What is being conveyed?
Hack
Someone is quitclaiming any title or interest rights they have in the hatched-in area? I would presume they had an easement across the property and are giving up their rights to the landowner. But reading the referenced documents might clear that up a bit.
...Or am I missing something?
> Someone is quitclaiming any title or interest rights they have in the hatched-in area? I would presume they had an easement across the property and are giving up their rights to the landowner. But reading the referenced documents might clear that up a bit.
>
> ...Or am I missing something?
No MC not the case. There was no earlier easement. It is a very poor attempt to create an easement for DeLellus upon land of Sanborn.
Well that is confusing then. They are granting all "rights title or interest" to the land that is hatched and labeled "easement" on the sketch the way I read it.
They do reference two other filings. I was just wondering if that clarifies it a bit.
There really should be some wording describing why the easement is to exist, i.e., utilities, ingress/egress, something else. Of course, this is a fairly crappy plat, but perfectly acceptable by 1995 standards.
> Well that is confusing then. They are granting all "rights title or interest" to the land that is hatched and labeled "easement" on the sketch the way I read it.
>
> They do reference two other filings. I was just wondering if that clarifies it a bit.
The references do not help.
It's a bi-polar situation. Some elements of easement and some of a fee conveyance.
I didn't post it for solutions. I posted just as an example of poor work by whoever prepared the document.
I believe the surveyor thought he was describing an easement. Otherwise he would have labeled it Lot B with a note combining it with Lot B2. Consistent with Lot A as shown. That is the normal procedure in these parts.
The poor work was by the attorney drafting the deed. "All interests" and "easement" are a strange combination.
Hack
>fairly crappy
The surveyor preparing the plat should have indicated the purpose/allowed uses of the easement. Isn't that a basic requirement?
The deed appears to be home-prepared by amateurs. If any attorney assisted in its preparation, they should be ashamed and censured. If the surveyor or the board that approved the plat saw it before filing, they should have told the parties to get help.
> >fairly crappy
>
> The surveyor preparing the plat should have indicated the purpose/allowed uses of the easement. Isn't that a basic requirement?
>
> The deed appears to be home-prepared by amateurs. If any attorney assisted in its preparation, they should be ashamed and censured. If the surveyor or the board that approved the plat saw it before filing, they should have told the parties to get help.
Bill
I would have agreed with you at one time and I certainly prefer to label the easement as to it's use. For example, "Drainage Easement"..."Access Easement". But I have found there are instances that the general term easement on the plan is preferable while the more defined parameters follow in the instrument. Obviously that was not done here.
Hack
I understand you aren't looking for a solution, but I also assumed you posted it to elicit comments. Anyway, I earlier assumed the grantor had an easement, in which case conveying all rights title and interest would convey his easement rights away, and a purpose wouldn't have to be expressed because of the fact that he was conveying all his interest. If that were the case, the document would make sense to me.
If in fact the grantor held the triangular parcel in fee, and he wants to grant an easement over it, he can't be granting all rights and title, and he must put down the purpose of the easement. As it reads, his "easement" would transfer in full fee I would guess (regardless if whether the word easement is in the document).
That's how I see it anyway.
I bet that the easement was a last minute "emergency" addition and everything was rush-rush-rush to add it. It looks a little like an afterthought on the plan.
"All our right, title and interest" was probably boilerplate for the attorney's regular deeds that accidentally got included here.
But leaving out the purpose of the easement (especially in the deed) opens up a lot of possibilities!
I agree. 99% of the time, the easement is labelled as what it is. But once in a while, it's just, "easement".
The conveying document is what's important here, as no matter what the plan indicates, there's only an easement if it's conveyed.
So, while the document is confusing, I believe that the statement, "An easement as shown on Plan...", trumps the, "All our right...", statement, in determining the intent.
> I agree. 99% of the time, the easement is labelled as what it is. But once in a while, it's just, "easement".
>
> The conveying document is what's important here, as no matter what the plan indicates, there's only an easement if it's conveyed.
>
> So, while the document is confusing, I believe that the statement, "An easement as shown on Plan...", trumps the, "All our right...", statement, in determining the intent.
That's a good argument John. we are split nearly 50-50 here. Was up your way a couple of days ago at Old Marsh CC. Very nice course.
Hack
As much as we complain about Lawyers they have a purpose. Writing a clear understandable easement document is one of them. Just leave the location description to the surveyor.
I agree with John. It's an easement, but needs to be better defined. Perhaps you can get the landowners to record a confirmatory deed with a proper description of the rights conveyed.