I would like to get some opinions of what size you think Lot 58 is??ÿ As you can see there are two dimensioned pieces of land that are dimensioned to the 64th line.?ÿ The Plat is from 1977 in Albany County Wyoming and the Plat is called Aliquot Subdivision for obvious reasons. ?ÿ The deeds that transferred the land do not give any additional clarity... no dimensions and no acreage.?ÿ The owner of the Poulson tract also owns Lot 58 and Lot 57 is a different owner.
I have also attached the full pdf of the Plat.
I have already asked two colleagues and got two different answers.?ÿ I appreciate your response.
?ÿ
Brian Schmalz
The line extending from ??58? appears to cross the 64th line to me, indicating that the lot also crosses the line. The 808?? distance given for the west line also suggests it crosses the 64th line. What an oddly shaped lot though.?ÿ
I'm going to say that Lot 58 is 808 feet deep. If it was intended to be 641' feet, the surveyor wouldn't have bothered to add that 35.55' dimension. The contrary may be shown.?ÿ
Attached is the Deed for the current owner of Lot 58.?ÿ It is written kind of cumbersome.?ÿ Parcels I and II together are the Poulson tract.
?ÿ
The entire east line of Poulson is the entire west line of Lot 58 with what's given.?ÿ
Do you think that the portion of Tract 58 in the SESESE of 33 is not included?
It's a sliver lot, probably meant to attach to Cash Cattle lands.?ÿ
@linebender
After some thought I edited my initial response, but didn't post it until after you responded. Sorry about that.?ÿ
Let me just add a little more to this.
The current owner of Lot 57 uses (is fenced) around the smaller sliver of land in the SESESE of Section 33. And the Albany County GIS map shows his property jogging up along that portion of land that is somewhat in question.?ÿ One may have influenced the other.
I'd say that because the west line of 58 does not extend into the street on the north side, Lot 58 stops at the street.?ÿ So I'd take the 64th dimension of 641.15 - less the 22.98 feet for the street + the 191.12 feet to the south adds up to 809.29 for the east line of 58.?ÿ That agrees pretty will with the 808.33 dimension on the west line of 58.?ÿ?ÿ
I just ran a closure and using the bearings shown on the map, lot 58 closes just fine using 809.29, 35.55, 808.33 and 74.92 for the north line.
?ÿ
I really appreciate all responses so far and would welcome any others.?ÿ I think we are pretty much all on the same page that Lot 58 looks something like this:
?ÿThere is not hostile relations at this time between the owners of each lot.?ÿ I will confirm with my client that I feel that he owns down to the 35.55 dimension.?ÿ I will recommend that he has this reviewed by an attorney.?ÿ If he can get an opinion before I file a survey I will incorporate that decision on my survey.?ÿ Otherwise, I will not include the 191' area in Lot 58 and put a note on the survey that I believe it to be part of Lot 58, but is occupied and taxed with Lot 57 and therefore not included in this survey.
Would it be too much to hope for by asking if Associated Engineers in Laramie is/are still in business?
@notsomuch That would be too much to hope for, they are not in business.?ÿ The company in town that probably owns the records has not been much help in the past for providing old file and survey information.
@Schmalzy?ÿ That's too bad....?ÿ ?ÿI wish you good luck in figuring out this plat.
Have you talked to owners??ÿ What does the owner of 57 have to say?
