My State has subverted the simultaneity effect of subdivisions by suspending the statutory requirement that monuments must be place prior to the plat recordation. We now have many brand new subdivisions without any interior lot monuments. The first buyer has a survey performed and it becomes the senior parcel. Each subsequent lot surveyed becomes junior to the previously surveyed ones.
That's sort of the way it works in NY. Courts recognize subdivision as simultaneous conveyance, but say the intent as evidenced by the monuments is superior to an inferred intent for all lots to be same size or same size in relation to mapped v. later surveyed discrepancies. So, no junior/senior rights. Honor staked lots per retracement principles. Prorate allowed in left over un-surveyed areas if it makes sense.
When a subdivision map is fully executed and recorded who is it conveyed to?
Care needs to be taken even when the grantors and grantees are on the same page with what they wish to do. One case I was involved in was a grantor A who granted parcels to B, then B turned around and granted those parcels to C and D. I don't remember why it was done that way but for some reasons back 40 years ago they wanted to do it that way.?ÿ
So all the parties showed up in the Title office and signed papers on the same day. Then the deeds were taken to the Clerk's office to be recorded.?ÿ
The Clerk's staff don't know what is up and record B granting to C and D. Then a day or so later they grab more papers from the stack and record A granting to B. My guess, no one is sure exactly how it happened. Then I come years later to do a survey and the companies title staff send me a spreadsheet highlighting the issue, as far as they are concerned B owns both parcels.?ÿ
Then I ask the question no one seems to consider, "did they get title insurance". Sure enough they did, and the same attorney and company are in town and in business.
Let them fix it.
And they did!!
I was reading the OP as being a division of a single parent parcel, thus common chains of title. Therefore simultaneous. I agree, if it were parcels which just happened to be adjacent to each other but had separate title, then sequential.
Accepting your unstated assumption of a record 200' wide lot, would that 100 feet be more properly measured with the foot based on the record width of the lot or some years or decades later per methods and technology which was unheard of at the time of conveyance?
The doctrine of after acquired title should clear up that mess, even for a simple-minded recording clerk.
This is correct, but assuming you are in a race state, the key is "C has knowledge". That can be hard to prove. This is one of the few situations where a land surveyor should punt to an attorney.
I recommend to clients for any deeds dependent on sequential filings at this courthouse to follow up and take time to be sure it gets in the correct sequence. I'm just finishing up an easement for a client that has 160 acres in three east-west 40s. He has a potential buyer for the east 80 and another for the west 40. The easement crosses the west 40 to supply irrigation water to the east 80.
If the east 80 buys first he should grant the easement to him, of course prior to selling the west 40. If the west 40 sells first he needs to reserve the easement to later grant to the east 80.
If it happens at the same time, who knows how it will get entered into the books.
The rights to the streets and easements are granted to the governing authority that is signatory to the plat. The lots are not conveyed until the deeds are recorded.
The point I’m trying to make is recording sequence does not necessarily control which has superior title in the case of a conflict.
No conveyance. It's evidence of intent in subsequent conveyances. Simultaneous conveyance is one of those legal fiction things. I think the big difference in jurisdictions is some treat it as an equitable rule, while others an evidentiary problem.
Agreed, and if I recall CA is same as NY, race-notice-inquiry notice. So even if "C" has not actual knowledge they might be charged with it anyway.
