Just curious about others' thoughts on this situation:
Parcel is divided into two tracts by court order in early 1900’s and conveyed by Commissioner’s deeds to two relatives recognized as owners by the court. There is no record plat.
No source deed is mentioned in the court order, but it states the supposed-to-be acreage. Surveyor is convinced after extensive research that original source deed was not recorded and if the tract can be traced as a remainder of a larger tract, there won’t be an adequate description.
Court-appointed commissioners are sent to the property to divide it “equally, giving due regard to the quantity, quality, and location thereof”. Metes and bounds descriptions are prepared that divide the property exactly 60/40 by the supposed-to-be acreage. (60/40 was not prescribed in the order but it seems unlikely that it was coincidence.)
The smaller tract, that is currently being surveyed, has the original described acreage by both current survey and small forced closure of the original metes and bounds description. The larger tract is about 0.5 acres +/- shy of described acreage by both current survey and small forced closure of original metes and bounds description.
Any thoughts/opinions on:
~~Pro-rate the new survey 60/40, or leave tracts as-is considering the original division was based on “quantity, quality, and location”, and not just quantity? The original division line has been occupied and recognized for over 100 years.
~~One side of the tract being surveyed has a small deflection (and corner) where the adjoiner’s deed calls for a straight line. The straight-line description on the adjoiner’s deed pre-dates the commissioner’s description of the subject tract by at least 35-45 years and there is no physical evidence that the deflection was ever there. Since there is nothing to go by except the commissioner’s description, insert the deflection or hold straight line of previous survey of adjoiner’s tract? If deflection is pinned and causes a stink, would court recognize the deflection since it was already prepared “by the court”, albeit over 100 years ago?
