In Oklahoma we seem to be well stocked with an aggravating little item we call "unrecorded plats". Basically a subdivision of some larger parcel cut into lots and blocks and road/ utility reserves without the formal county (or city) acceptance. Most of these are historic (pre-1960) but some persist, particularly in my home Cleveland County where we can file these as just a "survey".
In the last 25 years it has become commonplace for some to prepare an "unrecorded" plat but provide the developer with metes and bounds descriptions of each parcel. As conveyed, these are recorded as metes and bounds. These are not necessarily what my question concerns.
My question concerns a conveyance of say "Lot 12, Unrecorded Acres"...where there exists a dated prepared plat showing lots, but not recorded. When reconstructing the boundaries within this "unrecorded" plat; should the lots be considered a simultaneous conveyance or does jr.-sr. rights play any role in the re-establishment of a "lot" boundary?
I did find this interesting case:
I think it's a question of fact.
They are probably not simultaneous because the Plat didn't create the lots, it is just a reference for the Deeds.
However if the Lots were all staked at the same time by the Surveyor then the best evidence of where any given original stake was located is probably prorating from other original stakes.
If the plat did not create them, what did? How do you define anything? Is it not by the plat's existence? Not it's location.
The plat DID in fact create the lots.
N
paden cash, post: 336783, member: 20 wrote:
My question concerns a conveyance of say "Lot 12, Unrecorded Acres"...where there exists a dated prepared plat showing lots, but not recorded. When reconstructing the boundaries within this "unrecorded" plat; should the lots be considered a simultaneous conveyance or does jr.-sr. rights play any role in the re-establishment of a "lot" boundary?
As the courts have repeatedly told us, and this court agrees is that simultaneous, Jr./Sr., proportion, etc. is of absolutely no concern when the boundaries that have been established on the ground can be found.
The courts are quite clear & consistent:
"...the law is settled that it is the duty of the surveyors to follow the original survey lines under which the property and neighboring properties are held notwithstanding inaccuracies or mistakes in the original survey. The purpose of this rule of law is that stability of boundary lines is more important than minor inaccuracies or mistakes."
"Therefore the Court was in error in adopting defendant's new survey, inasmuch as it fails to follow the legal principle that the purpose of a resurvey is to locate so far as possible previously established lines. The arbitrary proration of the 50-foot right-of-way among the lots of the southwest quarter was not in accordance with the plat of Miami Land and Development Company, nor in accordance with any other former plat of the area. It was a new survey and was not supported except for the State Road Department Plat. This is substantiated by proof in the record that the survey established by plaintiff's experts, followed the lines and distances used in the unrecorded plat of the Biscayne Engineering Company made in 1913, and followed the monument locations of the old plats that are common to both and which may be presumed to be the monuments of the original survey."
In other words, our duty is to find where the lines have been established - not where they should have been. And once again - proportioning is ONLY A LAST RESORT.
My greatest argument with this court is that we are SURVEYORS - NOT engineers.
Around here in North Florida we have many of these left over from before our platting laws were tightened up. Most of them were actually conveyed and staked sequentially and as such have to be considered Jr/Sr rights cases. The other PITA of these subdivisions is that copies of the maps are becoming harder and harder to find as the old surveyors who have copies close up shop and access to their records is no longer available. I wish that there were someone out there that could structure a repository for old unrecorded survey maps and populate it with all of the old stuff before it disappears. Unfortunately that idea doesn't lend itself to profitability and many surveyors jealously guard their unrecorded maps thinking that they give them a marketable advantage over others or that they will be able to "cash out" by selling them when they retire.
You should start a website. The subscription cost would be minimal assuming the members first provide all the unrecorded plats they have. Everyone else pays more. Up here in WA state, the DNR is responsible for finding and storing old survey maps. Even they charge a subscription fee. It is $275 per year. If you do surveys in WA, you cant do proper research without a subscription, or by paying them much more for them to research their files and give you hardcopies.
Sent from my LG-D321 using Tapatalk
Nate The Surveyor, post: 336785, member: 291 wrote: If the plat did not create them, what did? How do you define anything? Is it not by the plat's existence? Not it's location.
The plat DID in fact create the lots.
N
In some cases, the Deeds created the lots, the Plat is just to facilitate legal description simplification.
A reference to a map is a reference to everything on the map. Whether said map has been anointed by some high priest at the county palace has nothing to do with it. Proper approval and recording of the map might have a lot to do with getting a building permit, but nothing to do with the boundary. If such a description specifically references the map it is just as if it calls for the monuments at all the corners.
Even if the map is not specifically referenced, but it still is apparent the the map and the descriptions originated at the same time and from the same source, I think it is still the case that the monuments are controlling.
If the monuments were set at some time after the descriptions and sales, then I think they are not controlling, except by the dignity of estoppel.
Back in the early 80s we staked the lots in subdivisions when we staked the house for construction. Occasionally we would discover an error on the plat. This was usually discovered when an 'overlapping' lot was staked. You can talk junior senior versus simultaneous creation all day long, but the guy with the 1 year old house and pristine lawn will not stop swinging a shovel at you until the stakes are pulled.
The truth is a pat answer does not exist. One detail can shatter an apparent fact pattern in an instant. Giving an unqualified opinion without the evidence is a recipe for disaster. As Brian rightly pointed out, we better think long and hard before applying any of it in the face of found monuments.
IF in fact the DEED created the parcel, and that was made with a Meets and Bounds Desc.... then we could have another monkey. IF the deed says LOT xx of Dungeon Subdivision,and that created the parcel, then, well 2 differing monkeys!
Nate, my experience here is that in most cases the deed/mb desc creates the parcel with a preamble that references an un-recorded map.
"Lot Six of John Jones Subdivision of the Sam Smith Farm (unrecorded), being more particularly described as follows:....." in most cases the ownership of the lots goes to the centerline of the roads with the roads being held in reserve as ingress/egress/utility easements.
It is my understanding from talking with surveyors who did these types of subdivisions "in the day" that the legals and maps were created at the same time by the surveyor and given to the subdivider as a package and that the legals were then recorded as the lots were sold.
The lot is created by the deed not the plat. Of course, other factors may be if you are in a Race or Notice State, if the plat was referenced in each deed and my absolute favorite when all the deeds are executed on the same day. so I guess, it depends.
In California before minor subdivision maps were required for splits not requiring a subdivision map it was common for the Surveyor to file a Record of Survey showing the new lots but it didn't create the lots. Then as the lots were sold Deeds would transfer from the Developer to the buyer with m&b descriptions referencing the filed R/S map by book and page. Like Imbris says sometimes half the Deeds would reference the map and the other half wouldn't but they would all exactly follow the map. Technically junior/senior rights are involved but if a found sample of stakes from the R/S are found and they very closely fit the map obviously it is justifiable to restore the missing corners by distributing the errors between found stakes although a literal reading of a senior deed fit to found stakes would indicate the 2 tenths or whatever should go to it.
Oh what a pleasure it must be to work in a state where all survey maps are recorded, if only...
The same plague of unrecorded info has been widespread around here for decades.
Many deeds refer to beginning or going to some monument shown on some deceased Surveyor's plat that no one claims to have copy of, yet still make reference to.
The title company has joined in by making reference to what was shown on Surveyor's plat dated so&so.
Last Friday I located the last adjoining deed to a project. It was conveyed in 1968 and was conveniently recorded in 1998 when the couple used the land as collateral for an improvement loan, aka Jim Walter House. BTW, it was a bounds only description with owners from decades before 1968. 😉
Yesterday went back to another project after locating plat that title company claimed they had no copy of yet made reference to in their Title Commitment to find a water meter. Recent Fiber Optic installation had back covered with couple inch layer of dirt. Scaled distance 165ft down the road from driveway to house put me close enough to find it with probe.
When pricing surveying, I usually have a few words to say about it depending upon the reliability of the record information to their property and their neighbors property..........
:beer:
