I'm working on a boundary line adjustment with 3 parcels. The 2 outside parcels own the parcel in the middle and want to split it. Essentially creating 2 parcels where there were originally 3. The parcel to the south accesses his property through the properties to the north. 
There's currently no easement to access the property to the south, but the driveway has been there for several decades. I was going to have them record the BLA and easement simultaneously; filling in the blanks with the appropriate recording numbers in both recordings. The county wants the easement recorded first, before they will sign off on the BLA.
would you describe the easement as running through the 2 existing parcels or just to line running down the middle of the middle parcel?
This is steep, waterfront property and the only way to access this property is this driveway.
thank you for your input...
Doug
The two owners can each grant across their current ownership. Adjusting the fee parcel lines shouldn't affect the easement as described.
I agree it should be filed simultaneously with the transfer.
If I understand you correctly the northerly owner will be giving the southerly owner an easement over property he still owns (the middle lot). You can't hold an easement over your own property, why would you need to you already own all the rights to use it.
You may need to record the easement first to appease the County, then record it simultaneously with the transfer to make it valid.
If you're (they're) gonna go through the exercise anyways, why not just reconfigure the whole thing where the south owner takes fee title to the roadway? Just adjust the "split down the middle" line to some equitable alternative that considers the good will of the north owner...
If they both have an interest in the middle parcel then the parcel to the south doesn't need an easement over that, he owns it. He just needs an easement over the North parcel.
The only problem with that, would be; once the BLA is approved, he won't own the North half of the middle parcel any more.
If it was easy, everyone would be doing it....
Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
Really, there should be no problem recording the easement first. The principle that you can't have an easment across your own property is applicable when an existing easment becomes no longer neccisiary because of unity of title, and there is no apparent future use of the easement. In this case the intention is clear. No court would rule that the easment doesn't exist, and the title companies don't care about unity of ownership anyway.
If you really want to be sure, the above suggestion of recording the easement twice sounds pretty fool proof.
Why can't the easement be done on the plat and accepted by both parties within the dedication, that's how it's done around here anyway. Isn't that how it's done on any subdivision plat.
this is a suggestion i'd make to the landowners. they both end up with legal access to existing roadway, and they both end up with "clean" parcels. now that started me to thinking on what our responsibility is- if any- to point out/suggest/attempt to keep intact the free and uninterrupted use of land to the extent possible, when possible. which is to say: in this particular case, two tracts devoid of an access easement across one or both are cleaner tracts to me than two nicely shaped tracts requiring an easement over and across at least one to have legal functionality for both.
of course, i have no idea what the priorities of the owners are here- perhaps it is more important for the south owner to retain maximum water frontage at the expense of fee title to access. which, never mind then. maybe the north owner really wants to retain ownership of a small triangle across a driveway that somebody else uses 98% of the time. never mind again. but i think most owners (residential, anyways) are more often concerned, ultimately, with being able to liquidate and/or achieve maximum financial return in the long run. which, again, (and this may be a bad assumption) a necessary access easement would seem to diminish to a certain extent.
but... if your/our/anyone's client can be presented with an option to solve a problem without the help of an easement and/or restriction, do you feel any compulsion to encourage that option? or even point it out? i frankly don't care what a client does with his or her land. if they want to restrict the use of the color blue or the sales of nuclear warheads anywhere on their land that's fine with me. just interested what others' takes are on this point.
Did the county give a reason why they won't sign the adjustment/easement plan simultaneously? I mean, is there a reason, other than their lack of comprehension?
If the easement will be an unrestricted access easement with very few conditions being imposed, then simply include the easement language with the parcel descriptions used for the BLA. Parcel 1, being subject to a non-exclusive xx wide access easement being appurtenant to Parcel 2. Parcel 2, being together with a non-exclusive xx wide access easement across Parcel 1, being the servient estate. That way you have a simultaneous creation of the easement within the BLA document which will handle the title conveyance language.
If the easement is more complicated with a host of covenants, conditions and restrictions on use, then prepare a separate document for the final easement and record simultaneously. And, yes. The county is wrong in requiring the easement grant to occur first. How can the owner of the North Parcel grant an easement across the Middle Parcel unless he first owns both?
If the North Parcel owner first granted the easement to the boundary of the South Parcel, then as soon as the BLA is completed, a portion of the described easement will disappear by merger leaving property described in the easement that is no longer effective. Any easement grant prior to the BLA will have to address the easement as crossing the North Parcel and the Middle Parcel to be appurtenant to the South Parcel. Just leaves it a bit messy in the end. I'd much rather see a clean transaction that leaves the easement grant consistent with the final parcel configuration.
RADAR, post: 425220, member: 413 wrote: I'm working on a boundary line adjustment with 3 parcels. The 2 outside parcels own the parcel in the middle and want to split it. Essentially creating 2 parcels where there were originally 3. The parcel to the south accesses his property through the properties to the north.
There's currently no easement to access the property to the south, but the driveway has been there for several decades. I was going to have them record the BLA and easement simultaneously; filling in the blanks with the appropriate recording numbers in both recordings. The county wants the easement recorded first, before they will sign off on the BLA.
would you describe the easement as running through the 2 existing parcels or just to line running down the middle of the middle parcel?
This is steep, waterfront property and the only way to access this property is this driveway.
thank you for your input...
Doug
I would want it done before the BLA as well. It should run through both existing parcels to the southerly one.
In deference to JPH's comment, you are making this too difficult (over thinking it). I'd prepare the easement description beginning where the road enters the north parcel to the new south boundary of the north parcel. The owner of the north parcel will grant the entire easement to the owner of the south parcel (to satisfy the bureaucrats). Then, owner of the south parcel will grant the N1/2 of the middle parcel to the owner of the north parcel "reserving therefrom" the easement. The owner of the north parcel will grant the S1/2 of the middle parcel to the owner of the south parcel "together with" the easement.
[USER=413]@RADAR[/USER]
"just to line running down the middle of the middle parcel" Yes.
Just the way you have it shown in your original post. 😎
