I fail to see why it makes any difference, due to the three people receiving both half interests of their parcel, and it sounds like each set of deeds were simultaneous. What could be senior to what?

Did the executor/trustee intend to convey the same three parcels that the wife and husband originally owned, or did he intend to create three new parcels with new boundary lines?

@peter-lothian I'm meeting with the client next week. Maybe they have an idea what the intent was. It's not clear from the record.

The lack of wording to the effect of "...being the same premises as described in the deed dated _ recorded at _..." suggests an intent to create new boundaries. Unless such phrasing is not traditional or legally required in your area.

Is Georgia a so-called "race state"?  That legal technicality has always bothered me. Some random clerk in a Register of Deeds Office is clearing off their desk which contains a stack of deeds to be recorded.  It makes no difference to them which random deed gets time stamped before or after any other deed in the stack.  Yet, that somehow creates a crucial junior/senior rights dilemma in the mind of some legal Beagle.

Race statute

A race statute is a type of recording act which gives priority of title to the first party who records their claim to a piece of property, even if that party had notice of an earlier unrecorded claim on the property.

A small minority of states, including Delaware and North Carolina currently have race statutes. 

Race statutes encourage prompt recordation and make priority of title easy to determine but may reward unscrupulous behavior. 

For example: A purchases a plot of land from O. The next day, B also purchases that plot of land from O. B records their claim before A. Under a race statute, B’s claim to the plot would trump A’s, even if B knew at the time of purchase that A had already paid for the plot. 

To avoid this outcome, most states have adopted either notice statutes or race-notice statutes.

Posted by: @stacy-carroll

↑

Due to serious errors in the descriptions of the three parcels and to the fact that no one knew exactly where the boundaries were for years

Were these errors present in the deeds to the Husband and Wife when they acquired their interests? If so then they should be considered the same parcels.

If the interests were conveyed to the 3 people as undivided then it shouldn't matter. Granted the three people do not know the boundaries of what they own but it is still the same parcels with the same uncertain boundaries.

Is there any indication the executor was trying to convey separate interests? I'm guessing he conveyed parcel 1 of the 3 to 1 of the three people, parcel 2 to another and parcel 3 to the 3rd person. Can he convey parcels that don't already exist? In other words can he divide any of the existing parcels and convey only a portion just by deed? Seems like the county would not recognize a newly created parcel if it was not done per their regulations. If that is the case it would make a good argument that the intent was only to convey the parcels as they already existed and not as a newly created parcel by deed description.  

If the facts you have described are accurate, then simultaneous or Jr. removed link rights are probably the least of your concern about the conveyances.

Wording is key here…

Husband and wife have an undivided ½ interest, together; they are not separate.

It might depend on the state, but…the minute he dies, she still owns the ½ interest, in its entirety.

Doesn’t matter what the testator (deceased) will says.

Wife is still alive, and now has the full undivided ½ interest, for at least one month.

You don’t give a timeline as to when R attempts to convey the interest after husband’s death, but it doesn’t matter because wife has all the undivided ½ interest the minute he dies.

R (executor) cannot convey on behalf of testator due to operation of the will because deceased’s estate has no interest to convey.

Not to mention this issue would be tied up in probate court for longer than a month.

The idea of using a will to create a trust is foolish by today’s standards.

The estate will be subject to probate and the property (real or personal) may not not end up in the trust.

If a living trust was not established, then much of the testator’s wishes are at the whim of the court and any interested party that may have a claim (no matter how small or frivolous) to the estate(s).

Then the wife dies. 

You make no mention of the trust, but do mention her estate, which will now be subject to probate, and all the same issues as the husband.

I submit that the legal descriptions and the conveyancing, as presented, don’t matter one bit.

Most survey issues die on the vine because of the legal issues that come first.

They need an attorney, not a surveyor.

Senior rights would apply, but based on the deeds that first created the parcels. 

@montyburns2026 I was going to say something similar.  The Executor of the will cannot dispose of assets before the will is probated and all applicable estate taxes and fees are paid.

If the husband's will leaves his interest to the wife Jr & Sr rights cease to exist because the wife has sole interest in all of the parcels.  In some jurisdictions when one owner holds title to contiguous parcels the parcels are consolidated for taxation purposes.

Unless something is missing here it seems as though the Executor is jumping the gun preparing descriptions to transfer title, even if it is expressly directed in the wife's will to do so.  The probate process would likely require a survey to determine how much land the wife's estate actually holds for the purpose of valuation.

Another important point is that the wording of the will has not been discussed.  Does the wife have children, brothers, sisters or anybody who contest the will during the probate process for any reason?

As an LS, based on the info presented, I would advise the client to seek legal advice before transferring any estate assets.  The Executor has legal and fiducial responsibilities to the estate and potential heirs that may come out of the woodwork.  Any transactions occurring before final probate could be deemed legally null and void and the executor could face financial sanctions.

There are definitely legal aspects involved that need to be resolved as the husband passed first in time, probably leaving all of his interests to the wife.  Whether the wife passed away an hour later or years later, her estate needs to be probated before anything is sold.  

@norman-oklahoma how does the wife, after the husband passed and left his interests to her, have Jr. or Sr. rights over herself?  Nothing is mentioned as to how the contiguous parcels were created leaving the possibility of a subdivision and simultaneous conveyance on the table.

There are a ton of probate issues that need to be resolved before title is conveyed and the probate courts would likely order a survey of all of the wife's holdings to value the properties and make sure that what is being conveyed actually exists.

I suggest you read up on undivided interest(s), types of tennants, and estates.

Many (almost all the others that posted), misunderstand how undivided interest works.

A husband and wife (generally) are tennants by entirety, which means they are one (1) tennant.

They own an undivided 1/2 interest in (up to) three parcels; per the facts.

Husband does not own 1/2, wife does not own one-half. They own one-half. That's how undivided interest works; in all of the parcels they have an interest in. Other(s), cummulatively, own the other undivided 1/2 interest.

Unless there are very specific circumstances, they are not tennants in common, joint tennants, etc.

Unless the facts are incorrect.

I can appreciate an imprecise accounting of facts so as to lead up to the "survey question".

However, "as an LS", the assesment has still missed the mark, in terms of accuracy, precision, and legality.

2 out of 3 ain't bad, but it's the last one that will sink the ship. Every time.

Is there a way to turn off the A.I. so it does not flag "1/2 intererst" or "Jr/Sr rights"?

My ex-wife was abandoned by her second husband and she could not find him.  His parents appeared to have some contact with him but absolutely refused to aid her search.  I believe she had to wait five years and go through a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo to divorce him.  Fortunately, there was no real estate involved, nor any children born during their marriage.  She ended up living with husband number three for about four years before they could get a marriage license.

I think what she had to do was have him declared legally dead, if I remember correctly.

Posted by: @chris-bouffard

↑

.... how does the wife, after the husband passed and left his interests to her, have Jr. or Sr. rights over herself?

As I understand it the 3 parcels were created and subsequently acquired by the decedents sometime prior to their passing. The question at hand is about the boundaries of the three parcels, not about who holds the title to them. The legalities surrounding the wills and such are immaterial in regards to the boundaries.

As for who holds title to these parcels, there are way too many unknowns in the OP to really say.

Actually, the original question was:

Would the conveyances be considered simultaneous or would Junior/Senior rights apply?

I don't see a boundary question in there.

But I do see a title question in there.

And yes, it seems quite messy.

And now it seems the spell checker is working fine, so you don't have to see me misspell tenants any more.

I blame the pencil.

@montyburns2026 I suspect it's something on your end because our AI isn't that invasive.

Posted by: @montyburns2026

↑

I don't see a boundary question in there.

What other purpose would a question about junior/senior rights serve? How in the wide, wide world of sports would junior/senior rights affect title?

Sorry about the delay in replying to this thread. One of our sons (adult) had to have an appendectomy in a hospital 40 miles from home, then our county was visited by a couple tornadoes and horrendous rain. Spent hours on the washed out driveway only for it to rain that night and undo all I did... 

Two of the three parcels in question were surveyed and platted in the 1960s. Then (my theory) is that the parcels were reconfigured in the early 1980's. Somehow, one parcel was deeded by the original 1960s plat but the others were deeded by the 1980s plat. However the husband and wife retained ownership, I don't know why. Husband was deeded 1/2 interest in the parent and the wife was deeded 1/2 interest by separate deeds. The wife was deeded the remaining parcel as by herself. They lived on one parcel and family members lived on the other two but were renters. The parcels were to be distributed based on the wills of the couple. There was one deed from the trust of the husband (created by his will) and one from the estate of the wife. Both going into R's name as trustee and executor, respectively. The there was a deed from R as trustee and a deed from R as executor for the two parcels that were jointly owned. The third was only owned by the wife so there was only one deed out of her estate. Clear as mud yet? 

Being that it was family on all three parcels, no one cared about divisions. Now it's not all family....

I do not read the original text by OP as a boundary (location) question.

Since the OP was asking about conveyances, the appropriate question should have been “simultaneous vs sequential conveyances”, not “jr/sr rights”. 

Either way, in this context, both are/would be a title question, not a boundary question.

Not sure I understand your last sentence, but jr/sr rights is a title issue.

That’s the whole point. Senior parcel has superior title.

Location of the lines be xxxxxx.

OP is asking conveyance questions, another is asking boundary questions, and I’m over here asking why people struggle to communicate when it’s all right there in the text.

Surveyors sure seem to find a way to make everything a location issue first, when that is usually one of the last things to hash out after all the other issues have been resolved.

And with the 11th hour, under duress, theorized summary of after-the-fact facts of this case, I suspect much of what was discussed in this thread is irrelevant, because that situation is a dumpster fire with a hot mess on top.

OP: Hope your kid and everyone else is okay…