I've been going round and round with the attorney on this one.
1827 - Four rectangular parcels cut from the NE corner of a rectangular 25 Ac. parcel. These are conveyed to 4 brothers.
First and second brothers ultimately own everything. The third went bankrupt and the second bought him out to pay the debt. The fourth went missing from the record entirely and was presumed to be lost at sea.
So the first owns parcels 1 & 2, the second owns parcel 3. They would own questionable percentages of the remainder and who knows about the 4th parcel though they eventually convey it.
1828 - These brothers then cut up the 25 acres and sell it.
The first gets 2 acres on the west (after survey this ends up being a little more than 4 acres).
The first conveys an unknown acreage in the northeast corner. At least the first two lots, possibly three, possibly 4.
The remainder is described as 13 acres and sold. It is in a panhandle shape.
If you remove the 4 parcels in the NE and the 4 ac. on the west, you are left with about 13 acres. There is no record of 3rd and 4th lots going to the first brother.
1858 - The panhandle is conveyed with a 16 acre description.
1860's - The panhandle is divided based on 16 acres.
...
Today - I can define the perimeter and the 4 acres to the west (2 record). I have the NW corner of the 4 parcels.
The question at hand is should the old panhandle be 13 or 16 acres. If it is 13 acres, it destroys the title for one of the lots conveyed in the 1860's. If it is 16 acres, everybody gets what their deed stated whether it had actual back title or not.
Any thoughts?
What has each party recognized to be his? If boundaries exist that have long been recognized, then...those boundaries still exist! Could a Corrective Deed/Quit-Claim signing party be held to clean up the chain of title? In other words, are all the parties not acrimonious jerks?
It is all uncleared woodland. No fences, walls, ridges, ditches. A few piles of stones here and there.
If I'm reading you right, the area is what the area is and not what the residue should calculate as it is a residue tract and should get all of the excess or deficiency that existing in the original area call of 25 acres, or did I miss something?
Jr./Sr. rights become muddled as there are many missing deeds.
If parcels 3 and 4 were conveyed to brother 1, then the 13 acre call would be correct. If parcels 3 and 4 were conveyed to brother 2, then the 16 acre call would be correct.
I believe this to be a question of title, not a question of location. The attorney wants me to hold the 13 acre to prove the title question. I have shown both solutions looking for direction from the court in the question of the title.
> I have shown both solutions looking for direction from the court in the question of the title.
You have done the right thing here. Report the facts and do not try to guess intent where it cannot be done. Let the clients know there are some problems, but offer a solution if you can. Such as the quit claim party that someone above mentioned.
Side note: I think as Surveyor's we want to always find the solution. It is just a part of so much of our work, but sometimes it is best not to.
Good Luck.
Scott