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.....
That's true, but I think usually these questions assume the deed was duly recorded in order that the parcels were cut out. Everyone else responding to this thread seemed to assume that to be the case as well as myself.
Stephen
You mean something other than the east 50' in 1942 and the west 50' in 1950? The facts given are that they were sold in those years and like Stephen says, I think everybody has been assuming they were recorded at least in that order.
I don't assume too much anymore. I've seen deeds executed and not recorded for ten years. I've seen this recently, in fact.
I think I see what you're saying. If the east 50' was "sold" in 1942, the west 50' was "sold" in 1950, but the east 50' was recorded after the west 50', the west 50' might be senior?
By the way, this is extremely common in the City of Sacramento. It was made up of 80'-wide lots in blocks that were mostly laid out extra big for some reason. We get the "east 40'/west 40'" problem as well as the "east 40'/west half" problem. Once in a while you run across somebody that was smart enough to say "east 40'/lot X excepting therefrom the east 40'".
> Senior rights are recording statute specific. No mention is made to the dates any deeds were recorded.
Mark raises a good point. The recording dates are an issue only in certain states which have adopted the "race" statutes as opposed to the "race/notice" statutes. I don't have a list of them, but would be interested if anyone has a list. There are two issues at hand when you have junior/senior rights to contend with: first is the date of creation of the boundaries, second is the date of notice to a bona fide purchaser. In non-race states (the majority), the date of conveyance is the key date for determining jr/sr rights. The recording date in those non-race states is only important for breach of warrant cases made against the grantor. You can't claim to be a bona fide purchaser if you had actual or constructive notice of the prior conveyance. In the race states, the recording date is key and the only claim of priority is based on the date of recording.
Generally speaking... There are lots of variant situations and jurisdictional differences.
JBS
California is a race/notice state.
Ted H. Gordon has a good discussion of recording in Chapter 14 of his book, "California Real Estate Law."
A person who has notice of a prior Deed can't be a Bona Fide Purchaser. Without recording only the Grantor and Grantee have notice of the instrument although a second Grantee may be expected to inspect the property and find the first Grantee living there.
Recording is optional but carries the benefit of putting the whole world on notice as long as the Deed is properly indexed in the chain of title.
I blew it. 55'. Too eager to make a smartass response
We can have Ken Curtis (Festus) play you in the movie!
[flash width=480 height=390] http://www.youtube.com/v/Dwg8y3-XnIQ?fs=1&hl=en_US [/flash]
> California is a race/notice state.
Same here too, Dave. I think it's that way in most of the western states. Of course, TX and LA are probably exceptions, but I'm not sure. I'd sure like to see a list, so I won't have to research it myself. Feeling lazy tonight. ;o)
JBS
>
> e.g. All of Lot X excepting therefrom the West 50' granted to Blackacre in Book XX, Page YY, official records of said county.
I like that Dave. That is indeed even more clear. Crystal clear. 😀
Here's another question...Cee Gee
In Maine, if the lot were found to be 100.2' wide, would Goldenacre retain title to the 0.2' wide strip?
Not trying to be a smart alec, just trying to determine at what point such a retained gap would effectively disappear and to whom the excess would go if the law where you practice, or in your professional opinion as the case may be, there is retained ownership by the Grantor.
Could be a good question if the answers are in proper form.
a) Blanco has 50 feet because there is no evidence that anything more was intended to be conveyed.
b) Blanco has 55 feet because there is a presumption in this State that small strips of land are not intended to be kept when the grantor has no possible need for same.
c) Blanco has 49.83 feet because that's where a fence was found.
d) Blanco has 49.4 feet because that's where the corner of the adjoiners house lies and it is the only remaining evidence of where the original wood division stakes were place.
e) Blanco has 55 feet because he has senior rights.
Some add stuff not in the question and are therefore wrong. Some try to confuse the test taker by re-arranging a common rule in order to see if the test taker really knows it. Some give a plausible answer that might be correct but need a knowledge of jurisdictional specific law to differentiate between two possible correct answers.
Without more in the answers, the question is pretty useless in determining what the test taker really knows about the subject.
> Answer the test reviewers may have wanted to see:
52.5' because it could be said that the old man wanted to sell 1/2 portions of the 100' wide lot.
I would not rule that out as an answer, but from what I recall of my studying for something like the LS Exam, the answers desired tend to be very literal of the deed wording (which I used to fall prey too) and I suspect the good ol' "leave a gap" answer is the "proper" one.