Once again, the unknowing have created chaos by their befuddlement. Everyone involved in what appears on a deed should have to attend 40 hours minimum of rigorous training on what a deed is, what it does and why every letter and number placed on the face of the deed is very important.
The booboo I discovered yesterday involves a very small subdivision and an adjoining parcel of abandoned railroad land, plus a vacated alley. Probably 20 years ago all of Block 2 and the abandoned railroad land to the north of it were deeded to the City. No problem. Several years later the City deeded the entire parcel to the School District. Whatever was supposed to happen never happened so the School District no longer had any use of the property.
First, a description of the block. A total of eight lots, all 50 feet north-south by 142 feet east-west, with a sixteen-foot alley separating four lots on the east from four lots on the west. The northeast lot is Lot 1. The southeast lot is Lot 4. The southwest lot is Lot 5 and the northwest lot is Lot 8. There are 50-foot streets on the east, west and south sides of Block 2. We found a survey from 2007 showing a tract carved out of Lots 5,6 & 7 that was 100 feet east- by 141.5 feet north-south. The description says, "The west 100 feet of Lots 5 and 6 and the west 100 feet of the south 41.5 feet of Lot 7". Great! No problem.
Second, the School District sells all of Lot 1 and all of Lot 8 and Lot 7, less the south 41.5 feet thereof. No problem. The south line of the parcel in Lot 7 conforms to the north side of the tract surveyed a few months earlier.
Third, the School District sells the tract surveyed to another party to build a house as described above. No problem.
Then the School District intends to sell what is left in Block 2 back to the City. The deeds says the tract is described as: All of Lots 2,3 & 4 and the east 41.5 feet of Lots 5,6 & 7. PROBLEM! It is the east 42 feet, not 41.5 feet and they no longer own all of Lot 7, just the south 41.5 thereof. No one catches the error.
The City vacates the entire alley in the block. Apparently no one has a problem with that.
Now, the City has already deeded what they received back from the School District with the erroneous deed plus the vacated alley to my clients who intend to build a very nice home. The clients simply wish to be good neighbors and know their boundaries before building anything. Smart people.
Unfortunately, I (that &@$@&^% surveyor) must inform them of the deed problem that really needs to be fixed prior to spending in excess of $150,000 on improvements. They also need to know that this is a slightly smaller tract than what they were expecting due to the missing 7.5 feet (north-south) of the east 42 feet of Lots 5,6 & 7 and also because this removes 7.5 feet (north-south) of the west half of the 16-foot vacated alley. They thought they were purchasing a rectangle. Such is not the case. As the City simply sold what they thought they had purchased from the School District, both of those entities need to be involved so as to remove any doubt about ownership of the missing 0.5-foot strip in Lots 5 and 6 and part of Lot 7.
I'm glad that's you and not me working on a mess like that.
I once worked on a large estate that was trying to cabbage together all the deeds and properties that the patriarch had purchased over a forty year period. It was interesting and fun until I found a "typo" on one of the deeds.
A portion of a government lot had originally been described around 1920 as beginning "2640 feet west of the SE Cor., NE/4" as it had appeared on the original GLO survey, labeled as 80ch. My survey reflected that POB as being at an aliquot corner, some 2637.60 feet (or whatever it was) west.
When the family obtained the property (like 1946) is was described as beginning 2460 feet west, not 2640 feet...an obvious typo in my mind and I prepared a comprehensive survey accordingly.
The family's attorney questioned my judgment. I told him the grantor in 1946 didn't own a tract beginning 2460 feet east. The land conveyed was actually a tract originally described with a 2640 foot distance, and such was reflected on my survey.
The attorney wanted me to change my survey and mark on the ground where the 2460 foot distance would place the property. I explained that really wasn't what I did as a surveyor. I was told if I couldn't survey the land "like he wanted", he would find a surveyor that would.
I thanked him for his time and told him I would prepare an invoice for my time up to that point.
They eventually paid.
becoming more common
I feel your pain. In the last couple of months I have had two surveys where my clients (the dominant interest holder) had "excepting and reserving" for their ROW's rather than "together with".
Jim
I feel your pain.
the one I am working on now: "Beginning at the centerline of the xxxx river, thence . . . "
Like a river never moves???
:'(
gzr
They should have vacated the old subdivision BEFORE they started all that part of this lot and part of that one. But for those unwilling to pay for advise stuff happens!
And Ignorant Easement Deed Preparers
"Everyone involved in what appears on a deed should have to attend 40 hours minimum of rigorous training on what a deed is, what it does and why every letter and number placed on the face of the deed is very important."
Same thing goes for easements!!
