So I've got a parcel that was split up between three family members, by deeds, recorded concurrently but at the exact same time to the minute. I assume there was someone involved that knew of senior / junior rights and attempted to make a simultaneous conveyance by deeds. In my limited experience I assumed simultaneous conveyances were reserved for subdivisions and always accompanied by a map. The parent parcel is based on aliquot parts of a section. Deeds are metes and bounds based on assumed perfect sections, so 330' by 660' for example. So of course I have an excess in North-South, and a deficiency in East-West measurements.
"implied intent" is arm waving... I have not seen any decisions that defined such a case otherwise.
is there any trace of occupation? parole evidence by occupants? map by a surveyor in private records? record map of some sort?
I am assuming that this is not highly valuable land...
Once you have things figured out, prepare a sketch showing the various possibilities.?ÿ Present that to your client.
I strongly encourage you pursue a Boundary Line Agreement between the various current owners (and their lenders) Your opinion of how "it should be" will be questioned in the future.
@bill93 in this case Seniority goes by Book and Page. It is/was not unusual for documents to stack up on a desk and then be logged/recorded in a batch at a future convenient time. No "automatic time stamps" were used, whatever the rubber stamp wheel was set to was used as recording time and date. This was 1949, before I was born... despite my personal appearance
BTW: the Grantor (and Grantees) may have been very cognizant of junior/senior rights and intended the Proper Sequence of layout when someone wanted to spend the money on a real section breakdown survey.?ÿ This was Good Enough for estate planning.
Junior/senior here for sure, California I don't know about.
However, what is on the ground may well override junior/senior.
It's a guess that you think the intent is simultaneous conveyances.
There is evidence for that, but no certain proof.
It was seldom the intent of these deeds to create a mismatch in distances, but once on the ground and laid out I normally will find enough establishment that you can retract the actual boundary. I've never seen a 330x660 patchwork of parcels exactly configured like the deeds call for, but it often makes sense when you locate all the old pipes, rebar, fences. 1949, there must have been some attempt to lay out the parcels, I would go with that if possible.?ÿ
I acknowledge that I assume and guess at the intent, and I am not standing behind that assumption. However I do think it's diligent to try to ascertain the intent, even if it is not what I end up doing for a resolution. And I totally agree that a BLA is the way to clean up title for the parties. However Peter was correct in assuming that the land is not highly valuable.
I have no evidence of occupation the lands are on an aluvial plain which makes fencing difficult to say the least.I have not made an attempt to gather Parole evidence yet.. Monuments may have been set around the smallest of the three parcels according to the attached hanging map.
It appears that the resolution to this survey will be by extrinsic evidence?
Thanks again and any more comments or suggestions are very welcome!?ÿ
The descriptions don't overlap, they are written to describe the same lines so Junior/Senior rights are not at issue.?ÿ They don't calculate perfectly but the intention is clear from the descriptions.
A metes and bounds description implies a survey in California (see Bullard v. Kempff, 119 Cal. 9 at 14 - 1897) so the first task is to attempt to recover physical evidence of the boundaries described.?ÿ If the boundaries don't exist on the ground then I would be inclined to attempt to lay out the first as described, the third is mostly surrounded by the first and doesn't impact the second so lay it in its spot then the remainder goes to the third.?ÿ Then get the owners to agree to the solution.
Sometimes they prefer to do lot line adjustments and move the boundaries where they would like them to be.
1. Aaron (Sr.?) grants all to Fred, Aaron Jr., and William
1st Deed goes to Aaron Jr. (5.9 acres)
2nd Deed goes to Fred (4.1 acres)
3rd Deed goes to William (0.5 acres)
The three grantees (and wives) of the parent tract participate in the Deeds splitting the tract into 3.
Considering this again...it looks like the 1st and 2nd Deed divide the parent tract into roughly two halves then the 3rd Deed into William is a rectangular tract (208.8 feet E-W by 104.4 feet N-S) essentially cut out of the 1st Deed. I would probably give 1st full measure, 2nd remainder (if there isn't a big discrepancy in the parent tract dimensions, that may require another look) then cut a 208.8x104.4 rectangle out of 1st as described. This is after looking for all evidence of the original locations of the boundaries including evidence on the ground (maybe they followed fences?), old surveys, other information as found.
So I've got a parcel that was split up between three family members, by deeds, recorded concurrently but at the exact same time to the minute. I assume there was someone involved that knew of senior / junior rights and attempted to make a simultaneous conveyance by deeds. In my limited experience I assumed simultaneous conveyances were reserved for subdivisions and always accompanied by a map. The parent parcel is based on aliquot parts of a section. Deeds are metes and bounds based on assumed perfect sections, so 330' by 660' for example. So of course I have an excess in North-South, and a deficiency in East-West measurements.
I can't argue with the rules, but I would observe that there is no equity in allowing the random order a clerk processes the deeds to determine people's rights in land.
every boundary Survey properly involves extrinsic evidence. The Deed controls title (who owns it) but is only evidence of location.
It appears the small rectangular tract was surveyed and the dividing line between the two larger tracts. There is a road in that location and the map shows an easement.
The underlying thought is simple. If the intent was simultaneous creation to place everyone on equal footing, it could have been expressed any number of ways. As with most things the fact it was not prevents attempts to make it so by fiat. Intent is what was done, not what we think somebody wanted to do...
