Just started on this job today. This should be fun. Here's the pertinent history.
1980--Jane buys Lot 6 and lives in house there.
1982--Jane marries Gary.
1985--Jane and Gary buy Lots 7 & 8 and rent out the house located mainly on Lot 8.
1985 +/- Jane and Gary greatly enlarge their house on Lot 6 such that it extends about 15 feet or so into Lot 7.
1990--Jane and Gary divorce and Jane gets to keep both houses and the three lots.
1993--Jane sells Lots 7 & 8 to someone. No one notices her house occupies part of Lot 7.
1995-- Jane sells Lot 6 to someone else. Again, no one notices the house problem.
1995 to 2012-- both properties resell a couple or more times.
2012-- Owner of Lot 6 gets foreclosed on by US Bank.
2013-- Sheriff passes ownership of Lot 6 to the bank.
2013-- Neighbor who has Lots 7 & 8 discovers his property includes part of the house the bank just acquired. Meanwhile, bank has a buyer for the foreclosed property.
2013-- Neighbor contacts real estate agent involved in the planned sale and explains the problem. Agent calls bank. Bank goes nuts. Bank hires me to survey and attempt to find a line that "should" be the property line to get all improvements on the proper side of said line, thus satisfying everyone involved. I don't know if the neighbor is looking for any kind of compensation or reward for trying to straighten out a mess that has gone on for far too long.
How this problem was allowed to go somewhat unnoticed for so long is what amazes me. The appraiser's maps clearly show the problem. Apparently, no one ever called for a survey, or an appraisal, or even a mortgagee title inspection (mortgage survey/improvement location certificate) through all the intervening years. The house that was foreclosed upon had a mortgage in excess of $150,000 which would place it in the top 10 percent of houses in this particular city.
youn's pesky surveyors always start all kindsa trouble
Repeat after me...
I love my job
I love my job
I love my job.
That case is similar to the California Supreme Court Case: French v. Brinkman, 60 Cal. 2d 547 (1963).
Assuming everyone signed a Warranty Deed, and they all now have to defend the deeds they signed... Wow, SURVEYS are too expensive.
The buyer of Lot 6 got Lot 6 but not all of the house. Imagine the dining room and part of the garage are on Lot 7, the owner of Lot 7 cold use their dining room.
The House Is Apurtenant To Lot 6
The owner of lot 6 and the house never intended to sell part of the house when Lots 7 & 8 were sold.
It is neccessary to clean up the mess in an equitable way.
It is best that all parties act reasonably, because I doubt any judge will suffer greedy fools.
Equity can be in land only, or land and money. Someone on behalf of Lot 6, maybe even the foolish builder/seller, should be exchanging money for land with the current 7/8 owner.
Paul in PA
The House Is Apurtenant To Lot 6
Every so often the real estate folks need a little insight into what can happen when they steer people away from surveys.