I am working on a project that has a subdivision along a navigable river, as you can see in the photo, there are areas shown as "reserved". There is no other text on the document that indicates what they are reserved for. To make things more complicated, North and South Outlar Blvd and the Park were never developed and Lot 16 Blk 4 shows to have no owner per the CAD.?ÿ What are your thoughts on the reservations?
?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
Who??s paying the property taxes on it?
?ÿ
i did one just like that a few years back- client ended up buying it from the son of the dedicator.
?ÿ
this in Wharton?
I'd guess these Smith guys still own it.?ÿ Maybe that's too simple though.
Could it be that those reserved areas are outside of the actual subdivision's boundary and aren't part of the plat? Hereabouts a subdivision plat will have a "certificate" that describes the extent of the land being platted. Usually a metes and bounds description. If that's not the case, then perhaps the deed in effect prior to land being subdivided could shed light on whether or not the Smith's owned the reserved areas prior to subdividing their garden spot.
Smith heirs is my first impression, I'm helping with a quiet title action for a similar parcel between two adjoining subdivisions.
However, that parcel wasn't labeled reserved, but the subdivider owned it and they didn't sell the parcel,?ÿ so the heirs retained it.
First you need to figure out what the Smiths owned before the creation of the subdivision. If that area was owned by them and never transferred then...??.
It is clear the Smith brothers did not intend for individual lot owners to have frontage on the river. ?ÿThey established the subdivision with straight lines, requiring no interpretation as to the "fuzziness" of where there original tract fell in/along the river. ?ÿRetaining Lot 16 further aided in limiting access to the river and provided them with a spot to establish a business of some sort relating to the river's use. ?ÿHaving streets that dead end into the river is problematic, of course. ?ÿIf the surrounding municipality accepted the plat and the street dedication, then they are in control of them, whether or not they now want to do so. ?ÿThe park is unclear to me. ?ÿWas it clearly given to the municipality and accepted as such?
I agree with the posters who said to find the deed and plot the tract before the Subdivision. Find out what the developers owner.?ÿ
my guess is the parent tract deed went to the bank of the colorado. if the warton county clerk weren't so proud of their documents- or so desperate to gin up some money for the office luby's trip- it'd be a whole lot easier to see.
in any event, i'm guessing your client is the owner who's controlled most of the adjoining tracts for 22 years now? that would be the best position to be in if no heirs and/or assigns are to be found, though the perimeter fence doesn't help (and doesn't exactly look like it's new).
Take note of problems like this for your own work. The original surveyor probably assumed the meaning was obvious and couldn't forsee this being a problem. We have a larger base of knowledge but are not any more intelegent. Don't be the surveyor that causes this kind if confusion for the future.?ÿ
This is a municipal project, I haven't spoken directly with the landowner... yet. Do you work in the area?
ha. no. i have once, but that was years ago. the issue just piqued my interest as i dealt with that same scenario as i'd explained. and something about the clip of the plat you posted, i immediately suspected it was not too far away from here.
