I have a property I have to survey on Friday and the deed refers to 2 plats for the same property. Both are substantially the same but I can't recall ever seeing a deed refer to 2 plats from two different surveyors from 2 different dates for the same parcel and I am kinda curious what your thoughts are on the subject.
One is obviously junior while the other is senior and the deed refers to the plats with no M&B description. Now I'm not going back and doing a chain of title but I find this puzzling and it raises a concern about which one would have more weight.
Do both plats represent the same boundary and do both plats hold the same corners?
Well......that's a tough one. Until just recently Georgia did not require the capping of set corners so there is no way to determine if they are the same corners, original corners, or just a piece of metal. The plats call out IPF with no size or caps and one corner is a IPF on the senior plat but a NAIL FOUND on the junior.
Yes they do represent the same boundary, but which one has more weight.
I wouldn't know what to do until I did the majority of the field work. I would hope one is the original, the next is a competent retracement, and you're just the next guy in line.
If you find a pin farm then... ... God Bless. Steve
I'd be curious to see the similarities or differences between the two plats.
I've seen that before where a subdivision was modified slightly, but the parcel being surveyed was unaffected boundary wise. Possibly a sight/drainage easement addition, ect...
kjypls, post: 456879, member: 9749 wrote: I'd be curious to see the similarities or differences between the two plats.
I've seen that before where a subdivision was modified slightly, but the parcel being surveyed was unaffected boundary wise. Possibly a sight/drainage easement addition, ect...
There is no significant difference between the two but you know how that goes. A few tenths of a foot on the distances and +- 10 minutes on the bearings.
But as you now a few tenths and +- 10 minutes can make a world of difference if there is an encroachment or if I have to reset a corner.
I would review the certificates on the Plats carefully. It is possible the owner bought from the first plat then took part in a resubdivision. The resub may have been for some (real or perceived) defect in the original.
In these parts the newer plat would vacate the older plat making it null/void by way of a statement similar to "The approval of this plat vacates all prior plats of the area shown here on."
Sometimes Title Companies / Lawyers will write legals that call out every survey and document to make sure they cover their assets. I recently had a legal description that called out 4 plats and only 2 deals with the property. I guess it all depends on what the survey turns up.
What do you mean by "plat"? Is it a subdivision plat or just a plat of a survey?
As you well know the FIRST thing I'd look at on the plats is whose stamp is on them. You may not be able to "legally" defend the conclusion but there are those out there that do a better job of surveying than others. You kinda know who can trust and who you question.
Andy
Andy Bruner, post: 456911, member: 1123 wrote: As you well know the FIRST thing I'd look at on the plats is whose stamp is on them. You may not be able to "legally" defend the conclusion but there are those out there that do a better job of surveying than others. You kinda know who can trust and who you question.
Andy
And that is where local knowledge is invaluable.
OK, I've done some more digging. The property is part of a lot in a old subdivision and the original plat is absolutely not readable. I had to go back 3 owners in the chain to find reference to the original.
I began looking at some of the adjoiners also and it appears they all have had their own surveys performed and some of them multiple times by multiple surveyors. It just confuses the entire process when multiple plats are referred to.
Andy, I don't know anything about the surveyors who stamped them. I have seen or heard of them but have no personal knowledge but one of them has a 3 digit number. Incidentally this is to the west.
For some reason your comment reminded me of the "Animal Farm" "All animals are equal but some are more equal than others."
Just set a bigger, shinier, higher up beautiful point and everyone will of course accept it as the better position.
Start with the presumption that the earlier Plat controls and the second Plat is a retracement Survey. If the second Plat modifies the first then there would need to be written evidence of a title transfer but if the second Plat only retraces the first then they follow identical boundaries assuming the second was done correctly. It is logical to assume the second Plat was added to bless it as a faithful retracement but this can't affect the rights of the adjoiner.
Just A. Surveyor, post: 456926, member: 12855 wrote:
Incidentally this is to the west.QUOTE]
So it's in Alabama?
Dave Lindell, post: 456960, member: 55 wrote: Just set a bigger, shinier, higher up beautiful point and everyone will of course accept it as the better position.
I like that advice and I might set axle and hub assembly with a nice steel wheel and with a shiny hub cap. It will be large enough that the assembly will completely cover any incidental error between the plats. :p
Steve Gilbert, post: 456968, member: 111 wrote:
Nope, still in Georgia but not by much.
Just A. Surveyor, post: 456874, member: 12855 wrote: Now I'm not going back and doing a chain of title but I find this puzzling and it raises a concern about which one would have more weight.
You cant do a boundary survey without a chain of title that goes back "far enough". How far "far enough" is varies by job, but to answer your question you certainly need to go back before the first plat.
What was owned at the time of the first survey? If is dentical to the plat, the fact the current deed calls for them doesnt really change anything. You just have two surveys of an existing description. An owner (or surveyor) can not unilatilary change what they own. We have all dealt with that before. If the plat(s) were creating a new subdivision or adjustment, whichever was called for in the first post adjustment deed would hold. If your current deed is the first then you really do have a quandary.
The other thing to consider is what the neighboring deeds say.
I have a sticky one on Friday. We ran basic research for one neighbor a decade ago. Things were fuzzy, so we offered to run the full research or just go to the neighbor with the most reasonable boundary agreement. Our client got greedy and tried to make an agreement further east.
The neighbor came in a couple months ago willing to pay for the research. About 60 hours of research later, I came to the conclusion that the most reasonable boundary is correct. I have a couple gaps with reasonable assumptions, but I am confident in my research.
Friday I meet with the original client to share the research and provide her with options:
1. Take it.
2. Get another surveyor to verify my research.
2b. If you find a surveyor who disagrees with my determination, take it to court and be sure to being in the neighbor to the neighbor as well.
I was able to trace the second clients' property back to 1826 when it was created. The original clients' property was divided in 1915 by an heir to an intestate estate without a probate.
Have fun in the field. I envy your double plat issue over the double client issue.
