I have a new lot survey in an older subdivision (parts of lots), it's got Junior Senior all over it, north to south and east to west, so go down and research everything and find that it's senior north south and junior east west. Took a while, had to run it all the way back.
So go around the block, and there is all of 0.04' in it.
Any junior senior adjustments are in the thousandths, not even worth the effort to deal with.
I know, I know had to do it anyway, but it was a total waste of time, the existing deeds are just fine without any adjustments.
Sometimes,,,,,,,,,,,,and I gave the lady the speech,,,,,,,,,,,,how I need to do the research, how these older subdivisions are usually full of error,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,blah, blah, blah.................
Maybe should have done the basic survey first, then look back through all the deeds if I needed to.
Recovering boundary lines starts with research. It is impossible to certify any line if you don't know how it was created and the treatment since. Even when we run into a string of 'wow that was simple', don't be fooled. The minute you stop the up front research someone will get hurt...
thebionicman, post: 334361, member: 8136 wrote: Recovering boundary lines starts with research. It is impossible to certify any line if you don't know how it was created and the treatment since. Even when we run into a string of 'wow that was simple', don't be fooled. The minute you stop the up front research someone will get hurt...
Well to a point, the 40 year rule protects deeds here.
MightyMoe, post: 334362, member: 700 wrote: Well to a point, the 40 year rule protects deeds here.
My understanding of the 40 year rule is that it limits claims not noticed for 40 years. If my deed of 45 years is junior to another of 75 years I don't see the application. Knowing the State might help me get your point.
Basically, the deeds there are all in agreement, I had done a street project so I had all the easements and any vacations in the area. You are correct the junior senior issue is all it came down to. I almost always find some issue with it, however, this time I'm just spinning my wheels, yes I need to take the record distance north and south, and give the record east and west, but even if I were to prorate, I hit in the same spot. Just an unusual situation. Not that I'll stop doing research, but it was fruitless for this piece.
MightyMoe, post: 334362, member: 700 wrote: Well to a point, the 40 year rule protects deeds here.
"... the 40 year rule..."
What is this? Never heard of it...
Jim in AZ, post: 334403, member: 249 wrote: "... the 40 year rule..."
What is this? Never heard of it...
The title people here got a law passed that you only need to research back 40 years,,,,,,,,,,kinda,,,,,,,,,it's complicated.
A more cynical person might say it is a title insurance industry protection act.
We aren't the only state with it, I've been told each state with it is different, but you need to be aware
I'm not sure if it is a statute or law, but I was told a few years ago by a title examiner that in Oklahoma a 'current title search' only included a specific number of years. At the time that took it back to WWII. His reasoning was that anything prior to that was, well...just "history"....apparently common practice in some circles.
MightyMoe, post: 334405, member: 700 wrote: The title people here got a law passed that you only need to research back 40 years,,,,,,,,,,kinda,,,,,,,,,it's complicated.
A more cynical person might say it is a title insurance industry protection act.
We aren't the only state with it, I've been told each state with it is different, but you need to be aware
Oh - OK, that issue. I'm not aware that its a law, just an internal tile co. policy. I don't believe that it extends to surveyors...
wtf good is a 40 year search? Going back 40 yrs doesn't help me much.
Most of the utility easements I see predate 1975 (yes, 1975 is REALLY 40 yrs ago!!!) With luck, the abstracters have an earlier abstract on which to tack their current search - if not - 40 years, meshuggeneh.
Jim in AZ, post: 334416, member: 249 wrote: Oh - OK, that issue. I'm not aware that its a law, just an internal tile co. policy. I don't believe that it extends to surveyors...
Oh it's law for sure, it extends to surveyors, it does help with some issues, but the law has exceptions that I deal with all the time, water rights, easements (like Sgt Shultz says above) minerals, and I really have never paid any much attention to it.
I'm more being sarcastic than anything else
paden cash, post: 334412, member: 20 wrote: I'm not sure if it is a statute or law, but I was told a few years ago by a title examiner that in Oklahoma a 'current title search' only included a specific number of years. At the time that took it back to WWII. His reasoning was that anything prior to that was, well...just "history"....apparently common practice in some circles.
Oklahoma Statutes
[hl]TITLE 16. CONVEYANCES å¤ 71 - Marketable Record Title Defined[/hl]
Any person having the legal capacity to own land in this state, who has an unbroken chain of title of record to any interest in land for thirty (30) years or more, shall be deemed to have a marketable record title....
These statutes are about title, not boundary. If the West 300' was sold
100 years ago and the East 300' was sold 99 years ago, researching back 40 years wont cut it if it turns out there was only 500' .
MightyMoe, post: 334436, member: 700 wrote: Oh it's law for sure, it extends to surveyors, it does help with some issues, but the law has exceptions that I deal with all the time, water rights, easements (like Sgt Shultz says above) minerals, and I really have never paid any much attention to it.
I'm more being sarcastic than anything else
The 40 year rule is only for title companies because it applies to enforceable liens. Liens over 40 years old (or whatever your state has made it) are not enforceable and therefore title is clear in that regard.
aliquot, post: 334474, member: 2486 wrote: These statutes are about title, not boundary. If the West 300' was sold
100 years ago and the East 300' was sold 99 years ago, researching back 40 years wont cut it if it turns out there was only 500' .
"If the West 300' was sold100 years ago and the East 300' was sold 99 years ago, researching back 40 years wont cut it if it turns out there was only 500'."
Which of course was my point, now take it further, what if there is 600.005' to deal with?
as far as not being about boundary,,,,,,,,,,,,,that is a bit simplistic
Duane Frymire, post: 334478, member: 110 wrote: The 40 year rule is only for title companies because it applies to enforceable liens. Liens over 40 years old (or whatever your state has made it) are not enforceable and therefore title is clear in that regard.
Its not only about liens, although that is it's main purpose.
But if you are the type of surveyor advising your client to file quiet title action or getting quit claims from someone's great-great granddaughter, or showing little gaps everywhere, you may want to rethink what you are doing in this state.
aliquot, post: 334474, member: 2486 wrote: These statutes are about title, not boundary. If the West 300' was sold
100 years ago and the East 300' was sold 99 years ago, researching back 40 years wont cut it if it turns out there was only 500' .
"These statutes are about title, not boundary."
That's how I see it...
Sergeant Schultz, post: 334433, member: 315 wrote: wtf good is a 40 year search? Going back 40 yrs doesn't help me much.
Most of the utility easements I see predate 1975 (yes, 1975 is REALLY 40 yrs ago!!!) With luck, the abstracters have an earlier abstract on which to tack their current search - if not - 40 years, meshuggeneh.
"wtf good is a 40 year search? Going back 40 yrs doesn't help me much."
It's not meant to help surveyors! It's an indication of what risk title companies are willing to take when issuing title insurance... it has nothing to do with anything else.
Jim in AZ, post: 334543, member: 249 wrote: "wtf good is a 40 year search? Going back 40 yrs doesn't help me much."
It's not meant to help surveyors! It's an indication of what risk title companies are willing to take when issuing title insurance... it has nothing to do with anything else.
A summary of one of the latest rulings dealing with the law
Plaintiffs owned property that was conveyed by warranty deed to J.A. Reed. In 1968, Reed conveyed the property to Julianne Biggane, and in 2006, the Biggane Trust transferred the property to Plaintiffs. Prior to Reed's transfer of the property to Biggane, a pole line easement across the property was granted to PacifiCorp's predecessor in interest. Reed, however, signed the easement grant as president of Continental Live Stock Company, rather than in his personal capacity, at a time that the company had no interest in the underlying land. Therefore, the easement was a "wild deed." At issue before the Supreme Court was whether a "wild deed" can be the "root of title" under the Wyoming Marketable Title Act. This case arose when Plaintiffs filed an action seeking to have the easement declared invalid because it emanated from a wild deed. The district court held that the Act validated PacifiCorp's easement across Plaintiffs' property. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a wild deed may constitute the root of title under the Act, and a wild deed serving as a root of title that does not bear a defect "on its face" is not an "inherent defect" in the chain of record title under the Act.
I'm actually dealing with a different "wild deed" it will be interesting if the family involved follows up with it, the time is counting down on that one.