No one seems to be much impressed by the "20' easement" notation on the exhibit map.?ÿ?ÿ
I could be. The exhibit seems to indicate the exception is a permanent easement meaning it is not needed in this easement. So the road already has 40 before the 49? Makes sense because the RW is 40 to the south and 53 to the north. That's one way to look at it. Did the SW take 9 ft to the south??ÿ
That does seem to be the answer, it might include the 20 feet, but if there is already an easement there, it is irrelevant or redundant, perhaps.
For me, I do not see any ambiguity in the "conveyance." It is explicitly written the East 49 feet ... except the East 20 feet. Consequently, 29 feet are conveyed. Assuming "intent" may be erroneous unless other circumstances or conditions so dictate. However, the "conveyance" does not address or refer any information modifying the width of the land conveyed. I do not see any conditions in "The Purpose" that would indicate a change in the width conveyed. Neither do I see any reference to a map.
No one seems to be much impressed by the "20' easement" notation on the exhibit map.?ÿ?ÿ
Is the Exhibit map called for in the written description? Do we know if it was prepared by the author of the description?
Is the Exhibit map called for in the written description? Do we know if it was prepared by the author of the description?
The exhibit map is recorded together with the text of the deed as a package, but is not mentioned in the writing. As for who or how this was created we can only speculate. It was recorded in 1980.?ÿ ?ÿ
An additional piece of information. The title report states that it is a 20 foot wide easement, probably on the strength of the exhibit map annotation. Not that that is definitive, of course. But it does put me on notice that I had better be fully prepared to explain my reasoning when I show another width.?ÿ ?ÿ
Yes I have been letting the details on this leak out in bits and drabs.?ÿ?ÿ