In 2000, the Surveyor cut out 58 acres out of a Parent tract,subsequently in 2012 the same Surveyor cut out our 10 acre tract out of the same parent tract..Our tract and the Neighbors tract are side by side..The Parent tract would have no intent of leaving a (possible gap) between our tracts...The County Engineer will only recognize a 3.8 tract that's within the 10 acre tract,if a Boundary line agreement is established.My Neighbor who recently purchased the property lives out of town and has not responded to my request. Since the 58 acres was established and then ours,would it have been prudent to close this 2 to 6 foot gap between our tracts?
Michael harwell, post: 393474, member: 11340 wrote: In 2000, the Surveyor cut out 58 acres out of a Parent tract,subsequently in 2012 the same Surveyor cut out our 10 acre tract out of the same parent tract..Our tract and the Neighbors tract are side by side..The Parent tract would have no intent of leaving a (possible gap) between our tracts...The County Engineer will only recognize a 3.8 tract that's within the 10 acre tract,if a Boundary line agreement is established.My Neighbor who recently purchased the property lives out of town and has not responded to my request. Since the 58 acres was established and then ours,would it have been prudent to close this 2 to 6 foot gap between our tracts?
The surveyor can Not close the gap (or correct any other boundary or title defect). He can find it and report it. He can also assist the Owners in there efforts to fix things.
I can't opine on wether he did what he was required to do, but it appears that he probably did. (see what I did there?)
This problem can only be fixed by you and the adjoiner.
If the adjoiner is not corporative then you may have the option of a "quiet title action" where the Court would act in behalf of your neighbor. That is Always dangerous... it could be decided Against you.
I suggest you make more efforts to contact your neighbor to assist. Be diplomatic. Lawyer Letters can help, but they often just get people pissed/scared and then it is a battle of attys and wallets.
BTW: your Surveyor may be your very best resource.
Best of luck
The survey plat you have posted of the called 3.8-acre tract is marked "Preliminary." Do you have the final version?
How important is this strip of land? Is there a significant benefit to it coming to you? The best and least expensive resolution to firm-up the line is a "boundary line agreement" and if you get along with your neighbor, maybe you could share the cost in writing up a description that "splits the difference" and recording the agreement. If it's worth spending thousands fighting for the strip, then be prepared to lose.
For me and my home, I wouldn't care if there was an issue of a few feet between my neighbor and me as long as it didn't become an issue of not owning an improvement I currently own, or affected some kind of setback to my house. But I am not in your same situation.
Peter Ehlert, post: 393484, member: 60 wrote: The surveyor can Not close the gap (or correct any other boundary or title defect). He can find it and report it. He can also assist the Owners in there efforts to fix things.
I can't opine on wether he did what he was required to do, but it appears that he probably did. (see what I did there?)
This problem can only be fixed by you and the adjoiner.If the adjoiner is not corporative then you may have the option of a "quiet title action" where the Court would act in behalf of your neighbor. That is Always dangerous... it could be decided Against you.
I suggest you make more efforts to contact your neighbor to assist. Be diplomatic. Lawyer Letters can help, but they often just get people pissed/scared and then it is a battle of attys and wallets.
BTW: your Surveyor may be your very best resource.
Best of luck
Wouldn't this only be true if there was a true gap?
If it's just a difference in measurement numbers in a deed, but they call for each other as adjoiners, wouldn't the surveyor just be then locating the line as per the evidence on the ground?
@ https://surveyorconnect.com/community/members/rich.10450/&apos ;">Rich., In my mind if the public is confused, or another surveyor can come up with a different location, or perceive gap/overlap then there is something to clean up. (I don't feel gaps/overlaps actually exist, those are just undetermined ownerships)
True, it may not be very important, at least not today... but as land gets more crowed and values rise, it gets more important.
The OP has legitimate concerns. He sees the notes on his map, and sees unsolved problems.
We (surveyors) are well positioned to explain those problems, and help clear them up. And we can make money doing helping them, it has value.
The methods vary with the project, and local law. This is in Texas, I got no clue 🙂
There is no way to come to a conclusion without seeing all the related documents, but how can the surveyor claim to have done all the neccisiary research and not know where the gap came from?
After the survey was completed the surveyor claims to have gone back "generations" in the record. Isn't it standard procedure to go back far enough to understand how the boundary was created? How can you come up with a proffesional opinion on a boundary location otherwise?
Michael harwell, post: 393474, member: 11340 wrote: In 2000, the Surveyor cut out 58 acres out of a Parent tract,subsequently in 2012 the same Surveyor cut out our 10 acre tract out of the same parent tract.
This is not a difficult problem. The real question is when your land and the adjoining land owned by the Cantus (per Comal CAD records) first left common ownership, the order in which the same owner conveyed each tract, and how the tracts were described in those deeds by which the tracts were separated. This is something that should be possible to readily determine in the records of the Comal County Clerk's Office, which is probably the best organized such operation I've seen in Texas to date.
Just from examining the Comal CAD maps, it would appear that the Cantu's land is a remainder that was left over after your tract was sold off. if this is so, the odds would favor the Cantus having a better claim to the land in the gap than you would. That will depend upon what the research discloses, of course.
Specifically, an abstractor would identify the series of conveyances from some landowner leading both to you and to the Cantus. To be thorough, it would be prudent to also examine the earlier conveyances several owners back before the land left common ownership.
Once those facts are in hand, the answer to whether there is a gap or not should be readily apparent with the survey that you have already in hand. Your surveyor has drawn your attention to the possibility that a gap exists, which is appropriate. Now it is up to you to arrange to have the gap investigated further if its existence is material. You can hire a title company, an abstractor, or pay a land surveyor to investigate this for you. In my opinion, a land surveyor is more likely to get a useful answer than a title company would be.
^^ what he said ^^
Your tract fronts on R.M. Hwy. 32, a State highway. What is presently known as R.M. Highwy 32 was surveyed in 1937 as Highway No. 232. It generally followed the route of the San Marcos-Blanco Road, but in places deviated from it.
This piece of the right-of-way map for R.M. 32 indicates that the vicinity of your tract was one such place where the route of the present highway does not follow the earlier San Marcos-Blanco Road. In 1937, when the right-of-way was acquired, it appears from this map that Dedford Sumners et al. owned the land on the North side of the earlier road and possibly the land on the South side of it as well. I'd think that probably was really DeFord Sumners and his brother Thomas Sumners who were the landowners.
As a short cut to begin the research, I'd start with Roy W. Keenan and Jannine E. Keenan as Grantors to see whether they are your common source of title. It appears from the Comal CAD records that around 1995 they owned much of the land in the vicinity of your 10 acres.
Just to satisfy my curiosity, I had to take a better look at the public records. So your 10.0 acre tract at the corner of Mail Route Road and R.M. Hwy 32 in Comal County, Texas would appear to be a part of that certain 279.3395 acre [sic] tract conveyed by Fay Mowery and wife, Sarah Mowery, to Douglas Barclay, Trustee in 1993. The 279.3395 acres was described in the Warranty Deed executed by the Mowerys by metes and bounds from a survey by the late Woodrow Cash, RPLS. Both your 10 acres and the land within the supposed "gap" would appear to be out of the 279.3395 acres.
So, the research is quite simple and can evidently be done entirely via the internet. The next step is to examine the conveyances by which Douglas Barclay, Trustee sold parts of the 279.3395 acres, and by which they they in turn were eventually conveyed to you and to the adjoining landowner.
A further simplification appears to be that Woodrow Cash made most or all of the surveys from which the metes and bounds descriptions used in the descriptions were prepared. I don't think that Paden Cash, who posts here, has any of the Cash records that he's willing to share.
And by three deeds in 1993 and 1994, Douglas Barclay, Trustee sold off the entire 279.3395 acre tract to Curtis L. Bruner and to an entity known as Curtis L. Bruner's Wildgame, Inc.
Hey all,
per the conversation everyone is having about gaps I had this tucked away in my records as a reminder to myself when I encountered discrepancies between lines and considered that there may be a gap or overlap in boundaries.
What evidence do you have that the parties intended to either create or to retain ownership of some narrow strip of land ("gap") next to one of their boundary lines? Any time there is evidence of a supposed "gap" or "overlap," look for the reasoning behind it. If there is no reason, there is no "gap or overlap." A simple mathematical difference between records and observations isn't a sufficient reason. There must be direct evidence of the intent to create the ÛÏgap or overlapÛ in order to overcome the presumption against gaps or overlaps.
Marked "Preliminary Survey" with note "Prepared without benefit of a title report""
It appears the surveyor reported what he found and hid opinion regarding it. I would say he was awaiting action by the owner and/or title company.
This survey does not create the prior problem, it is the opportunity tobegin to correct the problem.
Paul in PA
Kent,
i got to the same place as you on Saturday, while watching some college games. I believe that there are two separate lines of monumentation and there exists a strip of land not sold to either of the two current adjoining landowners.
However, let us examine the problem reported by Mr. Harwell. If Mr. Harwell owns all that the deed says he does (and it appears that is the case), why is the examiner demanding he solve the problem of the unclaimed strip? If Mr. Harwell is in possession of all the property described in his deed and makes no claim to the "strip", he has no problem to solve. So how can the reviewer demand he fix a problem that does not involve land that Mr. Harwell owns? I would certainly bring that question up to the reviwer and strongly suggest that the reviewer speak with the surveyor that created the problem, not him.
Maybe a seance is in order.
JRC
Jack Chiles, post: 393644, member: 24 wrote: However, let us examine the problem reported by Mr. Harwell. If Mr. Harwell owns all that the deed says he does (and it appears that is the case), why is the examiner demanding he solve the problem of the unclaimed strip?
Actually, I suspect that the "problem" is that the poster wants to claim that his 10 acres consists of one grandfather legal lot that is well under the 5-acre minimum with the remainder of the 10 acres being whatever is left over. The only advantage I can see there is that he could develop the 3+ acres or sell it so someone as a separate tract. The County Engineer is apparently pointing out that he doesn't actually own all of the supposed 3+ acres because part of it is outside the boundary of the 10 acres as conveyed to him. So that shoots down the claim that he has a grandfather legal lot. That's what my ouija board suggests.
RPlumb314, post: 393486, member: 6313 wrote: The survey plat you have posted of the called 3.8-acre tract is marked "Preliminary." Do you have the final version?
This is the final Survey Plat completed by another Surveying Company based on a correction of the 10.04 tract..
Kent McMillan, post: 393646, member: 3 wrote: Actually, I suspect that the "problem" is that the poster wants to claim that his 10 acres consists of one grandfather legal lot that is well under the 5-acre minimum with the remainder of the 10 acres being whatever is left over. The only advantage I can see there is that he could develop the 3+ acres or sell it so someone as a separate tract. The County Engineer is apparently pointing out that he doesn't actually own all of the supposed 3+ acres because part of it is outside the boundary of the 10 acres as conveyed to him. So that shoots down the claim that he has a grandfather legal lot. That's what my ouija board suggests.
Yes, after extensive research the County Engineer has finally agreed to acknowledge the 3.8 tract as being within the 10.04 tract except
now, I need a boundary line agreement with my Neighbor to the North.. All my information, has been based on what has been provided to me by Licensed Professionals..
This all started with a Septic Permit application on a 1.53 tract that was part of the original 10 acre tract, part of (7) tracts taxed since 1937.
The County arbitrarily terminated all 7.. The Appraisal District to date has not responded to my request to explain..
There are many similar abstract tracts up the road..