Does the note below belong on a survey or is it a legal opinion?
I think the note is an explanation of the reasoning the surveyor used to develop their opinion (right or wrong).?ÿ Personally, I might have stated it in a different manner, but my opinion is that it is not a 'legal opinion' (if I am interpreting the intent of the phrase "legal opinion" correctly).?ÿ I might have worded it without the "can not" language while still explaining the reasoning for that solution if it were my opinion.
Is this the best reason not to set marks in the drive??ÿ
Probably the best reason to not set marks in the drive would be if that is not where they are supposed to be.?ÿ Since there are already two different opinions on the location on record (and at least a potential third one based on the original short of the 1/4 and aloquit parts), seems like either a more thorough investigation is needed (or at least a more clearly detailed report written).?ÿ Given the drive and the tree/shrub line, there are still unanswered questions to me.
IF I can figure out how to ask the question I want to ask, I'm going to pose a question for those whose practice area is PLSS, but I've been having a hard time articulating it (re - aliquot vs metes calls in regard to when & how they come to being in a deed and when/how they are interpreted in areas of practice).?ÿ I've been trying to get the question phrased correctly since the original post on the topic.
If it a reason is selling the key or recording the deed??ÿ
This is one area where (in my opinion) the note could be improved upon.?ÿ In the other thread that is gone, someone mentioned MI's rules; which I don't recall.?ÿ The note may really mean the "sold" date, but if so, I would also like to see reference to the recorded date and actual specific dates for both parcels in the note.
Sidebar:?ÿ I wonder if there are cases where the sold date was disputed (i.e. small piece of land between farmers bartered for some item of value and then well down the road, a deed was prepared referring to being "sold" on the day the paperwork was drawn up as opposed to when the valuable consideration was provided or when the verbal agreement took place).?ÿ Might have to look this up as it would be interesting reading.
Does subsequent selling after the original conveyance using the same description as the first deed recorded have anything to do with locating the boundary??ÿ
That question seems (?) to be leaning towards the junior/senior rights discussion that was part of the OP's contention.?ÿ If that is the intent of the question then I think my answer would be no as it would go back to the creation of the parcels.
What if parcel 2 deed was recorded before parcel 6? Does that make the note false??ÿ
Maybe/maybe not.?ÿ As written the note says sold, so parcel 2 could have been recorded before parcel 6 while also being sold after parcel 6 (at least where I am, people sometimes hold onto a deed for way too long before recording!).?ÿ Also, since the note is a professional opinion, I don't think I would characterize it as false since false carries some connotation of intention to deceive.?ÿ If it is incorrect, I would call it a mistake or incorrect conclusion.
?ÿ
This is one area where (in my opinion) the note could be improved upon.?ÿ In the other thread that is gone, someone mentioned MI's rules; which I don't recall.?ÿ The note may really mean the "sold" date, but if so, I would also like to see reference to the recorded date and actual specific dates for both parcels in the note.
Sidebar:?ÿ I wonder if there are cases where the sold date was disputed (i.e. small piece of land between farmers bartered for some item of value and then well down the road, a deed was prepared referring to being "sold" on the day the paperwork was drawn up as opposed to when the valuable consideration was provided or when the verbal agreement took place).?ÿ Might have to look this up as it would be interesting reading.
So if you want to add some more fun to the junior/senior rights discussion...
Generally, what you are describing in the quote, is commonly referred to as the difference between the types of jurisdicitions and their recording statutes: Race, Notice, & Race-Notice.
MI is a race-notice state.
Here is the first search blurb returned as a brief overview:
Terms:
Recording Acts:
State laws that determine which party prevails when the same property is transferred to multiple people.
Bona-fide Purchaser (for value):
A buyer who pays fair consideration for property without any knowledge or reason to have knowledge that the seller previously transferred the property to a different person.
Notice Jurisdiction:
A jurisdiction whose rule allows a subsequent bona-fide purchaser to prevail over an earlier purchaser if the earlier purchaser??s deed was not recorded and the subsequent purchaser did not know of the earlier transfer.
Race-Notice Jurisdiction:?ÿ
A jurisdiction whose rule allows a subsequent bona-fide purchaser to prevail over an earlier purchaser if, and only if, the subsequent purchaser did not know of the earlier transfer and the subsequent purchaser??s deed was recorded before the first purchaser??s deed.
Race Jurisdiction:?ÿ
A jurisdiction whose rule determines which party prevails in a twice transferred property case strictly on the basis of whose deed is recorded first.
?ÿ
And don't forget to get all your aliquot parts figured correctly after determining where the missing center of section should be properly located, that shorts a particular quarter having a section line closing corner that was probably botched too...
All for the good price of $400-$800, because that is the going rate, according to Google.
You don't have to be out in PLSSia to encounter very similar issues.?ÿ A block has 12 lots that front out to the south line, each being 25 feet wide by 140 feet to the alley.?ÿ The city plat was filed in 1870.?ÿ By deed, one party owns Lots 1,2 and 3.?ÿ Another party owns Lots 4,5,6 and 7.?ÿ That would be 75 feet for the first party and 100 feet for the second party.?ÿ Lots 1,2 and 3 have been under common ownership since 1920 something.?ÿ Lots 4,5,6 and 7 have also been under common ownership since the same time frame.?ÿ You find a survey from 1950 showing the brick commercial building that still exists on Lots 1, 2 and 3.?ÿ You find another survey from 1956 confirming what the one in 1950 showed.?ÿ That is each lot is considered to be 45 feet and three inches wide because the east line of the building matches the east block line and the west line of the building is nine inches too far west and overlaps into Lot 4.?ÿ Or does it??ÿ Who gave the surveyor the right to assume the building is correct and the plat is wrong??ÿ Does that mean the other nine lots are all supposed to be 45 feet and three inches wide, too??ÿ Wait a minute.?ÿ What if you find a Sanborn Fire Map from 1930 showing the west wall of the building was once a party wall shared with a now absent brick building on Lots 4,5,6 and 7 or at least, Lot 4??ÿ Does that mean the owner to the west actually owns nine inches of the brick building wall??ÿ You are tasked with surveying Lots 11 and 12, nowhere near the building in question, but, how do you let this issue impact how you go about driving stakes before driving on to your fourth survey of the day?
If you haven't struggled with a mess like this, you are not a genuine, certified, bona fide boundary surveyor yet.
this is the stuff I crushed in class.?ÿ The legal boundaries and principles of the practice is what really gets my mind cranking.?ÿ logic is the glue and grease of this profession.
?ÿ
thanks for the post!
A wise man from Michigan once wrote:
When a man has had a training in one of the exact sciences, where every problem within
its purview is supposed to be susceptible of accurate solution, he is likely to be not a little
impatient when he is told that, under some circumstances, he must recognize inaccuracies, and govern his action by facts which lead him away from the results which theoretically he ought to reach. Observation warrants us in saying that this remark may frequently be made of surveyors. ,,,there is no particular time that shall be required to conclude private owners, where it appears that they have accepted a particular line as their boundary, all concerned have cultivated and claimed up to it. Public policy requires that such lines be not lightly disturbed, or disturbed at all after the lapse of any considerable time. The litigant, therefore, who is in such a case pins his faith on the surveyor is likely to suffer for his reliance, and the surveyor himself to be mortified by a result that seems to impeach his judgment
If this is the MI case
Not to beat a dead horse or anything but...
Does the note below belong on a survey or is it a legal opinion?
Is this the best reason not to set marks in the drive??ÿ
If it a reason is selling the key or recording the deed??ÿ
Does subsequent selling after the original conveyance using the same description as the first deed recorded have anything to do with locating the boundary??ÿ
What if parcel 2 deed was recorded before parcel 6? Does that make the note false??ÿ
I know - it depends.
?ÿ
This note is awfully written and as others pointed out it may not be correct, but this type of note is not only appropriate but often necessary to produce a complete boundary survey.?ÿ
A boundary survey is a legal opinion. If we aren't comfortable giving legal opinions about boundaries we shouldn't be taking peoples money for boundary surveys. We do have to be careful not to give legal opinions in other areas...
?ÿ
Liquor Store with a drive up window, OI!
That's there for people too drunk to walk. ?????ÿ
?ÿ
Side note--many beer stores in Ontario have a drive through.?ÿ You place your order, they go grab it, you pay, they stick it in your trunk/truck box.?ÿ They are not allowed to hand it to you in the vehicle (ie. it must be stored in a place away from the driver's reach).?ÿ If you already know what you want, it is handy.
Early in my survey career we performed a boundary survey that looked a lot like that.?ÿ We had found the monuments on both properties except the one that ended up in the driveway.?ÿ The dimensions all matched (within reason) but we just couldn't make that other corner appear outside the gravel drive.?ÿ No luck with the dip needle (pre Schonstedt) in the driveway.?ÿ Oh well, we'll just have to set the pin.?ÿ I never liked trying to drive a pin through gravel but so be it.?ÿ We turned the angle, pulled the distance and made a mark to remove the gravel so the pin would be countersunk.?ÿ WHOOOOOOEEEE!!!?ÿ Down about 3 inches was a 2 inch steel pipe, it just wouldn't register on the dip needle even after it was exposed.?ÿ The location we had computed was not the in the center of the pipe but it was well inside.
Now that deserves an adult refreshment at the end of the day.
Andy
The surveyor whose measurements you were retracing deserve an attaboy for that one.
?ÿ
