following up on this [msg=250753]thread[/msg]...
looks like we are going to be pulling a few of the pins and filing a correction. At this point, we will just show RW as purchased in 1933 for the FAP job (the west side), and say that the Existing Co Rd RW from 1887 (the east side), was not retraced in our survey.
We've contacted the landowner and he's kinda happy, but he's still got title issues.
he owns tract 2.
here's detail B
Here's his legal for the tract per the COS....
description from his warranty deed....
What you talkin' 'bout, Willis?
Is this a political decision or a technical decision?
What you talkin' 'bout, Willis?
> Is this a political decision or a technical decision?
technical first, political 2nd
> following up on this [msg=250753]thread[/msg]...
>
> looks like we are going to be pulling a few of the pins and filing a correction. At this point, we will just show RW as purchased in 1933 for the FAP job (the west side), and say that the Existing Co Rd RW from 1887 (the east side), was not retraced in our survey.
>
If I have to ask what a FAP job is, does that mean I can't afford it?
Also, who are you working for and what side of parcel 2 are you pulling irons, and where are/were those irons set the first time?
Aside from the State Highway, and possible road by use (north line)
I would think that the description for tract 2 would only be subject
to a 10' utility and 30' access easement the way it is drawn.
FAP "Federal Aid Project". It meant, back in 1933 they used federal funds to build the highway project.
> > following up on this [msg=250753]thread[/msg]...
> >
> > looks like we are going to be pulling a few of the pins and filing a correction. At this point, we will just show RW as purchased in 1933 for the FAP job (the west side), and say that the Existing Co Rd RW from 1887 (the east side), was not retraced in our survey.
> >
>
>
> If I have to ask what a FAP job is, does that mean I can't afford it?-
Tom is correct-
>
> Also, who are you working for and what side of parcel 2 are you pulling irons, and where are/were those irons set the first time?
We are working for the Dept Of Trans, marking existing RW- the pins that will be removed are ours set 2 months ago- west of the existing pins on the east side of tract 2 - our note on corrected survey will state that re-tracing the existing RW is beyond the scope of the current survey.
(with Best regards to Kent MCM. 😉 )
>
> Aside from the State Highway, and possible road by use (north line)
> I would think that the description for tract 2 would only be subject
> to a 10' utility and 30' access easement the way it is drawn.
the problem is the description and deed are calling for the aliquot part, but the drawing and acreage only have tract 2 going to the HWY/Co. rd RW (east side of tract 2) Oversight or on purpose?
Whenever I ignore the elephant in the corner, which I've often done, I seem to end up back there within two years having to set the line or corner I tried so hard to ignore.
Just sayin...
... I'm sure I'll probably repeat the process again myself.
Hopefully not tomorrow.
Steve
I agree.....
the powers that be are still mulling it over. I'm counseling that now is the time to give it our best shot- putting it off will only continue to prolong the question...
> the powers that be are still mulling it over. I'm counseling that now is the time to give it our best shot- putting it off will only continue to prolong the question...
It annoys the hell out of me, however, I can't think of a single time where ignoring the elephant was not effective. The parties all had time to acquiesce to what I figured out long ago and the proverbial fart in church was became quiet and odorless.
Steve