The deed for the locus property describes the lot and and also calls it out as Lot 2 on a certain plan.?ÿ The deed for the abutter describes property and calls it out as Lot 1 on the same plan.?ÿ?ÿ The problem being is neither description follows the plan where they adjoin.
Both deeds call for the easterly line of the ROW as their boundary, but it is shown on the plan as being entirely on Lot1, (10' west of the common lot line).?ÿ?ÿ Currently people are using the ROW and much more, even the westerly part of Lot 1 for access and parking.
So, if the plan becomes part of the description, but the actual description is at odds with the plan, which holds?
The physical evidence holds, both the description and the plat are there to get you to what is marked on the ground.?ÿ If no boundary monuments were set and you can't use a boundary line agreement to clear it up, in a Colonial state I'd argue that the plat of a subdivision is better evidence of the intent but as with everything, it depends...
@murphy?ÿ
There are monuments, just not along that common line.?ÿ Really frustrating.
And it's an old plan, 1920's, no bearings, just distances to the tenth, and some to the +/- foot
Under it depends...
Does this enter into prescriptive easement territory?
I'm not getting into that just yet.?ÿ No idea how long the use has been, but you're probably right
Sounds different than what I am used to seeing. Typically I don't see ROW over a platted lot, only adjoining a platted lot. So in this instance the ROW would have to be on only a single lot if the easterly line of the ROW is the boundary for the adjoining lots. If the ROW is only 10 feet wide then it sounds like the plan shows it correctly and someone made a mistake in writing the deed. On the other hand if the ROW is supposed to be wider then it is shown incorrectly on the plan and the correct depiction is not apparent to me.
Perhaps tracing the chain of title back to the origination would shed some light. If the first appearance of the descriptions predates the map..... otherwise physical monuments would be the arbiter ... but if those don't exist perhaps occupation lines .... but if those are not clear ....... hmmmmm .... I think I'd put more weight on the deeds since these seem to have the more specific dimensions and would have been signed by the grantors. Don't ask me to point to any case law on that.?ÿ
Ideal would be a recorded property line agreement between the parties in accordance with your local ordinances and traditions.?ÿ?ÿ
If the Lots are platted, I would hold plat. If the Lots are Unrecorded and fit the monumentation, Hold that. If nothing fits nothing, I would hold the descriptions. The prevailing case law might be different in your area.?ÿ
@jph?ÿ
Don't blame me I'm just asking..... ?????ÿ
I know what I don't know. And I don't know this well at all.
Anecdotal.
Traced everything back to common ownership, when the plan was made.?ÿ
Dimensions appear on the plan and in the deeds up to the last call along the ROW.?ÿ The distances to the ROW in both deeds match the plan, but again, those distances put you to the common lot line, not to the ROW.
No monuments were found along the common line or ROW, just at the other corners.?ÿ I'll probably hold the plan Lot 2 configuration/dimensions, since the deed doesn't say, Lot 2 and a portion of Lot 1.?ÿ They have not been granted any rights in the ROW, and aren't using it anyway, since they have frontage on Main St.
I can't imagine anyone pursuing it, though.?ÿ If my client fences along his lot line after I stake it, access to the back lots is still available by the ROW.?ÿ And as long as people can get to their property, I can't see any of the other landowners taking him to court to go after the prescriptive easement.
But not everyone is reasonable, obviously
