It appears you have the belief you can sell what you don't own.
Cites would be appreciated.
Paul in PA
Say Paul, I'd be interested in following this discussion, can you link to whatever Keith said to prompt this, Please?
If you'd bought the brooklyn bridge as many times as I have, you wouldn't need no stinkin' cites. 😉
I have read that statement from Keith before and could never understand/agree with his point of view...
perhaps this is the reference: https://surveyorconnect.com/index.php?mode=thread&id=201423#p201601
thanks peter, I missed the end of that exchange.
Don
This has been an argument of Keith's for a while. [msg=190223]here[/msg] is another (if I linked that right).
edit: you have to scroll down. (How do you link those with it in the position of the actual post you are trying to link?)
here is some of our exchange on the topic.:
Is there a surveyor here,
by adamsurveyor , Colorado, Monday, February 04, 2013, 13:52 (64 days ago) @ Keith
"You can't sell what you don't own" is another one of those bogus theories!
Keith
How in the world is that a bogus theory?
Er....just in case I'm wrong, can I interest you in a high-rise in downtown Manhattan? Cheap!
Post reply
3557 views link
adamsurveyor
by Keith, On the Central Coast of California, Monday, February 04, 2013, 15:19 (64 days ago) @ adamsurveyor
Well, if it isn't bogus, there must be a good source to where and why it was stated?
Has nothing to do with land surveying.
Right?
--
Check us out here...... http://www.ccwwa.org/
Post reply
3446 views link
adamsurveyor
by adamsurveyor , Colorado, Monday, February 04, 2013, 15:38 (64 days ago) @ Keith
"Well, if it isn't bogus, there must be a good source to where and why it was stated?
Has nothing to do with land surveying.
Right?"
It certainly would have to do with the intent of a deed, and/or whether the landing being transferred was owned by the grantor don't you think? Wouldn't that have to do with land surveying and property boundaries?
Post reply
3430 views link
adamsurveyor
by Keith, On the Central Coast of California, Monday, February 04, 2013, 17:11 (64 days ago) @ adamsurveyor
Got a source for the quote?
In Keith's defense, under contract law, you can sell what you don't own as long as you are legally in possession of it (not stolen property). If you give someone your GPS system to hold onto for awhile, and they sell it, you may not get it back. Of course you can sue your former friend for replacement.
But there are an awful lot of differences between real property and personal property. Most notably the requirement for a writing, and the very few exceptions to it. In affect that makes it so you can't sell real property you don't own, although the color of title created may eventually help one own the real property for a different reason than the contract alone.
> It appears you have the belief you can sell what you don't own.
>
> Cites would be appreciated.
>
> Paul in PA
Not to speak for Keith, but I'm pretty sure he does not hold the belief that you can sell what you don't own. Put the straw man back in the barn.
How I look at it is that the "you can sell what you don't own" theory has no place in a boundary location determination. It refers to title law, not boundary law.
Are you really going to claim that you cannot locate the boundaries of a parcel of land unless the person hiring you has marketable title?
I'm going to have to go along here. You can sell what you don't own, on purpose, by accident, or whatever. Sometimes it's called fraud, other times' it's unintentional. Such as selling property that has an unclaimed (so far) adverse possession claim potential...
Maybe the description is flawed, but the intent discernible.
Don
> It appears you have the belief you can sell what you don't own.
>
> Cites would be appreciated.
As with any statement, when taken out of context of the circumstances for which it was intended results in an absurdity.
The statement that "you can't sell what you don't own" is a boiled down fallacy that has a basis in truth. The truth of the matter is that you can "sell" anything to any willing "buyer." Whether the object of the sale is legally "conveyed" is a different question.
Title law limits the conveyance of real property to the nature of an estate held in the grantor. If the grantor's holding is a "life estate," all that can be conveyed is a "life estate."
>57-1-4. Attempted conveyance of more than grantor owns -- Effect.
>A conveyance made by an owner of an estate for life or years, purporting to convey a greater estate than he could lawfully transfer, does not work a forfeiture of his estate, but passes to the grantee all the estate which the grantor could lawfully transfer.
Likewise, when you convey a parcel of land, you can only convey the land within and up to its boundaries. You cannot convey a greater estate than you hold. That estate could be comprised of a fee title holding or a right of possession. The conveyance is limited to whatever quality of title is held by the grantor.
The statement in the context of boundary determinations under principles of boundary law has no meaning. The establishment of land boundaries does not involve the conveyance of title and does not rely upon title law at all. That's why surveyors are not title officers and why title officers are not surveyors. They are two completely independent and separate bodies of law. They are that way for a reason. "What" you own is an entirely different question than "where" it's located. Title companies don't insure location and surveys don't ensure title.
There are title laws which allow conveyance of property that you don't necessarily own. The right of adverse possession (a title doctrine, not a boundary doctrine) allows the conveyance of the right of possession to subsequent purchasers even when it has not ripened to a fee title (the principle of tacking). Title laws also allow for the conveyance of property when it has been adversely possessed.
>57-1-11. Claimant out of possession may convey.
>Any person claiming title to any real estate may, notwithstanding there may be an adverse possession thereof, sell and convey his interest therein in the same manner and with the same effect as if he were in the actual possession thereof.
Other certain title laws govern the sale of property by a grantor not holding the right of conveyance, allowing for repair of the title problem through the doctrine of "after acquired title."
>57-1-10. After-acquired title passes.
>(1) If any person conveys any real estate by conveyance purporting to convey the real estate in fee simple absolute, and at the time of the conveyance the person does not have the legal estate in the real estate, but afterwards acquires the legal estate:
>(a) the legal estate subsequently acquired immediately passes to the grantee, the grantee's heirs, successors, or assigns; and
>(b) the conveyance is as valid as if the legal estate had been in the grantor at the time of the conveyance.
Title laws and conveyancing laws certainly limit the conveyance of property to the quality of the estate owned at the time of the conveyance and possibly acquired after the conveyance. Under title law, "overlaps" and "gaps" are a legal impossibility. Again, however, in the context of land boundary locations, title law does not govern the boundary location. Boundary laws stand alone as the preeminent principles which govern the locations of the extent of the title held. There can only be one boundary between two contiguous estates.
JBS
I'm not trying to speak for Keith here, but in reading some of the posts he has linked, I think I understand what he is trying to say. Say you have a section corner and a quarter corner in place, and you find a corner that is halfway in between them. If you use this quarter quarter corner, it puts a bend in the line. You can't have a bend in that line right? It has to be straight. Someone will say "if you put a bend in the line, then you would be selling something in another quarter section and you can't sell what you don't own". I don't think Keith is saying you can sell property you don't own, but that you can put a bend in the line because a corner was set in the past, even though it doesn't make a perfect straight line, there fore you really aren't selling ground that someone else owns.
Thanks JB and David,
I really did not think that my bogus claim on the statement should be that difficult to understand?
It simply is a bogus reason for not accepting a found junior corner monument that is not on an instrument straight line between senior corners!
You will read this bogus statement (as it relates to land boundaries) as the rationale of deed stakers and measurement experts in blindly believing that junior corner monuments have NO control.
This can be a worthwhile thread, if you keep it in the right context!
I am not advocating that one can sell the neighbors barn!
All one needs to do is stop and think for a minute or so on what you are saying?
The saying is as bogus as the belief that junior corners are worthless.
Think about it for crying out loud!
Keith
> Thanks JB and David,
>
> I really did not think that my bogus claim on the statement should be that difficult to understand?
>
> It simply is a bogus reason for not accepting a found junior corner monument that is not on an instrument straight line between senior corners!
>
> You will read this bogus statement (as it relates to land boundaries) as the rationale of deed stakers and measurement experts in blindly believing that junior corner monuments have NO control.
>
> This can be a worthwhile thread, if you keep it in the right context!
>
> I am not advocating that one can sell the neighbors barn!
>
> All one needs to do is stop and think for a minute or so on what you are saying?
>
> The saying is as bogus as the belief that junior corners are worthless.
>
> Think about it for crying out loud!
>
> Keith
Of course Junior corners are not worthless. They just have different values than senior corners and their values depend more on circumstances.
B-)
Stephen,
I am sure you have read the comments that I referred to, about non-acceptance of junior corners?
If in fact junior corners are summarily dismissed for the bogus reasoning, then land surveying simply becomes a technical process that can be accomplished by technicians!,
Or maybe that is what we are taking about?
Here is another one of ny favorites!
Surveyors creat gaps and overlaps!
That is a result of using the bogus concept of "selling what you don't own"!
My favorite example
Pre 1930 someone buys a parcel 50' x 125'.
In 1935 or so he conveys the front portion. 50' x 70'
In 1940 or so he conveys the entire lot to someone else, 50' x 125'.
In 1955 or so the 1940 buyer sells the rear portion of the lot 50' x 55'.
Does the 1940 buyer have any right, title or interest to the front 50' x 70'? No.
If the closing attorney in 1955 had used the same description, would your survey depict the 50' x 125' or the 50' x 55'?
You can sell anything you want, but it does not mean that the buyer obtains everything you sold to him.
My favorite example
> Pre 1930 someone buys a parcel 50' x 125'.
>
> In 1935 or so he conveys the front portion. 50' x 70'
>
> In 1940 or so he conveys the entire lot to someone else, 50' x 125'.
>
> In 1955 or so the 1940 buyer sells the rear portion of the lot 50' x 55'.
>
> Does the 1940 buyer have any right, title or interest to the front 50' x 70'? No.
>
> If the closing attorney in 1955 had used the same description, would your survey depict the 50' x 125' or the 50' x 55'?
>
My survey would show my opinion of the boundary location of both parcels if necessary. If there are questions of who owns what, and what interest they may or may not have in the parcel(s), I probably would confer with the owners, attorney's, and title officers if applicable, and assist them as necessary.
> You can sell anything you want, but it does not mean that the buyer obtains everything you sold to him.
I am licensed to survey boundaries, not insure titles.
My idea on this is that you can't keep what you don't defend. If a junior monument that bends a line is allowed to represent the line for a sufficient time, it becomes the original controlling point for the line at that location.
My favorite example
I believe the argument "you can't sell what you don't own" is if a senior deed describes a parcel of land, and a newer, adjoining deed, transfers a description that mathematically overlaps 10' into the senior land, the "boundary" problem would be if the junior property goes 10' across into the senior land. In this context, I would advise the junior owner that, in my opinion, his property truncates at the senior line.
This is not a matter of a 1/16th corner causing a slight kink in the section line.
The earlier example, which is what I think most textbooks are referring to, is a boundary decision. It is that the mathematical encroachment of one description onto the other property must not be recognized and resolved. I would not be setting monuments 10' across the line because "that is what the deed says". I would be truncating the line at the senior line, because "you can't sell what you don't own". In my opinion, this is not a situation you need to get lawyers, title agents, conflicting owners together or go to court about to resolve.
I do not have a problem with Keith's primary point, that you want to accept "junior" corners intended to be set on a senior line, and having been set with due care on that line. I agree with that. I do have a problem with what I perceive as taking the original line "you can't sell what you don't own" out of context and saying it is a bogus theory.
You want cites, I would like to see the cite of that verbiage and applied to the accepting of monuments as opposed to the evaluation of a legal description that describes overlapping parcels.
To me, the taking of a written description and laying it out on the ground is a surveyor's area of expertise that virtually no one else can do. Why is it not practical to look at the adjoining deeds and ascertain where the common boundary lines are? I doubt that many here don't look at all of the appropriate deeds and figure out/resolve conflicting calls.
My favorite example
Tom,
I would hope that you are right, but some of the flippant statements here tend to make me think that some technicians doing the field work are also making the decisions with the bogus statement in mind, like they have been led to believe!