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.
I’ve never seen the term “simultaneous conveyance” in the legal authorities I have read but maybe I’m not looking in the right places since it more of a title concept which may or may not bear on location. In the few apportionment decisions I have read justify it as a method to restore the lot corners to their original positions in the absence of better evidence.