My client's deed, essentially says; except the north 30 feet for road...
I picked up the dedication deed from the county that say's it's only 15 feet. The county right-of-way manager confirms that the county only has a 30 foot right-of-way; 15 feet on each side of the centerline.
Do I stake the deed? Or do I set the front corners on the Right-of-Way line?
[This should be a test question BTW]
Dougie
I detest deeds like that. We have a local title company that assists in many closings. For rural tracts affected by county road rights-of-way they always insert the phrase, "less county road". Dammit, that's not correct. The grantor is intending to rid themselves of everything to which they hold title, which happens to include that part impacted by the county road right-of-way. With rare exceptions, the counties do not even pretend to have fee ownership. They understand it is actually an easement providing for certain uses by the county.
"except the north 30 feet for road..." does no exclude the 30' from the title, only that it is reserved for road purposes.
You may set he corners at the center of the roadway, along the 15' r.o.w. line or on the 30' reservation line and it will not affect the underlying title or the useable lot area. Were the County to widen the r.o.w., to 60' they would need an appropriate document but would not be required to provide compensation.
Some may argue that the former grantor has rights for a road in the additional 15', oe even that the lot owner has no right to cross the 15' to get to the road.
"less county road", does not remove the road from title, only notes that the county road area is not free for certain uses
Less has no specific legal or survey meaning as it is not described in either Black's or the A.C.S.M definitions.
Paul in PA
It says the south 117 feet of the North 147...
That poster, RADAR; sure is a swell guy.
I see Except as an omission to the title. It could have been an exception for private use and now public use. I have seen this on many rural roads where the original owner was making sure he had access to other tracts owned. The owner should have reserved an easement but didn't word it that way.
Before subdivision regulations it was common to create roads by deed in my area.
How will you justify claiming the alleged abandoned 15 feet? Is the right-of-way manager willing to put it in writing? Are neighbors involved?
I would research court cases with abandoned right-of-way. I had an attorney site one to me for a survey I did for the County where a land owner fenced in a platted public road that was never built.
billvhill, post: 429277, member: 8398 wrote: had an attorney site one to me
Spelling police: I try to ignore most of them, but this one is significant for surveyors
cite: quote or refer to
site: a place where something is done or built
sight: to look at, as through the instrument
ewe R wright
You done did it correctly
I don't think you can unilaterally change an unambiguous Deed unless you have clear and convincing evidence that due to mistake it does not accurately reflect the true intentions of the parties. The grantee probably has an implied easement over the missing 15' strip. The presumption that title carries to the center of the road can be overcome by a clear statement that the grantor intended to keep the road as in this case. The grantor may have had a good reason to keep the 30', like the ability to dedicate more Right of way further downstream on this road.
I'm not a Lawyer but if I were one Robert Fuller would play me on TV.
I have a similar issue with my own property. My approach would be to try find the legal action that created the road, and confirm it was a ROW. If the road was taken from two adjoining owners, see if the line between the two owners can be located on the ground. If not, use the centerline.
If the road was taken from one owner (call her A), thus physically dividing the owner's land in two, follow the history until the one owner sells the property on one side of the road, and see if it was sold to the centerline, or one of the edges.
If the sale by A was to the centerline, but some later owner, through ignorance, left a sliver of land behind by selling to the near edge of the road, decide the true intent of the later buyer and seller was to not leave any slivers behind, and the current owner owns to the centerline.
Legal justification would vary by state.
We have a similar published case in California. It involves a large ranch that has a forty foot feet fee strip running east between two smaller parcels to the county road. The Tax Assessor does not show the strip as part of the ranch or as a separate parcel. It is shown as included with the parcel adjoining it to the south (South) and that owner was deemed to be paying the taxes. The strip is included in the fenced enclosure of the parcel to its south. The court ruled that South had it by adverse possession.
Bill93, post: 429305, member: 87 wrote: Spelling police: I try to ignore most of them, but this one is significant for surveyors
cite: quote or refer to
site: a place where something is done or built
sight: to look at, as through the instrument
There's a post somewhere in this forum where the initial stage of meeting the future wife is remembered as "... it was love at first site ...". For surveyors and engineers and contractors, that could well be correct.
[USER=94]@Dave Karoly[/USER]
Robert Fuller, you say. So you want to shrink down to 5' 11" and be 84 years young plus having been born with a name like Leonard Leroy Lee in Key West, Florida. OK. Works for me if it works for you.
Holy Cow, post: 429351, member: 50 wrote: [USER=94]@Dave Karoly[/USER]
Robert Fuller, you say. So you want to shrink down to 5' 11" and be 84 years young plus having been born with a name like Leonard Leroy Lee in Key West, Florida. OK. Works for me if it works for you.
Hopefully he would wear the big collared shirt and wide tie.
The deep raspy voice would be an asset to making sure everyone heard what he said.