Was studying the plat of an addition to a nearby town.?ÿ This was "Third Addition to........." and dated 1883.?ÿ The streets were all extensions of streets in the original plat of the town.?ÿ One street was identified as Gandy Street.?ÿ That was correct in 1883 but today it is Grand Street and has been since about 1890.?ÿ That was fine.?ÿ The cross streets shown are 11th through 15th.?ÿ Oopsy daisy!!!?ÿ They were the extensions of 10th through 14th Streets in the original plat of the town.?ÿ There is no correction noted on the plat in any form to alert the user of the plat to the fact those streets are all mislabeled.
Recently I was disappointed to learn that the staff in the mapping department of the County Appraiser's office in my home county had finally discovered a problem in two blocks of a small addition to a different nearby town.?ÿ That plat is from the 1890's and contains four blocks total.?ÿ All blocks have 24 lots being 25 feet east-west by 140 feet north-south.?ÿ An alley divides the blocks into a north half and a south half.?ÿ Lot 1 is in the northwest corner.?ÿ Lot 12 is in the northeast corner.?ÿ Lot 13 is in the southwest corner and Lot 24 is in the southeast corner.?ÿ The problem is that the developer forgot the order of the lot arrangement when he began selling off lots in the south half of the block.?ÿ In his mind the lot numbers ran with 13 in the southeast and 24 in the southwest.?ÿ Therefore, when he gave a deed for Lots 23 and 24 he intended to convey what was platted as Lots 14 and 13.?ÿ All lots in the south half of those two blocks have been deeded incorrectly for about 125 years.?ÿ My question to the mapping staff was why were they were so unobservant all these years.?ÿ Suddenly, they think they have to do something like make everybody change their deeds.?ÿ That is not going to happen, for a long list of reasons.
While they were ranting about their discovery of this grievous problem I asked if they were going to force other similar problems to be "corrected" as well.?ÿ I offered up a tiny subdivision in the largest town in the county that consists of six lots, I think.?ÿ According to the plat Lot 1 is the easternmost lot and Lot 6 is the westernmost.?ÿ The same error as above happened there.?ÿ The occupant of what is platted as Lot 1 has a deed to Lot 6.?ÿ All deeds are based on the numbering being reversed.?ÿ It has been that way since the first lot was sold.?ÿ If there had been an odd number of lots the lot in the center would be correct by accident.?ÿ The mappers had never discovered this, either.
The street numbering on the plat probably has no consequences at all.?ÿ The lots are usually sold by lot number, with no reference to the street. The streets are whatever the US Post Office calls them, regardless of a plat.?ÿ I can see a possible need for a replat to correct reversed lot numbers.
Not the same thing at all, but it reminds me that Grinnell, Iowa has the house numbers offset from the avenue numbers.?ÿ It is quite confusing to visitors.?ÿ You will find 700 West Street at the corner of 2nd Avenue, etc.
?ÿ
?ÿ
The Nate solution is:
Write the story out, along with either copies of the plats, and or references to the book and page to find said plats. If words aren't enough, re-record the plat, with colored ink, with the differences.
Then, with all subsequent deeds, to refer to this book and page of the "rest of the story". This is a good solution. Imho
Everything was fine; until YOU showed up!
?ÿ
Kinda like Scooby Doo and those meddling teenagers!
The street naming issue isn't an issue. USPS has nothing to do with street naming, that is town/county function. USPS uses wherever names the local government tells them to.
There is also no need to correct deeds or plats unless an owner, or someone who claims to be an owner creates an issue. New deeds don't need to perpetuate the mistake though, they should be for the correct lot, with language similar to, "being the same lot called XXX in the deed from XXX to XXX recorded at XXX'.?ÿ
I don't know how it was resolved but in the 1980s and 1990s a problem was discovered just north of Atlanta.?ÿ Immediately following the War Between the States some former slaves were granted property.?ÿ This area (actually most) of Georgia is divided into Land Lots (somewhat akin to Sections). The deeds listed the property as being in Land Lot XXX or YYY or ZZZ.?ÿ The property was of little or no economic value and was passed down through the generations.?ÿ As Atlanta grew the property became more and more valuable and the descendants were encouraged to sell.?ÿ This property had not been surveyed in well over 100 years because it just wasn't economical.?ÿ When the area became VERY valuable for commercial property it was time to survey.?ÿ OOOOPS.?ÿ Families had been living in Land Lot XXX for a century but their deed called for the property to be in ZZZ, other families had been living in Land Lot ZZZ but their deed described property as being in YYY.?ÿ The only job I did there we just located possession evidence and gave it to the attorneys.?ÿ Title is NOT something I have any expertise in resolving.
Andy
..Title is NOT something I have any expertise in resolving.
Andy
Me either..and I don't want to try.
I ran into a similar problem some time back.?ÿ The occupied property was actually within the confines of a platted area but there were (and had never been) any improvements like paving, etc.?ÿ Out of nearly 80 acres only two residences were occupied, and had been since the dawn of time.?ÿ Neither of them were anywhere near the property they "owned" by deed.?ÿ And I'm talking hundreds of feet.?ÿ This was in conjunction with a proposed water treatment plant.?ÿ One over zealous city attorney thought they had a chance to "evict" the residents and 'take' what land the city owned by deed.?ÿ Luckily cooler heads prevailed.
I located all the fences and structures and showed everything 'in-situ' on my drawing.?ÿ I don't know what all happened in a legal sense but the city built the new treatment plant and the old houses stayed put.?ÿ I kinda thought that's how it should be..
