Yes, writing the words, "now or formerly" is a waste of time.?ÿ A bounds call in my preamble paragraph might read, "Thence bounded on the north by lands of Ree Dunn Dent (Bk-369 / Pg-246 see easement Bk-389 / Pg-234).?ÿ Again, if I worked in the PLSS and I was confident that some other party would memorialize the results of my research, I'd probably agree with you.?ÿ As it stands in NC, I'm the only one who cares about my client.?ÿ My solution is to make sure a retracing surveyor will know the correctly spelled names of the adjoiners along with the pertinent deeds used to support my boundary decision.?ÿ
My goal in a description is less about an unbendable template and more about helping the owner by balancing necessary information with the ability to be able to make sense of it.?ÿ If there are some messy easements, name changes, wills etc., I've even been known to drop them in if I'm concerned that they'll be missed.
As per the point of the OP, in a M&Bs state we're already pretending to be lawyers when we research title to determine junior/senior rights.?ÿ I completely agree that we should not use language such as, "appurtenant to" or "non-transferable", but I'd view it as a dereliction of duty if I didn't ensure that my client's attorney gets it right.?ÿ Experience no longer allows me view attorneys as infallible (lately I'm more surprised when they get names, addresses, etc. correct).?ÿ My project isn't closed until I have a copy of the plat and deed, as recorded, in my possession and I've verified nothing has been altered and the attorney didn't drop the ball.
?ÿ
@murphy There is nothing unique about metes and bounds states in this regards. What you are saying is equally applicable in a PLSS state, the only difference is there is a slightly higher likelihood if you are working in a rural area that you will be dealing with a "simultaneous" conveyance in the PLSS.?ÿ
Can you explain? It doesn't make sense to me, but I haven't heard the rational. Regardless of junior/senior rights the adjoining deed or survey needs to be examined and considered in your boundary analysis. Either way the call by itself should be sufficient explanation if both sides agree on boundary location, and further explanation is required if they don't.?ÿ?ÿ
We operate in very different worlds out here in the various corners of the land surveying profession.?ÿ Except for ALTA surveys, it is extremely rare to find a survey mention the names or recording information for adjoining tracts in my realm of work.?ÿ It does happen once in the span of three blue moons or following a month of Sundays.
Can you explain? It doesn't make sense to me, but I haven't heard the rational. Regardless of junior/senior rights the adjoining deed or survey needs to be examined and considered in your boundary analysis. Either way the call by itself should be sufficient explanation if both sides agree on boundary location, and further explanation is required if they don't.?ÿ?ÿ
I believe what the presenter was saying was that the original call when the line was created is all that is important. Who owns on the other side is immaterial as the original call controls the lines location (not unlike a lot and block desc.)
I don't believe he was saying not to investigate adjoining deeds for gore/overlaps. I have seen this a few times before by others.
i.e. lets say your parcel sits along a road and is the most easterly and senior parcel (not simultaneously conveyances) of a larger tract. Starting at the SEC of the parent tract you would call along the road then just brg and dist along the junior line, then you would use adjoiner info?ÿetc. along the north and east sides back to the POB.
Obviously this could be taken to extreme and involve extensive research into the parent tract to research its junior/senior creation to the surrounding parcels but I don't think that was what he was saying.
@fairbanksls I practice in a metes and bounds state as well and never use N/F references, I will make a call to adjoining lots by lot and block number, not by name.
@thebionicman I'm in NJ, if I need to know who owned an adjoing parcel it's as easy as looking at online state and county property tax records.
@murphy I have a different point of view, when it comes to determining Jr. & Sr. rights, that is not our call to make.?ÿ Our job is to document the evidence from recorded instruments, not decide who has rights or ownership.?ÿ Those are legal decisions to be made based on common law and we are not Attorneys (with very few being the exceptions).
When we come across problematic situations, as experts, we can offer our opinions to the clients and their Attorneys, but we can't make a legal decision.?ÿ We may be well aware of what the courts would likely decide based on all available evidence but that doesn't mean that we should decide as we think they would.
?ÿ
@mightymoe I use abutter names only to identify the abutting parcel, which after all is and has the weight of a monument. I leave out anything that's not pertinent to where the parcel lies on the face of the earth; at the end of the description I usually include, in brackets, i.e. [ ] a note saying "attorney to insert title source recital and any language necessary pertaining to title, etc." So if such language gets omitted, it's not on me.
@chris-bouffard What is our purpose if not to locate the boundary? I understand being leary of making boundary when application of subjective principles are involved (i.e. is the occupation open and notorious?). But junior-senior rights are firmly in our wheel house. We devalue our services when we can't locate the boundary for our clients, and sow unnecessary uncertainty into the neighborhood.
What do you tell your client? Your grantor didn't own this portion of the land described in your deed, but you might own it anyway????ÿ
Posted by: @chris-bouffard?ÿ I have a different point of view, when it comes to determining Jr. & Sr. rights, that is not our call to make.
Here in a colonial state I have to answer that question every day and could not perform a survey otherwise.
@james-vianna are you answering questions as to property rights??ÿ Sure, we have the knowledge of which lines were filed first and can show them on our plan as such but determining ownership and rights is not in our wheelhouses.?ÿ Our job is to document the recorded title lines, what was found and lines of possession, if there is a question regarding rights, even though we may know what the answer is, it's not our call to make.
@james-vianna are you answering questions as to property rights??ÿ Sure, we have the knowledge of which lines were filed first and can show them on our plan as such but determining ownership and rights is not in our wheelhouses.?ÿ Our job is to document the recorded title lines, what was found and lines of possession, if there is a question regarding rights, even though we may know what the answer is, it's not our call to make.
Senior vs. junior rights pertain directly to the boundaries of the lots described. Would you be more comfortable if we changed the phrases to "senior boundaries" vs. "junior boundaries"?
?ÿ
I'm thinking we have a disconnect somewhere here. I am referring to a lines location and the importance of "senior title" to determining such
?ÿ
@james-vianna the disconnect we are having is that Jr. & Sr. title lines do not necessarily determine ownership and/or rights.
