A friend called to my attention that our city has an entire subdivision platted with 100 ft frontage x130 ft deep lots, but the houses (built in the early 1900's) are nearly all on smaller parcels.
Suppose the parcel descriptions are
-The S 20 ft of lot 13 and the N 20 ft of lot 14
-The N 40 ft of the S 80 ft of lot 14
-The S 40 ft of lot 14
You are to survey one of those parcels. After finding (or setting by proportion) the "100 ft" corners at 101.00 spacing you find no further monumentation or firm occupation lines. Would you:
A) research the deed history for junior-senior rights.
B) Proportion 40.4 + 40.4 + 20.2 because it's close enough. (How much larger or smaller than 100.00 would change that?)
C) Proportion 40.4 + 40.4 + 20.2 because it is the correct result.
D) Other.
I'm not licensed so I always have to talk with the PLS/RLS/RPLS etc. then execute their plans in the fields.?ÿ Research would be my first option though.
Take Lot 14.
Kramden owns the north 20 feet.
Norton owns the south 80 feet.
The lot is (100.00 feet record) and 101.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 feet wide measured (I survey at the molecular level).
This leaves an apparent 1.00 foot gap except the record evidence is the last owner of all of Lot 14 intended to dispose of all of it.
In my opinion, Senior gets full measure and Junior gets the remainder (in this case Deed + 1.00 foot).
The first error may be proportioning the entire subdivision between distant found monuments.
I am very aware of a situation where a subdivision's dimensions add up to a perfect 1320 feet by 2640 feet on the assumption it was a perfect aliquot part of a perfect section.................in about 1868.?ÿ The development began at a certain point and grew outward towards the far sides of the subdivision.?ÿ The error all falls in the farthest regions from where development began.?ÿ And, that's the fact, Jack.?ÿ Try to "fix" that with proportioning from the subdivision corners and chaos will most definitely ensue and you will be the one with a noose around your neck.
Study the history.?ÿ All of the history.?ÿ Learn that history through studying multiple surveys, not just those in your block or immediate area.?ÿ Then apply the most sound logic you can develop, knowing full well someone else will come along someday and dispute your solution.
The first error may be proportioning the entire subdivision between distant found monuments.
If nothing close was found, wouldn't you usually split the streets around this block rather than go multiple blocks for a monument?
Splitting the streets in city locations is a last resort in my area.?ÿ No surveyors were involved in the construction of the streets and curbs in the years when they were installed.?ÿ Yes, I do it on occasion.?ÿ But, we have the good fortune to have many recorded surveys to start from that may have been conducted over the past 100 years.?ÿ Too frequently we find in modern construction that where the road was supposed to be put and where it was put in fact are two very different things due to a lack of inspectors on site to verify the work during construction.
I agree that this is a junior/senior rights problem. Determine which was first sold first. That property gets its full measure, the remainder property gets what's left.
I have recorded only one survey in Portland based on curb splits alone, although in older neighborhoods I always tie the curb lines to confirm my resolution.?ÿ Across the river in Vancouver, WA's old neighborhoods it is more commonly done.?ÿ
Junior/senior rights for sure and with a 1900 era subdivision I would not only look at monuments. Prorating over other evidence isn't a good idea usually. There will be occupation lines, all kinds of records from easements to water/sewer permits and drawings that often tie corners. If it's like some areas I've been in the city/county might have some old records of found monuments from way back.?ÿ
?ÿ
To be fair, Bill noted there 'was no possession...
I would start by restoring the subdivision lines, then layer the deeds by seniority. That may or nay not follow dates of parcel creation.
I have had several occasiins where the first deed is 'all of lot x, except the east 50 feet'. While he is senior in time, the language of the deed places him junior to the east 50 feet.?ÿ
I also agree with those who would not leave useless strips or gaps in the name of some long divested owners...
?ÿ
Does sold first refer to filed first or when the title company processed the transaction?
It refers to when the property was first sold by the common grantor. The property may have passed through many hands since that time. We are not necessarily talking about when the current owners took possession.?ÿ
Thank you.
Im working on a multiparcel break down in which junior parcels were split off sequentially and filed in reverse. It's more a question of what would the lawyers try to do if the new grantees found the time and money to argue about whose tract had more senior rights in the case of easements and rights of way(which is my overall goal for the project design) etc.
Either way these questions Bill Mr 500000 guesser extraordinare posted are awesome to be reading through and learning about the components of the boundary.
Thanks to all the respondents!!!
I'm working on a multiparcel break down in which junior parcels were split off sequentially and filed in reverse. It's more a question of what would the lawyers try to do....
The real estate changes hands at the moment the grantor signs the deed document. But after the document is recorded all other persons are presumed to have notice of the transaction. Of course, such notice may be shown to have occurred before that by other means.?ÿ So in your case, I'd use the date the deed was signed, and let the owners decide if the difference is worth letting their lawyers argue over.
@dave-karoly aaaaand that is exactly what i just read in Browns 3 days ago while cooking a static survey.
Note that some states are "race states" where first recorded (in the county records) means first in line as to junior/senior rights....