So my client is trying to lease a site and has come up with 3 possible options for the location. We prepared individual survey plats and metes and bounds description for each one, certified them and sent them to client.
Today, the client wants to show all 3 on the same exhibit. Not a problem. Done it before. However, this time, 2 of the proposed sites are on a parcel owned by one company and the 3rd is on a tract owned by another organization. I'm worried if I send them a certified plat and they pick one of the sites and file the whole document, have I clouded the title of the other owner? Not sure I like this idea of 2 different owners on the same exhibit.?ÿ
Are you using Plat as in a map/exhibit or Plat as in a Subdivision Plat?
In Texas, a survey plat is the drawing that results from a survey.
Field Notes are what are known as metes and bounds or a legal description.
A simultaneous conveyance of several lots and dedication of public row is a subdivision plat.
I don't think it would be a problem. The survey does not convey any rights to anyone at least not around here. It's just a survey. A recorded plat would still require signatures and documentation in order for the lease (if they don't use it) to be anything other than a pretty picture at the courthouse. But I could be misunderstanding?ÿyour situation. It could be confusing years from now, for a minute or two, for it to be there on your plat but no record of it ever happening.
I don't see a problem with showing lots owned by two or more different entities on a recorded plat. Just clearly label them as such.
I see a problem. Assume you file the plat with two owners and only one owner has agreed to a lease. The other owner's name is on the filed plat without a signature, but down he road how will that be interpreted. While two lots?ÿ and one owner might be OK, what if only on lot is leased, again same problem. Penny wise and pound foolish.
Paul in PA
I see a problem. Assume you file the plat with two owners and only one owner has agreed to a lease. The other owner's name is on the filed plat without a signature, but down he road how will that be interpreted. While two lots?ÿ and one owner might be OK, what if only on lot is leased, again same problem. Penny wise and pound foolish.
Paul in PA
I worked on a huge lot consolidation project where multiple easements were vacated, lot lines changed, and it took 6 months just to get everyone involved up to speed on what it was that everyone was actually agreeing to.?ÿ And I was the new guy.?ÿ?ÿ
Make sure that all parties involved have a chance to view the DRAFT exhibit and require signatories to the facts of the agreed upon descriptions and requested platted information.?ÿ That way they can't shift the liability or anything to you, the "drafter" in their eyes likely, and let their lawyers make the decision to decline or agree to their weird non standard agreements.
?ÿ
Good luck.
?ÿ
?ÿ?ÿ
I think you are right to be concerned about doing this. There is a potential to cloud some innocent person's title. I don't have an answer for you, other than to just say no.?ÿ
If the parcels are labeled properly it's just a survey. If you title them lease documents it will confuse folks.
The bigger issue is surveying property without the owner knowing it. If your map conflicts with his idea of what he owns you just picked a fight. Probably an expensive and unnecessary fight..?ÿ
Ignorant GIS person here. Why couldn't you add "DO NOT FILE" or "FOR REVIEW ONLY" to the exhibit version?
I could see the client wanting all three on one drawing for ease of showing various parties the locations while making the final decision.
I agree with Melita's line of thinking.?ÿ Have an intent statement on the drawing which indicates use as an exhibit to show three potential lease areas.?ÿ Note in the certification/signature area that this exhibit drawing is NOT for filing and NOT for use in a land transfer.?ÿ?ÿ Once the exhibit has been used to finalize the decision, revisions as needed to show the final lease area on documents that are to be filed.
