I am looking to see if I can find any case law on the following
1 Existing parcel subdivided by a subdivision map.
2 Each Lot of the subdivision is conveyed by metes description without benefit of reference to the underlying subdivision.
In the event of excess or deficiency, is the proper view to look to junior senior rights or to consider a proportional solution.
The oldest deeds to be found are those that have as their origin- Mc Enerny actions just after the 1906 earthquake. My speculation is that title was quieted and those descriptions made no mention of the underlying subdivision and that style of description was carried on in later deeds
thanks for your help
Google Scholar has lots of legal info. If you can't find what you're looking for there, get an attorney to look it up on Westlaw or Lexis Nexis.
> I am looking to see if I can find any case law on the following
>
> 1 Existing parcel subdivided by a subdivision map.
>
> 2 Each Lot of the subdivision is conveyed by metes description without benefit of reference to the underlying subdivision.
>
> In the event of excess or deficiency, is the proper view to look to junior senior rights or to consider a proportional solution.
>
> The oldest deeds to be found are those that have as their origin- Mc Enerny actions just after the 1906 earthquake. My speculation is that title was quieted and those descriptions made no mention of the underlying subdivision and that style of description was carried on in later deeds
>
> thanks for your help
I can't recall any specific court cases that I've seen in my research.
I've found similar circumstances several times where a plat was made, but the descriptions were metes instead of parcel or lot number. I used the plat to solve any latent ambiguities, ie, excess or deficiency in measurements when the monuments were lost (notice I said lost, not obliterated). The plat, in my opinion, can be used as it represents part of the intent (assuming again, lost corners). As to Jr/Sr vs proportion, as usual, it depends......
> I am looking to see if I can find any case law on the following
>
> 1 Existing parcel subdivided by a subdivision map.
>
> 2 Each Lot of the subdivision is conveyed by metes description without benefit of reference to the underlying subdivision.
>
> In the event of excess or deficiency, is the proper view to look to junior senior rights or to consider a proportional solution.
>
> The oldest deeds to be found are those that have as their origin- Mc Enerny actions just after the 1906 earthquake. My speculation is that title was quieted and those descriptions made no mention of the underlying subdivision and that style of description was carried on in later deeds
>
> thanks for your help
How about posting the map Dane and a couple of the legals describing the parcels. The metes/bounds descriptions may not coincide with the created parcels via the subdivision map.
Gut feeling is senior-junior
The other witness, William J. Lewis, testified as follows:
I am a surveyor and civil engineer; I have practiced my profession in the City and County of San Francisco since 1856. In 1856, I was acting as Deputy City and County Surveyor, in the City of San Francisco. I know the tract of land known as Potrero Nuevo. I made a survey of the Potrero in 1856. I first made a survey of the exterior boundaries, and then when we agreed upon the plan of dividing it into streets and blocks I made the survey for the subdivision, and afterward made a map of it. That map was filed in the Recorder’s office. I had occasion in making this survey to travel over the whole exterior boundaries of the ranch, and in subdividing it becoming intimately acquainted with the whole matter in laying it out into streets and blocks. In the western boundary of the tract I found a stone wall which formed a greater part of the western boundary. The stone wall came very nearly down to Precita Creek, and then to the north end there was a fence and a ditch that came down to Mission Creek; a fence on the banks of the ditch that came down from the end of the wall to the marsh at Mission Creek....
The marsh at the end of the wall at Precita Creek was very soft. There was very little water at Precita Creek. It was all marsh we may say. At Mission Creek at the end of the fence it was still worse, that was utterly impassable on foot for a man.
The stone wall commenced at the edge of the marsh of Precita Creek. The creek was a very small stream. The edge of the marsh was not hard—it might have been hard out 20 or 30 feet, but it got soft immediately. We had difficulty in running out those blocks on that account. The marsh was six to eight hundred feet across, from hard ground to hard ground. In starting from hard ground the marsh became softer and softer until you got out 25 or 30 feet, it became decidedly soft. The marsh is very soft, and I know it is deep. It was very difficult to find bottom; at that time I found it was soft marsh. My surveys extended to the creek....
This map is the same the subdivision map recorded with county recorder
Please note the lot lay out in the upper right and the note statins that all the lots are 25' x 100'
Because of the 1906 earthquake and fire there are no title documents (deeds) available for any lots that may have been convey just after the subdivision was filed in 1856
ONe can't infer the intent of equal division if the subdivision map is not referenced and the lots are not described by lot and block. So the metes and bounds only stuff could only be considered from a senior/junior standpoint. The pre-existing lot is entitled to the inference and has senior rights based on subsequent history. IN either case, these are rules of last resort. So, if you can't retrace the lot and block one, then give it what it was intended to have, inferred from propotional theory. Then approach each of the other.
The inference that a subdivision indicates intent for equal lot sizes can be destroyed by actual stakeout and conveyance of specific parcels. The markings on the ground, that the parties initially took title under, are almost always the best evidence of the intent of the parties. And this is subject only to the grantor having title to convey up to the markers.
Lot of case law to that effect.
how much excess or deficiency are you dealing with? how much fieldwork have you performed? how does physical occupation match with any solution?
Am I understanding this right?
You have an old subdivision that was wiped out during the 1906 fire (along with all of the records). Then everything was described by Metes and Bounds after the fire severing it from the original subdivision?
Close but not quite
Dave, I am asking if anyone has seen case law on the point of the relationship between and existing subdivision map and legal descriptions that convey lots of that subdivision where the lots are conveyed via a metes and bounds description as opposed to a simple reference to lot and block of that subdivision.
In this case, it depends on what you want to hold. There are small improvement overlaps in various places in the block. The overall block is very very close to record of the 1856 map.
