What is the general consensus of the crowd concerning the following situation. I have a property that has 3 lots. Deed is one deed, that encompasses the exterior of the lots, but in the being clause calls out the 3 lots. If the owner wants to resubdivide in a different layout, I assume I would need to recombine first, but with the deed written as it is, is that necessary?
> What is the general consensus of the crowd concerning the following situation. I have a property that has 3 lots. Deed is one deed, that encompasses the exterior of the lots, but in the being clause calls out the 3 lots. If the owner wants to resubdivide in a different layout, I assume I would need to recombine first, but with the deed written as it is, is that necessary?
So are you saying there is a single metes and bounds description for the exterior bound which then calls "being Lots 1 2 and 3 in Smith Sub?" Are there 3 separate metes and bounds descriptions in the same deed? How does the plat compare with the description? Are they on the same basis of bearing? Do the bounds called for in the deed match the plat?
IMHO at the end of the day, if there is already a metes and bounds or perimeter, etc. description for the entire property, then a "recombination" is not necessary. It sounds to me like the call for the former sub lots are a way to perpetuate the record monuments found on the plat.
But a little more detail might be nice. Also, knowing what part of the country you are in would help.
Wouldn't be a problem where I work. In fact, the planning commissions around here prefer to see re-plats of this nature completed in a single step.
Why would you have to recombine the lots? Are you going to make a new subdivision? The leaps & bounds around the perimeter is something that was not necessary to begin with. If you are proposing a new platting, then do a Resubdivision of Lots, X, X & X of such and such subdivision.
What? Surveyors are in this forum right? The guy who says that the parent parcel description of the total tract "dosen't matter" needs a brown's book and a head check.
Anyway, Run your deed back a couple of times to see if it is true that tract 1 is the parent parcel description and when the others were created in a time line. If the other parcels exist the described lines in the deed WILL FOREVER EXIST AND REMAIN FIXED ONCE THEY ARE CREATED AND ONLY MAY CHANGE BY LEGAL PRINCIPALS, you can't just erase the parcel lines and act like they were never there by combination. If they want the lots adjusted, do land attachments for individual lots creating attacment parcels. If your lots have sold and separate deeds of general warrant have been created then P&Z will determine what you can and can't do. If only Lot 1 (the one that describes the total property) exists in #FEE# and lot 2 and 3 are not in #FEE# but exist as a lot 2 and lot 3 that are part of this parcel 1 then THERE IS NOT A PROBLEM. Run you deed back <3 and see is they were always "pay attention here" ALL OF or PART OF, of the parent parcel or attacments or combined lots already to exist as "all of" parcel 1. If you run the thing back and get the same "Being all of" way the hell back in time like (30 years for title insurance usually) (100 years my cutoff) then your parent parcel is tract 1 consisting of parcel 2 and 3 being already a part of and the COLOR OF TITLE changes at 50 years to roll with tract 1 description and divide the thing into whatever your client wants and P&Z will allow.
Sounds like you have the three lots combined into one parcel now in the deed your client took title in.
Around here I would just map up the original 3 lots in a lighter pen to show as a reference and perform a resub of those lots into your new lot layout.
Think in terms of title, not deeds. The "being" clause is simply intended to assist the abstractor tracing the title. So your deed describes and conveys one and only one parcel; it simply references data from when three separate parcels existed as helpful information. In effect, the owner who acquired the once-separate parcels has already accomplished the recombining.
Now, local subdivision ordinances may have some ifs or buts to add that do indeed revive the 3-lot situation. But that would depend on the particulars of the chain of title and the ordinances themselves.
This would not be a concern in my little corner of PLSSia. Our county is still unzoned and has no planning commission or any such irritant standing in the way of a property owner. The true issue is one of "title". If the land was platted as Lot 1, Lot 2 and Lot 3 of some subdivision, then that is what it is in fact. Silly metes and bounds descriptions attempting to assign a "lump sum" description should be banned. Title insurance companies demanding the creation of such false descriptions should lose their privileges to offer policies.
What is your municipalities requirement for subdivision/lot consolidation? You may have a case that the property was originally laid out as 3 lots, but later combined into one by the subject deed. Are you proposing to "re-subdivided" into 3 lots again? Could be considered a "re-plot" of lines rather than a subdivision since you're not creating more lots.
Bullcrap
> Bullcrap
:good:
But did you mean: Bullcrap:-)smiley?
Don
The answer is a combination of state and local regulations (most likely local). Did the parties follow the regulated process to create the three lots? If so, then three lots were created with three separately held building rights (in addition to the other associated property rights). Did the parties follow the regulated process to consolidate the three lots into a single parcel? If so, then it's now a single parcel with a single building right. If not, then it's still three lots.
JBS
More or else>:-)
> What? Surveyors are in this forum right? The guy who says that the parent parcel description of the total tract "dosen't matter" needs a brown's book and a head check.
> Anyway, Run your deed back a couple of times to see if it is true that tract 1 is the parent parcel description and when the others were created in a time line. If the other parcels exist the described lines in the deed WILL FOREVER EXIST AND REMAIN FIXED ONCE THEY ARE CREATED AND ONLY MAY CHANGE BY LEGAL PRINCIPALS[/b, you can't just erase the parcel lines and act like they were never there by combination.
Hey Poor Little P-Dop.....you sure seem to have an attitude. By the way, exactly what legal principals may change the deed? Would any lawyer be considered a legal principal? or would it take like a judger to be considered one?
While I'm being a bit obnoxious here.....
re:
>by Charles L. Dowdell , Huachuca City, Arizona, Tuesday, June 28, 2011, 20:35 (14 hours, 25 minutes ago) @ PSUSurveyor01
Why would you have to recombine the lots? Are you going to make a new subdivision? The leaps & boundsaround the perimeter is something that was not necessary to begin with.
I like the "leaps and bounds" thing, actually. It kind of sounds like an appropriate term when describing "metes" and bounds. 😉
Adam, you asked about principals, you might know some of these. Lets see here (you probably survey BLM land so you wouldn't understand most of these). Accretion, Adverse claims, control of intentions of parties, Junior and senior rights, real property, 15 sources of title possession, riparian and littoral rights, unwritten conveyances (right of possession), call for a survey, calls for monuments (natural or artificial), adjoiners calls and abuttals, EVIDENCE. Remember this Adam, Surveyors create evidence, recover evidence and interpret eveidence of boundaries. Attorneys argue the evidence of boundaries, THE COURT determines ownership.
Bingo, Forest has got it.
>
> Around here I would just map up the original 3 lots in a lighter pen to show as a reference and perform a resub of those lots into your new lot layout.
Exactly what I would do around here(central MA)
A principal
is not a principle. 🙂
Don
A principal
Correct, and thanks to a teacher from decades ago I can keep them straight:
A principLE is a ruLE.
A principAl thing (etc) is the mAin thing, and a princiPAL is a main or leading person. Teacher then of course gave us the inevitable example: the princiPAL (of your school) is your PAL.
A principal
I assumed it was a typo.... and that Mr. legal-snob knew the difference between principal and principle. I am glad he can put everyone down for not being as technically knowledgeable has himself, but when I act like a technical pompous jerk, I try to double-check my spelling and make sure I am not misusing a word. 😉
He said I asked about principals....hmmm....maybe I was trying to tell him something instead of "asking". poor, poor little p-dop.
oh....you meant principles. Now I understand.