Kent McMillan, post: 393960, member: 3 wrote: Here's the original conveyance last year into the Harwells from an entitity known as "Aura-Soma Products, Limited, a British Stock Corporation" linked below. Note that the alleged "problem" was that the tract was insufficiently large to make two tracts larger than five acres since it was described as exactly 10.00 acres in area. This is apparently the gigantic problem that the poster complains about. He's trying to find some additional land area or some other rationale for being able to resubdivide the 10 acres into two lots.
Obviously, this cannot be the fault of a prospective buyer who failed to adequately research how the county regulations might effect his plans to develop a corner lot out of the 10 acres. It must be the fault of someone else. Let's see, who could it be? Could it be the Realtor? No, clearly not. The Realtor was representing the seller's interest. It must be someone else's fault. I feel certain about this!
Remember,the Surveyor violated the sub-division rule by not adhering to the rule
Kent McMillan, post: 393960, member: 3 wrote: Here's the original conveyance last year into the Harwells from an entitity known as "Aura-Soma Products, Limited, a British Stock Corporation" linked below. Note that the alleged "problem" was that the tract was insufficiently large to make two tracts larger than five acres since it was described as exactly 10.00 acres in area. This is apparently the gigantic problem that the poster complains about. He's trying to find some additional land area or some other rationale for being able to resubdivide the 10 acres into two lots.
Obviously, this cannot be the fault of a prospective buyer who failed to adequately research how the county regulations might effect his plans to develop a corner lot out of the 10 acres. It must be the fault of someone else. Let's see, who could it be? Could it be the Realtor? No, clearly not. The Realtor was representing the seller's interest. It must be someone else's fault. I feel certain about this
Michael harwell, post: 393964, member: 11340 wrote: Remember,the Surveyor violated the sub-division rule by not adhering to the rule
Actually, the surveyor didn't violate any rule at all. If there was a violation, it was the owner of the property, the British "Stock Corporation" who is responsible.
Kent McMillan, post: 393959, member: 3 wrote: If the Harwells don't own the 10+ acres anymore, the Comal County Real Property Records don't reflect that fact.
Here's an affidavit from last year linked below:
As i said, meticulous. My apologies. I am not fully invested in the thread as I am dealing with my own complex issues right now. Carry on, Kent.
I see nobody responded to my ESL comment, but admittedly it is irrelevant to the topic
This thread is an excellent example of how a surveyor often needs to consider what the problem really is instead of focusing on the way it is framed by someone with a vested interest in a certain outcome. This whole thread is really about finding an extra 0.02 acres of land so that a speculator who bought a tract of land described as 10.00 acres of land in the deed of conveyance to said speculator can divide the tract into two lots of more than 5.01 acres each.
Michael harwell, post: 393655, member: 11340 wrote: Kent, right on, the value it being a corner tract... without co-op water the possibility of 5.01 may be compromised.
Here is a update on the (Possible Gap). I retain the original Surveyor to establish a legal description of the gap.. Mr. Cantu the Neighboring Property Owner has determined he is not interested in a Boundary Line Agreement and has waved any interest's in the gap...
The 1961 metes and bounds establishing the 3.8 tract calls 65 feet to the Corner, incorporating the gap distance, it will now becomes 62 feet to Cantu Corner..
3 feet less... Does the new Survey of the 3.8 tract become 62 ft.? All joiners are at the same location.. Keep in mind, I am not a Surveyor.
you say the neighbor is Not interested in a Boundary Line Agreement but has waived his interest? That is a contradiction.
Perhaps he is just unwilling to sign paperwork to formalize the agreement, or maybe he is not really agreeing...
A survey in this instance is a review of the situation... It does Nothing else. (see the dictionary, both noun and verb)
Your surveyor is showing you what he sees, drawing a map is his way of showing it.
the 3 feet... it is what it is and where it is.
Ask your surveyor. All of the history (full deeds and maps) needs to be reviewed, and the ones before them, back in time until there was no line there (the parent parcel)... we don't have that. I assume your surveyor did.
Dallas Morlan, post: 392924, member: 6020 wrote: Over the years I have found several locations where the descriptions on record, prior to my work, disagreed. I most states anyone can write a description and a survey is not required. The result is a bit like the old story of a group of http://www.noogenesis.com/pineapple/blind_men_elephant.html&apos ;">blind men describing an elephant. Although each description is the honest opinion of the writer it may be that none of them provide the full picture of what exists. One of the gaps that I encountered was the result of errors made before the Civil War by a court settlement dividing an estate. No survey and even the judge got it wrong.
Surveyors should examine the descriptions of all properties adjoining yours and understand the full picture. However the surveyor is not able to resolve the problems without the agreement of all property owners involved. It is advisable that each property owner be advised by an attorney.
Jack Chiles, post: 392977, member: 24 wrote: Matt,
I include a "gap" disclaimer all the time wherein I refer to the distance between my brain and my skull.
Here is the legal description of the so called (possible gap)..Incorporating the gap measurement to the Deed of 1961 metes and bounds measurement call 65 ft.it now overlaps into our neighbors Property by 3 ft.
Does an established corner pin and or joiner corners from previous Surveys take presidence over a measurement? We are at 62 ft.to corner pin,not 65 ft.which is called for by the metes and bounds?JRC
Peter Ehlert, post: 401736, member: 60 wrote: you say the neighbor is Not interested in a Boundary Line Agreement but has waived his interest? That is a contradiction.
Perhaps he is just unwilling to sign paperwork to formalize the agreement, or maybe he is not really agreeing...A survey in this instance is a review of the situation... It does Nothing else. (see the dictionary, both noun and verb)
Your surveyor is showing you what he sees, drawing a map is his way of showing it.the 3 feet... it is what it is and where it is.
Ask your surveyor. All of the history (full deeds and maps) needs to be reviewed, and the ones before them, back in time until there was no line there (the parent parcel)... we don't have that. I assume your surveyor did.
Tom Adams, post: 392991, member: 7285 wrote: It sounds like Warren Smith might have figured out what you are thinking is a possible gap. You might provide a sketch or the legal descriptions and point out what you are thinking is a possible gap so someone here might be able to explain it better. And/or call the surveyor who wrote the description; s/he might be able to clarify for you.
Please see attached. I paid the Surveyor of Record to provide me this legal description of the (possible gap) ?
The County will not recognize this 3.8 tract if any part does not fall within the 10.04.Adding the gap, it now measures 62 ft.to common property corner not the 65 ft. depicted on the 1961 Deed.
Michael harwell, post: 393664, member: 11340 wrote: S
Should this not been addressed many Years ago ? This (possible gap) needs to be cleaned up for us to retain the 3.8...
The possible gap is resolved with a Legal description but falls short by 3 ft. Measuring 62 ft. to corner pin not the call 65 ft.by metes and bounds deed 1961.Using the 65 ft.call it overlaps or goes into the Neighbors property
by 3 ft.
Does a property corner take presidence over a measurement call?
Michael harwell, post: 401919, member: 11340 wrote: Please see attached. I paid the Surveyor of Record to provide me this legal description of the (possible gap) ?
The County will not recognize this 3.8 tract if any part does not fall within the 10.04.Adding the gap, it now measures 62 ft.to common property corner not the 65 ft. depicted on the 1961 Deed.
It appears that you have a competent Surveyor.
the 'legal description" describes the land, however it "does" nothing. your neighbor need to participate. (execute documents)
only the land owners can convey land and change the title.