from an old California Exam but paraphrased and changed by me arbitrarily to suit my own whim:
Goldenacre owns a Lot on an old subivision which is 100'x100' on the old Subdivision Plat.
Mr. Goldenacre sells the East 50' to Blackacre in 1942.
Then Mr. Goldenacre sells the West 50' to Whiteacre in 1950.
The two parcels convey several times respectively down to the present but those details are not important.
Whiteacre's successor in title, Mr. Blanco, commissions a Survey. The Surveyor promptly finds the four original monuments at the four corners of original Lot. They measure 100.00' north to south (it's a miracle) and 105.00' east to west (oops).
How wide is Mr. Blanco's parcel?
Incidentally, Mr. Goldenacre, aged 115, is still around and lives across the street but when asked about the extra 5' he just looks puzzled and quietly thinks the Surveyor must be crazy or his newfangled laser thing is not working right. Besides the Surveyor never set up on each corner and directly measured it. He simply set his newfangled transit thing up once in the front and once in the back to get the four corners. Who can believe some Surveyor that doesn't even have a real steel tape in his truck but just a floppy plastic tape that he never even used. He was also seen waiving some silly yellow stick thing around that makes a gawdawful squeeling noise and the surveyor was looking confused and scratching his head for a while.
55.00'
50' But tackle the old bastard and make him sign a quitclaim deed to somebody, or you'll shoot him with that laser thingy and make him sterile.
55.00' feet (measured) 50 feet (record)
Of course I am not familiar with California law. But if it were in my state the gap would belong to the original owner; Mr. Goldenacre never sold the 5 feet between. Although there are of course the supplementary issues with who has been paying the taxes on said 5 foot gap?? That is then grounds for color of title. Along with issues like adverse possession..yadda yadda. But throwing away the supplementary--the 5 foot gap still belongs to Mr. Goldenacre. Cases like this are an example of why property should be conveyed in ways such as: "The east half", "The west half", etc.
Although I would like to add that the statutory period has most certainly been met. And therefore if we do consider the supplementary issues then Mr. Whiteacre does own a 100'X 55'lot. "...for title is created or passes instantly, at the exact moment when all requirements are met."
Naomi,
How exactly would someone go about paying taxes on a 5' strip of land?
Stephen
No gap. Whiteacre owns 55'. This is a text-book example of senior rights. By senior rights whiteacre gets whatever is left over.
Stephen
JBS
I very much prefer "55 feet ACTUAL (emphasis mine), 50 feet record". A land survyeor knows that the measured call is the one that reflects the corporeal, physical world. The land-owning layperson is still wondering, "OK, so which is it?"
I also like one of the survey notes to include a short explanatory narrative when the discrepancy is large as in a case like this.
Stephen
> How wide is Mr. Blanco's parcel?
Maybe 50 feet, maybe more or less, it depends on where occupation/possession lies.
There is no reserved strip belonging to Mr Goldenacre.
Assuming the facts are limited to those given in Dave's scenario, I'm in the 50 foot camp.
Why would there not be a reserved 5 foot strip? The junior deed is not ambiguous so the testimony of the 115-year-old Mr. Goldenacre is (at least in Maine) immaterial.
Here's another question...Cee Gee
> Why would there not be a reserved 5 foot strip?
That's a good question and I will answer it as best as I can. Mr Goldenacre believed he had a lot that was 100 feet wide, so how could he have intended to sell two halves and reserve anything back to himself?
Edit: For each excess on a lot, there will be adjoining lots that may have excess or may have shortage, so where are the lines of possession? To me that is what will decide the width of Blancos lot.
Here's another question...Cee Gee
I edited (to include a reference to Mr. G's testimony) before Paul's response and thus was rather brief. But at least in Maine, Mr. G's intent is only relevant to the extent that it is manifest in the deed and in the acts of the parties, of which there are few in Dave's scenario. If the deed is clear and unambiguous, Mr. G's belief at the time is immaterial, even if, at 115, he's around to tell us what it was.
I would certainly agree that possession lines would trump all this.
Here's another question...In Los Angeles County
The records for Goldenacres lot will remain 100 feet wide. The taxes for each half will be on fifty foot wide parcels. If there is an extra five feet that Blanco is possessing then to get that five feet into the records, a new document must be created and go through the proper city/county channels.
Here's another question...In Los Angeles County
Well, there's a reason we're licensed at the State level -- sounds like this would play out differently in California from how it would go in Maine. Here, Mr. G's pre-1942 deed to the whole shebang would suffice as a record of his ownership of the 5 foot strip. The tax maps and records would have little or no weight.
