JB..
A surveyor-to-surveyor level conclusion would be a "happy ending" to this dilemma. But both original surveyors of 'record' are deceased.
The recent survey of the north property states that the 15' access easement doesn't adequately 'extend' to that property. I probably would have said the same thing on my survey. I am in contact with the surveyor that recently provided an ALTA of the north parcel.
The entity that has that property under contract is threatening my client with litigation to quiet title. My client hasn't owned any of the property for 12 years and was not the grantor of the access easement. (Although he was the original grantor of the north parcel, the access easement was granted after title was transferred.)
While this indicates my client sold a piece of property with no access, the access easement was recorded a few days after the WD was filed. This indicates to me there was some third-party agreeing occurring.
My client doesn't necessarily claim title to the 'strip'. Apparently title examiners have inferred that the north parcel's alleged 'clouded title' was his responsibility. He is aware that if he claims title to a 'strip', he will eventually lose it.
His contention is that it is a matter between the owners of the north and south parcels, who also do not see eye-to-eye. I was contracted to survey both lots and assess the recent survey of the north property to evaluate the claims of the entity that has the north property under contract.
What troubles me is that he wanted me for this because "he heard I was good in court." Something I (and a lot of other folks) would probably argue. At this point I am merely pragmatically analyzing what is 'out there'. Although my client has retained counsel, I have yet to meet with them. The process is on-going.
While I agree that this gap should have never been perpetuated, I would point out two things that are worth keeping in mind. First, it is likely that the poor legal description for the north parcel may not have been created by a surveyor at all. More than likely it was created by an attorney sitting in his office using record information. The first surveyor to place this on the ground should have identified the issue and it should have been resolved then.
Secondly, since this issue has been identified, monumented and perpetuated for some time now, it would be very foolish (and negligent IMO) for any surveyor to assert his power to simply "fix" this issue or pretend that it does not exist. Perhaps we as a profession should prevent these issues from being created in the first place (although under current law here it is difficult to see how we can ever achieve such a goal) but once they do exist these become very real title issues and they must be dealt with as such. It is our duty to identify these issues and to provide our professional opinions on solutions. But we cannot impose solutions at this point in the process.
Bob
JB..
I can't see the easement not extending to the north parcel. When he sold the north parcel I can't imagine that both he and the buyer didn't think there was access.
At a minimum there is an implied easement across the gap.
It just doesn't make sense otherwise.