Working on a survey where I have a deed that describes a 55.5 acre tract surveyed October 19, 1903 that runs from the US Route to the low water mark of the river. The state developed plans to realign and improve the State Route in the early 1960's bisecting the property. The state acquired easements for the LA/RW and RW for a service road in 1965 on the subject property.
Fast forward to 1981 and the property is transferred with the 1903 description "Excepting therefrom the easements for highway purposes described in Resolution and Finding as Parcel No's 29-LA (Highway)(Access Limited) and 29 (Highway)...
And excepting therefrom the following described real estate hereto-fore conveyed to ..."
The second exception goes on to describe the tract that lies between the centerline of the old US Route and the LA/RW of the new US Route.
The confusion I am having is that whoever drafted this deed used the term excepting in the document twice. Can that term have two different definitions in the same document?
My big question is does the conveyor or conveyee hold the underlying fee interest in parcel 29-LA and 29?
Easement in the first exception, Fee in the second. Are they superimposed, overlapping or separate?
jud
Unless I'm not reading this right it appears that the deed only conveyed the portion of the original property from the new road to the water. It also appears the easements were not conveyed. I'd have to look at the documents and perhaps a tax plate to get a better understanding.
I don't think that a parcel of land can be sold with the language "Excepting therefrom the easements for..." unless the easements do not run with the land, which wold be rare.
Jim you are probably correct. May be some other documentation that would clear it up, a call to the Hwy Dept may be in order.
jud
My big question is does the conveyor or conveyee hold the underlying fee interest in parcel 29-LA and 29?
This is a question of the intent of the parties and therefore a legal question, not a surveying question. I agree that it is confusing. If simply calling out the existence of the easements as bringing things forward from 1903, the language would have been "subject to" instead of "excepting" which might imply the intent to retain the fee interest under the easements to the grantor.