Attempted Deed Correction by Affidavit: McMillan
> I swear, who would have ever thought that the fundamentals were so difficult? Both you and J.B. Stahl seem to think that a deed that on its face is a nullity, that conveys nothing, can somehow be improved or corrected by an affidavit executed by some stranger to title. That is not only ridiculous, it's bizarre.
>
> Record title means exactly one thing in Texas. It means a regular chain of conveyances beginning with the sovereign and continuing from grantor to grantee by instrument of writing recorded in the public records unto the record owner. So, the instrument from A to B that actually conveys nothing because it is grossly defective is a fatal discontinuity in the chain of title that prevents B from proving record title simply from the instruments of record.
You are still absolutely wrong, mcmillan. All after the 'beginning with the soveriegn' is simply garbage. Once an area becomes a state, the rights of the individual become paramont, and acts of the land owner(s) can and will result in changes to the 'documented' boundaries. These legal changes must be reflected in a correction to the record in order to protect the rights of the land owner(s). Land records in the US bear no resemblance to England's "doomsday book".
Remember the definition of Alienation?
Alienation
In real property law, the transfer of the property and possession of lands, tenaments, or other things, from one person to another. The term is particularly applied to absolute conveyances of real property. The voluntary and complete transfer from one person to another. Disposition by will. Every mode of passing realty by the act of the party, as distinguished from passing it by the operation of law. See also Restraint on alienation.
Restraint on Alienation
A provision in an instrument of conveyance which prohibits the grantee from selling or transfering the property which is the subject of the conveyance. Most such restraints are unenforceable as against public policy and the law's policy of free alienability of land. See restrictive covenant.
The surveyor, maintaining a self-imposed level of ignorance, (such as yours), has no authority to ignore the conclusive evidence of unchallenged occupation and control that results in a legal boundary location that is different from the 'original'.
Go back to the 'Use it or Lose it' article by Atty Judon Fambrough and you will find that his factual explanation of the provisions of Texas State Law contradict your ridiculous bafoonery.
Richard Schaut
> Considering that it's a fundamental principle that a deed that describes nothing is ineffective as a conveyance, it is very Schaut-like to call that a "latent ambiguity". Thanks for the laugh.
Well, Kent. As usual, you show little knowledge of the law regarding title or boundaries. You might want to do some research on what the term "latent ambiguity" is.
You also might want to do a bit of research on your "fundamental principles." I'd suggest that you start with this "fundamental" maxim:
“Ut res magis valeat quam pereat.”
* An interpretation which gives effect is preferred to one which makes void. *
You've written off this deed as being patently void without giving it the slightest attempt at a reasonable interpretation. That violates the "fundamental principles" which you seem to espouse without any reference to what those "principles" are. I think you're making it up.
JBS
Mr. Schaut
Question: Are you saying Kent is a baboon or a buffoon?
> All you have is a LATENT AMBIGUITY. An ambiguity that is apparent on the face of the document.
Not to jump into this sword fight, but I believe you mean to say PATENT AMIBIGUITY here. Continue on...
> > All you have is a LATENT AMBIGUITY. An ambiguity that is apparent on the face of the document.
>
> Not to jump into this sword fight, but I believe you mean to say PATENT AMIBIGUITY here. Continue on...
Yes, it certainly isn't a latent ambiguity. That is obvious to everyone but J.B. and Richard, apparently. However, it isn't an ambiguity any more than a deed that isn't executed by the grantor is ambiguous. A deed that doesn't describe anything to be conveyed is just as much of a nullity as a deed that isn't actually executed by the supposed grantor.
Mr. Schaut
An affidavit is a notarized statement of fact and/or opinion that can be placed in public records, period.
It does not convey anything.
It does not correct errors in any deed.
It does not convey title.
It can not take the place of the existing deed.
Only a correction deed can correct a deed containing errors or omissions.
Sometimes the people are long gone by the time a deed is found to be defective.
In as little as two+ years from the date of discovery a new conveyance can be made with corrections applied as to what the affidavit/s may or may not mention and the title company will extend title according to the details of the new document, including any previously omitted portions when the chain of title has not been broken.
> > All you have is a LATENT AMBIGUITY. An ambiguity that is apparent on the face of the document.
>
> Not to jump into this sword fight, but I believe you mean to say PATENT AMIBIGUITY here. Continue on...
Sorry, Butch. You are absolutely right. Brain fart... ;o)
Thanks
JBS
Mr. Schaut
He's indicating Mr. McMillan is a buffoonish baboon, I think?
Actually, this case does not even rise to the level of a Patent Ambiguity, which might possibly be cured. The case Kent is describing represents a deed that is void due to vagueness. The difference between vague and ambiguous is that vague describes nothing with any reasonable degree of certainty, while ambiguous presents a meaning but more than one.
Patently ambiguous means there are two differing meanings on the face of the document. When this is the case the court will not allow the grantor to testify which one they prefer. However, the court may allow other evidence to clear up the matter (certainly not affidavits from 3rd parties I would hope).
Latent ambiguity means there are more than one interpretation, but this is discovered outside the four corners of the document. The court will allow testimony to clear up questionable meanings of terms or phrases, but not to inject new or contrary evidence.
A void for vagueness description is one where no meaning at all is present. It can not be cured by anything outside the four corners of the document because everything outside it would be merely conjecture or self serving testimony.
JB is correct in that rarely is an ambiguous description declared void, although it does happen, seemingly to prove the point that the parties should have gotten professional help rather than clog up the Judges courtroom with avoidable disputes. However, vague descriptions are routinely declared void.
Mr. Harris
You are flat wrong, the affidavit can correct any type of error in a deed, including an inaccurate record description.
Richard Schaut
Mr. Harris, LOL!
> You are flat wrong, the affidavit can correct any type of error in a deed, including an inaccurate record description.
Yeah, that's the ticket. In Utah. LOL!
Mr. Harris, LOL!
> > You are flat wrong, the affidavit can correct any type of error in a deed, including an inaccurate record description.
>
> Yeah, that's the ticket. In Utah. LOL!
Mr. McMillan... Mr. Schaut lives in Wisconsin, not Utah.
