Exactly. The point of whether or not Lot 23 exists as a tax lot, buildable lot, whatever is completely irrelevant as to whether or not you can use it in a description.
There are all sorts of plats that encompass chunks of PLSSia...does that mean we cannot refer to the North Line of the NW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 if a plat puts lots over the line?
As stated below your call could be to the original subdivison that created Lot 23. The more recent filed map is for the totality of Lots 21-24 as a single lot, showing lines of Lot 23 eliminated per the Lot 21A map. If you refer to the recent filed map your calls should be from it's monumented corners not a call to a line that has disappeared.
In my opinion the Lot 21A map is in error in that it does not state that the interior lines are to disappear. If the intent is to maintain Lots 21-24 in existence then those lines should be shown as dashed or ghosted on the 21A map with notation that they are to remain. I doubt that would fly with the County since the house appears to be too close to the line to allow the Lot 24 to remain as is, i.e. that lot must be merged.
You should not want to be involved if disagreement with that occurs in the future.
Paul in PA
Specifically for an easement, you would agree that the only issue is whether or not you can lay it out? The underlying drama is not all that important (assuming you get all the actual owners to sign).
I dont think the OP is getting involved, just describing where the utilities are going.
This is good stuff here. Almost like I could submit for 1.5 hours of PDH...
Easements run with the land, you are referencing a Lot that technically doesn't exist anymore. I could see how a cloud may form, even though I would be able to retrace it. The Title Company that kept the original description may be the saving grace here, but it would be money well spent for the land owner/Title Company/Utility to do a little house cleaning and file a new plat with your easement shown/referenced just to make sure all intent is clearly shown.
0.02
N10,000, E7,000, Z100.00
PLS - IL, MO, AR, KS, MN, KY
Why does the title company "keeping the original description" have any relevance? These are recorded documents.
Usually, the reality of any situation I run into as a survey is that we have but a small part in the final outcome of any land conveyance.?ÿ I like to think that is why surveyors need to be diligent in their efforts to maintain a singular clarity in what we create on paper.
My personal hierarchy begins with maintaining clear and marketable title in harmony with the boundary in situ.?ÿ Of course at times that can be in conflict with what a client wants or needs.
This situation began with a utility company engineer staking an overhead electrical primary to service new construction.?ÿ The utility company maintains graphic plant record that are instrumental to adhering to property lines, particularly in platted areas.?ÿ This info is usually oblivious to actual ownership.?ÿ The practice is rooted in their attempt to place power poles at or near property lines in an attempt to minimize the number of poles that may interfere with land usage and may need to be relocated in the future.
In this instance the power company's mapping showed only the original plat.?ÿ The field engineer staked a new to pole at the sw corner of lot 23 to begin a new span to the east to satisfy the subscriber's need and request for service.?ÿ Since an easement would be required the work order wound up on my desk.?ÿ The engineer's sketch showed the "proposed" easement as being entirely upon Lot 23.?ÿ This is common to minimize paperwork by obtaining easement from only one property owner.?ÿ Like I said, the engineer is oblivious to title or ownership.
In my research I find the recorded plat.?ÿ I also find that lots 21 through 24 are owned by one party, with the same name as the party that is requesting service.?ÿ I realize that the easement could actually run willy-nilly anywhere across the 4 lots.?ÿ But in an attempt to maintain simplicity, should the occasion arise that the lots be severed into different estates, I prepared the easement entirely upon lot 23 as the engineer had sketched.
The county clerk's office contacted me about the lot line consolidation and my prepared easement documents.?ÿ I had no idea it existed.?ÿ We had a brief conversation and since the easement had already been recorded we decided to leave it be.?ÿ Especially in the light that the original recorded plat still existed on a county level and the local municipal codes that created the new "lot 21A" did not specifically deny or approve the severability of any single lot.?ÿ Each single lot still met the requirements for development, save the new home that was proposed to straddle the line between two lots.?ÿ To me, the lot line consolidation appeared to be a document that merely provided a variance for lot line setbacks.
But all this made me wonder what a title opinion might think of the creation of lot 21A.?ÿ And it was a little unnerving to find my usual research route would miss something of this nature.
The property owner purchased lots 21 through 24 and near as I can determine each lot retains marketable title, except for the lot line encroachment.?ÿ It's my opinion that more is needed than just a lot line consolidation to extinguish title of each individual lot into one large lot.?ÿ I also will admit I'm not sure what that would entail other than a partial vacation.?ÿ But the title company must apparently share some of my opinion with their avoidance of the use of "lot 21A" and sticking with the original deeded description.
It's not a big deal to me.?ÿ Just one of those things that makes me say hmmm... ;)?ÿ ?ÿ
?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ
It has been quite a few years back now, but I recall one time where I encountered a situation anywhere similar to this.?ÿ There was an original plat of a subdivision and a later replat of some fraction of that subdivision (that I had no idea had occurred).?ÿ I was looking for some lot, say it was 24, and I couldn't find it after the replat had been filed.?ÿ The Register of Deeds heard me questioning myself as to where the heck was Lot 24.?ÿ She said something about a replat and I said, "What replat?". The replat was indexed under something like Stevens Replat of Lots 21-36 of Jones Third Addition to the City of Hicksville.?ÿ The original plat was indexed under Jones Third Addition.?ÿ ?ÿI would have expected the replat to be indexed under Jones Third Addition (Stevens Replat of Lots 21-36).?ÿ So, I had an ancient easement document referring to Lot 24 in Jones Third Addition and was, therefore confused when I couldn't find it listed in the book I was looking in for Jones Third Addition.?ÿ Due to the replat, I had to go back two more books to get to dates where Lot 24 was still listed and the records related to it existed.
But the title company must apparently share some of my opinion with their avoidance of the use of "lot 21A" and sticking with the original deeded description.
That is exactly what I was referring to.Your easement is on Lot 23 and was described as such even though it was known as Lot 21A at the time of recording, but since the land was described in conveyance as all 4 individual lots and not the consolidated lot 21A, the new easement and the chain of title is pretty clear in 2020. The only heartburn I could see...Fast forward 63 years, land is transferred a few times as Lot 21A only. Title is ran on Lot 21A and that easement could be missed or may end up being contested for rights since it was described as being part of something that didn't technically exist.?ÿ
I agree and I don't think it is a big deal merely academic at this point. Good food for thought.
N10,000, E7,000, Z100.00
PLS - IL, MO, AR, KS, MN, KY