Opinions?

Seen it. Identified it. Sent it to attorney for title opinion.

If I sold you 112 acres and mistakenly kept 50 acres, I think I would want more money from you...

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Depends if there is evidence of a third parcel that is being taxed.

No additional taxes parcels. We are talking less than a half acre but it exists none the less.

How were the parcels deeded? "Original Conveyance" Does the deed of describe the subdivision map or metes and bounds. Each parcel in question. Senior rights?

In Texas there is a doctrine of strips and gores that presumes any land not specifically reserved by the grantor is granted as well. There are limitations to this, but I am not in a place to look into it at the moment. It operates just as you suggest, the intent was not for the grantor to keep a useless strip of land, but was to convey up to the line of ownership.

My clients deed specifies the Lot in the subdivision. The predecessor in title is metes and bounds.

mattsib79, post: 419570, member: 1138 wrote: My clients deed specifies the Lot in the subdivision. The predecessor in title is metes and bounds.

Is th3 different between the two what creates the gap?

Ron Lang, post: 419572, member: 6445 wrote: Is th3 different between the two what creates the gap?

The predicessor in title of the subject parcel? Is there a being the same as clause in the deed?

Ron Lang, post: 419574, member: 6445 wrote: The predicessor in title of the subject parcel? Is there a being the same as clause in the deed?

On the subject parcel?

I'm saying if there is no evidence of a third established and occupied parcel which is taxed then it doesn't exist. The question then is which of the two parcels does it belong to.

Ron Lang, post: 419572, member: 6445 wrote: Is th3 different between the two what creates the gap?

Yes

Well all other evidence aside, if a deed didn't deed it by metes and bounds or by reference to a sudivision plat. The original owner holds title to the gap.

Ron Lang, post: 419584, member: 6445 wrote: Well all other evidence aside, if a deed didn't deed it by metes and bounds or by reference to a sudivision plat. The original owner holds title to the gap.

Do you suppose it was the original owner's intent to keep the strip? What importance should intent make in retracing a boundary?

Shawn Billings, post: 419587, member: 6521 wrote: Do you suppose it was the original owner's intent to keep the strip? What importance should intent make in retracing a boundary?

I do not intend decide what was the intention of the owner. And how am I suppose to? If one parcel deeded by metes and bounds and another by a plat prepared created a gap. How am I suppose to determine the intent? Unless more intrinsic evidence exists.

Just because a parcel isn't taxed doesn't mean it doesn't exist and just because it is taxed doesn't mean it does exist.

I posed this same question to an attorney friend of mine. This was part of his response: "So i.e. I sell you property and exclude a piece for myself, you obviously don't get that, but if I don't specifically describe what I'm keeping out and there is nothing referencing my intent they I don't exclude it and sold it all to you. So basically the intent of the developer to include all his property in the subdivision would clearly show that he is conveying it all and not intending to retain anything"

As one has said...show the facts!!! And let the attorneys figure the intent!

Three questions. Do you agree with the location of the subdivision lots? Do you agree with the adjoiner's surveyor on the location of the line that ideally would be the same line? Which came first, the adjoiner's line or the subdivision plat?

Did you find monuments for the predecessor metes and bounds or are you relying on bearings and distances? Were monuments found and accepted on the original subdivision survey? Does the metes and bounds fit the boundaries of the adjoiner's.

Great minds run on the same track, billvhill.