Unfortunately this happens all to often here in VA where a deed refers to a plat "attached here to" that was never recorded. Usually though the plat represents a retraced survey and not the creation. In which case I rely on the creation deed of the parcel and the adjoining properties descriptions to survey the property.
If the plat referred to in the deed has not been recorded with the current deed or any of the previous deeds where the description of the property relied solely on the unrecorded plat. The deed is defective and a deed of correction is needed to resolve the issue.
I've followed surveyors that will make reference to unrecorded plats that they may or may not have a copy of.
It seems to be an improper way to practice.
A document used for reference should be in public records.
Information in private files can not always be examined by everyone and perhaps anyone except the proprietor.
To me it is kinda like saying it is this way because I say it is and not offering anything to substantiate the conclusion.
0.02
Ron Lang, post: 435682, member: 6445 wrote: Unfortunately this happens all to often here in VA where a deed refers to a plat "attached here to" that was never recorded. Usually though the plat represents a retraced survey and not the creation. In which case I rely on the creation deed of the parcel and the adjoining properties descriptions to survey the property.
If the plat referred to in the deed has not been recorded with the current deed or any of the previous deeds where the description of the property relied solely on the unrecorded plat. The deed is defective and a deed of correction is needed to resolve the issue.
I don't necessarily agree that it's defective. I'll assume that all parties to the deed either have a copy of the unrecorded plat, or were able to obtain a copy of the plat, whether they actually did so or not. It's unfortunate that few understand the importance of the plat, and what effect not recording it has on subsequent parties, their heirs maybe.
I once went to a seminar conducted by Knud Hermansen, where he discussed that on his plats he writes something to the effect that the plat is only valid or complete if accompanied by the Survey Report, and that he does not record it or make it available to others. That and some other things he says make me think that he's more lawyer than surveyor, but it is what it is.
JPH, post: 435720, member: 6636 wrote: I don't necessarily agree that it's defective. I'll assume that all parties to the deed either have a copy of the unrecorded plat, or were able to obtain a copy of the plat, whether they actually did so or not. It's unfortunate that few understand the importance of the plat, and what effect not recording it has on subsequent parties, their heirs maybe.
I once went to a seminar conducted by Knud Hermansen, where he discussed that on his plats he writes something to the effect that the plat is only valid or complete if accompanied by the Survey Report, and that he does not record it or make it available to others. That and some other things he says make me think that he's more lawyer than surveyor, but it is what it is.
I think you need to distinguish between a "Survey Plat" and the "legal description". The legal description is the legal instrument that describes the property. The Survey plat and/or the survey report are the professional land surveyor's opinion of where he is determining the location of the property based on the legal description. Legal descriptions are recorded instruments putting the public on notice of the property. If the legal description has reference to a plat or some other instrument, that other instrument needs to be of public record. I would agree with Ron Lang that technically the legal description would not be considered adequate although, as I understand it, courts are hard-pressed to declare a legal description as inadequate or defective.
JPH, post: 435720, member: 6636 wrote: I don't necessarily agree that it's defective. I'll assume that all parties to the deed either have a copy of the unrecorded plat, or were able to obtain a copy of the plat, whether they actually did so or not. It's unfortunate that few understand the importance of the plat, and what effect not recording it has on subsequent parties, their heirs maybe.
I once went to a seminar conducted by Knud Hermansen, where he discussed that on his plats he writes something to the effect that the plat is only valid or complete if accompanied by the Survey Report, and that he does not record it or make it available to others. That and some other things he says make me think that he's more lawyer than surveyor, but it is what it is.
Actually, I am one of those parties. Where do I get My copy? This is where a reference to the public records comes in.
Peter Ehlert, post: 435735, member: 60 wrote: Actually, I am one of those parties. Where do I get My copy? This is where a reference to the public records comes in.
????
I'm referring to parties during the execution of the original deed which referenced the plan, that those parties had or should have had a copy of the plan. At that time the plan being available for everyone to see, the description is not invalid, obscure, or ambiguous. Maybe at a later date, 50 years later and no one has the a copy of the plan, yeah, there might be a problem.
Believe me, as I wrote earlier in this thread, I'm for mandatory recording when a new lot is created. So this isn't my crusade for the non-recording of plats.
JPH, post: 435739, member: 6636 wrote: ????
I'm referring to parties during the execution of the original deed which referenced the plan, that those parties had or should have had a copy of the plan. At that time the plan being available for everyone to see, the description is not invalid, obscure, or ambiguous. Maybe at a later date, 50 years later and no one has the a copy of the plan, yeah, there might be a problem.
Believe me, as I wrote earlier in this thread, I'm for mandatory recording when a new lot is created. So this isn't my crusade for the non-recording of plats.
JPH, post: 435739, member: 6636 wrote: ????
I'm referring to parties during the execution of the original deed which referenced the plan, that those parties had or should have had a copy of the plan. At that time the plan being available for everyone to see, the description is not invalid, obscure, or ambiguous. Maybe at a later date, 50 years later and no one has the a copy of the plan, yeah, there might be a problem.
Believe me, as I wrote earlier in this thread, I'm for mandatory recording when a new lot is created. So this isn't my crusade for the non-recording of plats.
There is mandatory recording when a new parcel is created. You must record it or it isn't created. Recording the legal description only, is adequate for the creation of a parcel of land, but if that description references a plat then that plat must be of record. Look up the "statute of frauds"
Tom Adams, post: 435747, member: 7285 wrote: There is mandatory recording when a new parcel is created. You must record it or it isn't created. Recording the legal description only, is adequate for the creation of a parcel of land, but if that description references a plat then that plat must be of record. Look up the "statute of frauds"
I'm talking about plans/plats. I know that deeds must be recorded, but thanks for reminding me.
Not all jurisdictions require plans/plats to be recorded, even if they're referenced in the deed.
ashton, post: 435503, member: 422 wrote: Thanks for answering the second part of my question. How about the first part: if a deed doesn't directly mention a monument, but refers to a survey that does show the monument as on-line, should the monument be treated as a called-for monument?
If it is not called for in the deed it is not a called-for monument.
In my area if I could only use "monuments of record" it would pretty much be a blank slate. You'd start with the GLO survey monuments, many of which are at best "obliterated" and resurvey from there (mass chaos). Sad part is there seems to be many surveyors that do just that. Fact is there is overwhelming evidence in the form of physical stuff (such as old fences) not of record that shows what the old timers "did." Our deed records don't indicate many "monuments". Even the boundary establishment laws, which heavily favor long term occupation in Utah don't deter many from upsetting what appears to me as the original boundaries (without monuments of record).
So the question is, are you trying to locate the original boundary on the ground or trying to force the original (poor) description anew over the landscape? Which is right the poorly written words in a deed or the long term evidence on the ground? When it all lines up and agrees that's GREAT, but many times it doesn't. So which is right, what they did, are what they should have done perfectly (on a shoestring budget)?
LRDay, post: 435836, member: 571 wrote: In my area if I could only use "monuments of record" it would pretty much be a blank slate. You'd start with the GLO survey monuments, many of which are at best "obliterated" and resurvey from there (mass chaos). Sad part is there seems to be many surveyors that do just that. Fact is there is overwhelming evidence in the form of physical stuff (such as old fences) not of record that shows what the old timers "did." Our deed records don't indicate many "monuments". Even the boundary establishment laws, which heavily favor long term occupation in Utah don't deter many from upsetting what appears to me as the original boundaries (without monuments of record).
So the question is, are you trying to locate the original boundary on the ground or trying to force the original (poor) description anew over the landscape? Which is right the poorly written words in a deed or the long term evidence on the ground? When it all lines up and agrees that's GREAT, but many times it doesn't. So which is right, what they did, are what they should have done perfectly (on a shoestring budget)?
In rural wooded areas, there may not be much evidence of occupation, and not a whole lot to disturb. So if you have two blazed trees that are clearly of record, and another blazed tree that might or might not be of record, it might seem like an arbitrary choice. But then again, there could be zoning regulations, property tax laws, etc., either in force at the time of the survey or passed in the future, that make it financially advantageous for the acreage to be over or under a certain magic number, so it would be nice to get it right.
As an example of magic numbers for my lot, I get a tax break for the first 3 acres, so over 3 acres is more expensive. But if I want to get a building permit, I could get it directly from the zoning officer if my lot were over 5 acres, but have to go to the zoning board of approvals, and spend a few hundred extra, if my lot is under 5 acres.
JPH, post: 435751, member: 6636 wrote: I'm talking about plans/plats. I know that deeds must be recorded, but thanks for reminding me.
Not all jurisdictions require plans/plats to be recorded, even if they're referenced in the deed.
JPH, Sorry, I know that you know deeds must be recorded, I was just (perhaps poorly) zeroing in on a point regarding calls to other documents and how (in my opinion) the other document must be recorded in order for the deed to be adequate even if the state doesn't require the recording of plats. I won't beat that dead horse any more; and I agree with your point that states should require depositing of Survey Plats.
Paul D, post: 435666, member: 323 wrote: The blaze is evidence of a line. If its triple blazed, a monument is likely nearby. Rarely are blazed trees the monument in these parts. More than likely no better than flagging in trees along a line. Close, but no more. Much like an old downed wire fence.
Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
I mostly agree, Paul, but I do remember reading a NH court case where the court sided with with the party suing for holding to the blaze line and old fence meanderings over a straight line between called for monuments. And DW was working for the party on the losing side.
I am aware of one Register of Deeds who refuses to record a survey unless it comes directly from the signing surveyor. Had to say in my survey that we were following a survey by another surveyor performed in a certain year but could not record that survey.
