a nice little enigma that i think i un-enigma'ed, except now nobody likes the answer.?ÿ "nobody" being the appraisal district and the title company.
preface- every deed in the chain of title of every tract shown on the attached is absolute garbage.?ÿ the only tracts appearing to have been actually surveyed in the past 40 years are the adjoiners immediately north of the north line of the subject tract.?ÿ every other deed seems to have been written by- i'm guessing- the grantor or some other layperson.?ÿ this applies to both the north and south sides of White Oak Street, which seems to be a prescriptive right-of-way over the top of one of the deeds in question.?ÿ NO deeds reference White Oak Street or a right-of-way line where White Oak Street is.?ÿ White Oak Street has been in place- roughly in it's current state- since at least 1958 (per EarthExplore aerials).?ÿ The original parent tract is the 1/2-acre tract to the west, it runs between two streets which are not parallel (N22W and N29 1/2W), however the deed calls the distances along the streets to be the same and the north and south lines to be parallel.?ÿ Subsequent to locating the south line of the Adobe Subdivision and the north line of the 1/2-acre (which seem to be the two lines most consistently agreed upon), one would flush out that the 3 parent deeds between the two lines are accounted for and the distances called along the streets are, instead, the intent of the width of the tracts at right angles.?ÿ (In other words, the 70' called along Aransas Street would appear to instead mean the north and south lines are parallel and offset by 70' +/-).?ÿ All that said- the subject deed gives a bearing and D along the north line, a bearing and D down Aransas, a bearing and D along the south line that is PARALLEL AND OF THE SAME LENGTH as the north line, a bearing and D along the west line that is PARALLEL AND OF THE SAME LENGTH as the Aransas St. call.
the 873 foot area of unclear title shown on my survey shut the whole thing down with the title company.?ÿ the appraisal district says it is incorrect as well.?ÿ now, granted, the house on the subject tract was built in 79, and the fence looks to be of the same vintage.?ÿ and the deed for the adjoiner to the west calls that line to be at (roughly) a right angle to the north line, so it's been occupied in place for 40+ years.?ÿ however, i can't see taking that "deed line" call off the survey.?ÿ basically, the title company is saying they'll insure the tract if I do so, however it seems to me it leaves open a possible claim against the 873 sq. ft. by the heirs of the parent tract (daughter of the grantor of the surveyed tract, and current owner of the remainder of the 1/2-acre).?ÿ?ÿ
so...??ÿ what would you do?
?ÿ
Personally I would not remove it. I'll bet if stick to your guns the Title Company will still insure it. They always try to sneak liability in on the Surveyor. Just say no. ?????ÿ
@flga
I think a boundary line agreement should be negotiated with all the affected property owners. Any pins you set will further confuse the issue further down the road. It's expensive, but the only way to "fix" the problem. If the original Developer is still around they maybe liable to correct the situation.
Otherwise I'll see you in Court and you can try and explain your solution to two lawyers and a Judge.
"developer." hahahaha. this is historically the, um, other side of the tracks. the only development that occurred was the marriage into and birth into the families who owned everything around. all of the subdivisions that occurred were tracts being sold off or given to kids, in-laws, etc.
all i said to the parties involved was that if it were me, i'd like to pursue a quit-claim from the heirs of the original grantor (who died in '96). this place is a mess- the back taxes due on the house means the sellers are going to clear, approximately, a quarantine relief check upon closing- which now may not happen.
@flga
I?ÿ Any pins you set will further confuse the issue further down the road.?ÿ
That's why we record our surveys and explain what we are doing.
How to you record them when they're not signed by the adjacent property owners whose property lines you have affected?
@skeeter1996 Records of Survey are not signed by anyone other than the Surveyor. There is a statement that the survey was performed at the request of "Fill in the Blank", which could be a lender, seller, purchaser, attorney, agent ...
??? A boundary line agreement is signed by everyone, but a simple record of survey is done by the surveyor only. It doesn't even need to be at anyone's request.
The Record of Survey that accompanies a BLA is signed by the surveyor only in both Oregon and Washington. The exchange deeds are another matter.
The client needs to be named on an Oregonian ROS. Washington ROS require a certification in which the client is named .
Not sure if I want to follow RJ's post and I have no opinion on location of lot lines. But, the fence line symbol should be added to your legend or it should at least be called out on the drawing as an indicator of occupation.?ÿ In my sandbox we would be noting the type of fencing and that the fence corner is x by y from the set/found lot corner.
I'am in a recording state where we are mandated to identify the person/entity requesting the survey and sometimes I put my name. There can be several reasons to do it like this.?ÿ ?ÿ?ÿ
@daniel-ralph yeah, that got cleaned up (added) on the signed and sealed version.
