I'm fighting with a couple right now,,,,,,they insist the Co. Rd. is a taking and it's not, the county doesn't want it, it doesn't follow the existing roadway even close, but the reviewer is like a dog with a bone.?ÿ
What did the current owner buy? If they only purchased up to the R/W or easement line then you're problem is solved.
We run into this type of easement/row deed all the time in Idaho with most being recorded from the 30s to the 50s.?ÿ There is a specific date (which escapes me at this time) whereas every highway deed before <insert date here> was deemed to be an easement regardless of language.?ÿ I'm certain this came about due to the very issues being discussed in this forum.
It really depends on your state law.
What did the current owner buy?
It's interesting that you ask that.?ÿ The most recent deed excepts out the strip as can be seen here.
?ÿThe deed before that one though, which comes well after the easement document, makes no mention of the easement.
?ÿSeems the previous owner still owns a sliver of land they can't use.
?ÿ
Based on your client's deed they do not own the strip in question.
We have the very same issue covering about 100+ properties on 5 miles of road in my area.?ÿ Some have cleaned up title, most don't care. Our county will re-map the properties either.?ÿ They identify the entire right of way as right of way regardless of method(s) or procedures used to clean up ownership.
This is a highway project which may require a right of way take in this area, but I'm wondering if this 33' easement which is bigger than the usual 25' the state claims will be sufficient for the project.?ÿ Either way yeah I'm guessing the county couldn't care less about the messy paperwork.
@wa-id-surveyor It doesn't necessarily work like that. Look up the doctrine of strips and gores. Despite attorneys and land owners attempting to litter the country with useless strips of land with no owners the courts aren't having it.
What did the current owner buy?
It's interesting that you ask that.?ÿ The most recent deed excepts out the strip as can be seen here.
?ÿThe deed before that one though, which comes well after the easement document, makes no mention of the easement.
?ÿSeems the previous owner still owns a sliver of land they can't use.
?ÿ
Probably not. See the doctrine of strips and gores.
?ÿ
The doctrine looks like something that would get used when the former landowners are dead and it's not possible to verify their intent; because I can't imagine someone would resist correcting the record when presented with the silliness of the situation.
The doctrine looks like something that would get used when the former landowners are dead and it's not possible to confirm their intent; because I can't imagine someone would resist correcting the record when presented with the silliness of the situation.
Yes the presumed intent is to not create usless slivers of land. The intent to create a usless sliver of land needs to be expressed very strongly to overcome this presumption.
A deed correction could be a clean option in some cases, but I have never had push back from anyone besides deed staker surevors when the remaining sliver is clearly valueless.?ÿ
?ÿ
