You're right of course, the sex of the person in the Assessor's Office has no bearing on the discussion.?ÿ It was not intentional if the reference was taken as an attempt to somehow invalidate or devalue their opinion because of their sex.?ÿ In complete honesty, had the person been male I would have referred to him as "dude in the Assessor's Office".?ÿ The generic reference should have been "person in the Assessor's Office" because what I was actually trying to imply is I have no idea what the station of this person is within the Assessor's Office.?ÿ Their signature block on the deficiency letter is just their name, no position, title or level so all I'm left with is the knowledge that they have the authority to send a deficiency letter and nothing more.?ÿ Sincere apologies if I offended anyone.?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ?ÿ
If you notice, I used "lady in the assessors office" in quotes, as a low key way to make the same point you are.
My comments were based on my experience of surveyors' interactions with goverment employees. By flagging what they thought was a problem, and suggesting a cure,?ÿ the assessors office was doing their job. Across the country their is a lot of knowledge in assessors' offices.
They may of course be wrong. In that case there needs to be some respectful education, but I haven't seen a goverment yet where the assessors office has the authority to nix something like this. In goverment the delegation of authority is usually very clear.?ÿ
Surveyors as a group a very prone to take offence at low level goverment employees that say something they don't like, and to think they know more about laws and regulations that goverment employees have spent their whole careers learning. My point is, frustration is better directed at either the person with authority to do something about the issue, or the people responsible for making the regulations than the 'lady in the assessors office".?ÿ
Since our discussion has bifurcated from the original post, I sent you a PM.
Sorry for the hijack, Cameron.
Aaaaaaagh!?ÿ More political correctness!!!!!!!?ÿ No! No! Stop! Stop!
Shoot me now and have Mr. Undertaker bury me.
Here is WA, our legislature created a Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act a couple of years ago, largely boilerplate from some special interest group which had no input from Land Surveyors as far as I know.
If the OP was in this state, they would have the benefit of having an updated title report prior to filing the plat and could lean on that for what its worth. The remedy would be to file a subdivision map of the Condominium parcel from the parent parcel (correcting any boundary issues) and refile the Subdivision concurrently with it. I would try to keep the condo owners out of the subdivision as much as possible. It will only take one owner to cost Mr. Fancy Pants Developer a very big sum of $$ for their grief and anxiety. In many jurisdictions, lenders will need to sign off as their interest might be affected.?ÿ
The Assessor is only the messenger here.?ÿ Hire a land use attorney before a solution is determined.?ÿ?ÿ
We have a similar act here (CCIOA).?ÿ I just got done reading the whole thing.?ÿ It does say that a Condo Plat & associated declaration does not satisfy the State's subdivision requirements which supports my belief the portion of the condo plat that created a new parcel that didn't exist previously amounts to an illegal subdivision.?ÿ It also goes on to say this which I feel like is a silver bullet of sorts:
38-33.3-312. Conveyance or encumbrance of common elements.
(1) In a condominium or planned community, portions of the common elements may be conveyed or subjected to a security interest by the association if persons entitled to cast at least sixty-seven percent of the votes in the association, including sixty-seven percent of the votes allocated to units not owned by a declarant, or any larger percentage the declaration specifies, agree to that action; except that all owners of units to which any limited common element is allocated must agree in order to convey that limited common element or subject it to a security interest. The declaration may specify a smaller percentage only if all of the units are restricted exclusively to nonresidential uses. Proceeds of the sale are an asset of the association.
(3) An agreement to convey, or subject to a security interest, common elements in a condominium or planned community, or, in a cooperative, an agreement to convey, or subject to a security interest, any part of a cooperative, must be evidenced by the execution of an agreement, in the same manner as a deed, by the association. The agreement must specify a date after which the agreement will be void unless approved by the requisite percentage of owners. Any grant, conveyance, or deed executed by the association must be recorded in every county in which a portion of the common interest community is situated and is effective only upon recordation.
(4) The association, on behalf of the unit owners, may contract to convey an interest in a common interest community pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, but the contract is not enforceable against the association until approved pursuant to subsections (1) and (2) of this section and executed and ratified pursuant to subsection (3) of this section. Thereafter, the association has all powers necessary and appropriate to effect the conveyance or encumbrance, including the power to execute deeds or other instruments.
My read on that is the conveyance that was done on the Sub Plat I prepared (shifting the parcel lines) is permissible provided 67% of the unit owners agree to it.?ÿ What I'm unclear about is if getting those signatures and adding them to the Sub Plat via a Corrective Plat or Affidavit of Correction equates to "the same manner as a deed" described in paragraph 3.?ÿ Worst case a deed with a description of the difference between the boundary of the Condo Plat parcel and the Subdivided Lot signed by the unit owners in conjunction with adding the association and unit owner signatures to the Sub Plat seems like it would be workable.?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ
In my county the Assessor's office is the last check of deeds and plats to verify that a proper chain of title is maintained and they perform a valuable service that is often unappreciated. That being said, they are not survey professionals and often come to my office for advise and assistance. In a similar circumstance I would first recommend a Ratification of the Plat by the entities that were not represented on the recorded copy instead of an Affidavit of Correction or a Correction Plat as the easiest fix. I would think that would solve all of the problems for all parties involved.
The saga continues...
My Client spoke at length with the Assessor's Office who said they would accept an Amended and Restated Subdivision Plat with a note on it that says it supersedes and entirely vacates the previously recorded version and that excludes the condo plat parcel from its boundary.?ÿ Okay, great, we at least have a direction to go but my Client's deadline to get it sorted out is the end of the month and not counting the redrafting that has to be done on the plat it has to go through a City submittal process which they've promised to "expedite" then get recorded then reviewed by the Assessor's Office which only took them 9 months to get to the last go-around.?ÿ?ÿ
Add on top of that logistics nightmare there's a new wrinkle.?ÿ The original condo plat defined a guest parking easement outside the boundary of the condo parcel but still within the boundary of the parent unplatted parcel.?ÿ This easement covered the then guest parking area which was modified by our design of the townhome development.?ÿ I asked our Client to have the original easement vacated and I drafted a new legal description for the proper location that would work with the townhome development and that was recorded.?ÿ Well, I don't know if the vacation ever happened or not but regardless, when the Assessor processed the Condo Plat they defined the easement as a taxable fee parcel owned by the Condo Association which isn't true.?ÿ They're now also saying that the amended plat has to not only exclude the condo parcel but also the guest parking parcel.?ÿ This would create a landlocked island within the boundary of the new amended plat.?ÿ Just over here shaking my head and looking at a very attractive whiskey bottle at this point...?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ
