Haven't you heard of the Common Law ingress-egress easement for fierce hunter cats which is 5' wide?
Here's another question...In Los Angeles County
These kind of questions do provoke great conversation. I would say to the young bucks out there pay very very close attention to senior/junior rights or you might lose your shirt. Research is the key .
Don Wilson usefully summarized some of the pertinent cases in a July 2007 article in Professional Surveyor:
"The intent is the cardinal rule for interpretation (First Hartford Corp. v. Kennebec Water District, 490 A.2d 1209 Me., 1985), and it is the terms of the instrument itself which manifests the intent [emphasis added] (Teledyne Isotopes, Inc. v. Bravenec, 640 S.W.2d 387 Texas, 1982). The court will attempt to ascertain and declare not what the grantor meant to say but only the meaning of what the grantor did say [emphasis added] (Holloways' Unknown Heirs v. Whatley, 104 S.W.2d 646 Texas, 1937). The intent of the grantor as spelled out in the deed itself is what must be interpreted, not the grantor's intent in general, or even what he may have intended [emphasis added] (Wilson v. DeGenaro, 415 A.2d 1334; 36 Conn.Sup. 200 1979)."
As to Maine case law, I would add:
"In construing a grant, the intent of the parties is ascertained by giving effect to all the words of the grant, but the intent of the parties cannot be permitted to overcome the express language of the grant [emphasis added] properly construed."
--Whitmore v. Brown, 61 A. 985, 10 Me. 410 (1905)
The real world has been mentioned. In the real world 5 feet on a block of 50-foot lots matters, and the original grantor or his heirs either are or aren't around. If they are, get them to sign off; if they're not, I don't think it's at all clear that there was no intent to retain the strip. I do not see an explicit intent to convey it. If it's truly "worthless," no one will care if I exclude it from my survey.
Cee Gee
I don't think these are very good citations to back up your side.
> "The intent is the cardinal rule for interpretation (First Hartford Corp. v. Kennebec Water District, 490 A.2d 1209 Me., 1985),"
Right, but intent is just that. It isn't necessarily exactly what the numbers say. It is what is meant by what the numbers exactly say.
>"and it is the terms of the instrument itself which manifests the intent(Teledyne Isotopes, Inc. v. Bravenec, 640 S.W.2d 387 Texas, 1982)"
Agreed.
>"The court will attempt to ascertain and declare not what the grantor meant to say but only the meaning of what the grantor did say (Holloways' Unknown Heirs v. Whatley, 104 S.W.2d 646 Texas, 1937). "
Yes, the meaning of what the grantor did say. He said 50' and it is reasonable to assume that he meant all of the remainder of what I own.
>"The intent of the grantor as spelled out in the deed itself is what must be interpreted, not the grantor's intent in general, or even what he may have intended (Wilson v. DeGenaro, 415 A.2d 1334; 36 Conn.Sup. 200 1979)."
You see, the words are interpreted, not blindly followed in robot fashion.
>
> As to Maine case law, I would add:
>
> "In construing a grant, the intent of the parties is ascertained by giving effect to all the words of the grant, but the intent of the parties cannot be permitted to overcome the express language of the grant [emphasis added] properly construed."
>
> --Whitmore v. Brown, 61 A. 985, 10 Me. 410 (1905)
OK, that's a good cite for backing up your position, but it is also somewhat self-contradictory. So which is it, the intent or the express language of the grant? That cite seems to indicate first one and then the other.
There is the additional issue of the courts generally given preferential treatment of interpretations to the grantee, but really, I see no need to go there. I just see classic Jr / Sr rights.
Stephen
You misunderstand Stephen. What I was trying to point out is that Goldenacre has not been paying taxes on any of the land he used to own. Whiteacre has. And I agree with the gentleman that said Goldenacre thought he sold it all, so therefore the remainder belongs to Whiteacre. Sorry for the confusion. Can you see what I was saying now? Goldenacre thought he sold it all. Hasn't been paying taxes on any of it. How would he still even have claim to it, especially now that the statutory period has long expired. I was trying to point out what the solution would be if the supplementary (adverse possession) issues were not brought into play (if the requirements for adverse possession were NOT met), and what the solution would be if they did apply. But I'll say it again. This is a prime example of why you should never assume your property is EXACTLY what is supposed to be. All it would take is slipping in the word HALF "East half" "West half" in the first place to prevent these issues. Have a nice day.
An exception type description for the second conveyance out would work to make intent crystal clear too.
e.g. All of Lot X excepting therefrom the West 50' granted to Blackacre in Book XX, Page YY, official records of said county.
Stephen:
I do hear you, I guess I just don't agree -- specifically, that "He said 50' and it is reasonable to assume that he meant all of the remainder of what I own." Junior did get the 50 feet and I don't see anything to justify a leap from that to "all of the remainder of what I own," which, in this case, is something more. The preponderance of the court cases I've seen indicate precisely that exact a reading of the deed language, "robotic" though it admittedly is. As I've said, there are rational reasons why a grantor might want to retain a 5 foot strip.
Certainly almost any additional language would lean the reading the other way -- an adjoiner call, or the "half" language that Naomi has mentioned. As would a fence, etc. But they seem absent from this fact set.
I don't have the entire Whitmore case here. I'll try to hunt it down this week.
Agreed.
Once again, in Ky. I would hope it would say in the 2nd deed "being the remainder of the property conveyed to x by y, clearing up any gaps.
Here's another question...In Los Angeles County
I agree. Around CT its very difficult sometimes to tell if a pin is the original corner or just a piece of rebar.
Most maps that are recorded make no mention that pins were set, let alone the type of pin, size, etc....
How does one know they in fact have found the original corner?
Answer the test reviewers probably want to see: 50 feet with a 5-foot gap.
Answer in real life: look at the occupation line and see if it is close to being 50 feet from the original SE corner. If so, I would make the west lot 55 feet. If not, I would be doing some hard thinking.
Stephen:
That's cool.
It's good to talk these things out.
Stephen
Yes, I follow you.
Thanks.
Stephen
Senior rights are recording statute specific. No mention is made to the dates any deeds were recorded.
I'm also going to reiterate my previous post. Senior title is determined by recording statute and an evaluation of when the deeds were recorded. That timing can change everything. I refer you to Knud Hermansen's paper on the issue. No mention has been made here of notice or recording sequence. Just a friendly reminder.....
