior?
Anything close to exactly 50' (offset?) sounds deliberate? 50' x 290.4' = 1/3 acre.
I haven't surveyed in GA since the early 80's, but this does not appear to be a problem. Just document the description of the acquiesced line prior to carving out the next parcel. Make sure you follow the statutes and case law for Georgia and do not make it look like another transfrer. That will put them under planning regs for the agreed line and obscure the faxt the problem has been discovered and somved...
Our current theory is that Mary or someone, may have had it surveyed and for some reason revised the plat and the pins didn't get "revised" or the wrong one used in the description. A peek at the 1999 surveyor's records didn't help either way. And Mary is quite old and doesn't remember anything like that.?ÿ
There are two properties. Glenn's and Mary's. Glenn want to convey some of his property to his niece. So the line between them must be established to cut off another tract. What is described in the deed was prepared from and referred to the recorded plat. What's on the ground and what we're being told by both land owners is significantly different.?ÿ
Well, I only drive through Georgia. And I'm not an attorney, nor licensed PLS there either. But I'm guessing if I stop in and ask any judge within that state "what is the best evidence of the intent of the parties to a conveyance?", that judge will tell me the contents of the deed (which appears to incorporate a survey plat by reference).
If you're guessing at the intent of the parties, then you're not surveying. And contemplating legal principles from which to rationalize which way to go seems risky in this scenario.
Seems to me, if you bring this discrepancy to the original parties attention (at the same time), then the original parties can decide what they meant, or what their intent is moving forward, and proceed accordingly.
Well, I only drive through Georgia. And I'm not an attorney, nor licensed PLS there either. But I'm guessing if I stop in and ask any judge within that state "what is the best evidence of the intent of the parties to a conveyance?", that judge will tell me the contents of the deed (which appears to incorporate a survey plat by reference).
This is a common misconception. The Deed relates to the nature and quality of title conveyed. Title is very complicated and usually doesn??t directly affect the survey.
The courts have long recognized a much broader evidentiary investigation with respect to boundary. Without a somewhat more liberal interpretation original monuments could never be accepted.
No one is guessing, direct testimony is available from both neighbors and they are in agreement.
YOu have both original parties in agreement so you could do a corrective deed and have both sign those affidavits. It's a deed reformation.?ÿ But if a lender involved you'll need them to sign off also.?ÿ
?ÿ
No one is guessing, direct testimony is available from both neighbors and they are in agreement.
Really?
The grantor/grantee have a Deed and a Survey Plat that successfully conveyed 2.00 acres of land in 1999.
In 2022, they offer oral/physical testimony that directly contradict the Deed and Survey Plat.
I fail to see any "agreement".
Which is the "correct" evidence to rely on for their intent to convey land?
The Statute of Frauds is on my side here.
?ÿ
The courts have long recognized a much broader evidentiary investigation with respect to boundary. Without a somewhat more liberal interpretation original monuments could never be accepted.
When you make a claim like that, the burden of proof is on you. I saw no support of said claim.
A court will first look to the "four corners" of the (record) document(s) to establish the best evidence of the intent of the parties to (contract) convey land. Absent any controversy toward the matter at hand, the search stops there.
The Deed and the Survey Plat appear to be 100% reliable at the time of the contract/conveyance in 1999. There is no controversy to these set of facts.?ÿAs far as we know, and insofar as we've been led to believe, the records indicate their 1999 arrangment is sound. We have no reason to belive they are faulty, and nor would a court.
The "supposed controversy" is being proffered as speculation in the form of "our current theory is: x, y, or z" from a 3rd party that may be missing key evidence, who is then going to make a professional judgment, and then potentially insert themselves directly into the controversy they seek to avoid.
?ÿ
This is a common misconception. The Deed relates to the nature and quality of title conveyed. Title is very complicated and usually doesn??t directly affect the survey.
Your eyes, ears, and beliefs mislead you.?ÿI spoke not a word of title or surveying.
A deed is simply an instrument for conveyance of an estate or an interest in real property.
What better evidence of an intent to convey can you offer?
And yes, title can be complicated.
?ÿ
I didn't see a clear statement on this: Does the plat close mathematically and does it make 2.0 acres?