Here is the story as I have it. Very preliminary info so far:
- 50 lot subdivision created in 1955, filed in the clerks office.
- Developer begins to sell lots.
- Developer sells lot #25..say its 100x100 at 90å¡ angles.
- In 1958 Developer re-subdivides from lot 26 up to lot 50, files another map in the clerks officei
- in doing so he changed the lot line between lot 25 & 26 so now the original deed out for both lots creates a triangle overlap in the deeds from 0' in the front to 25' in the rear.
- Possession (row of arborvitaes) is more like the more recent map (1958 version).
- Original surveyor has passed away, so I can't ask him what happened.
I told the client he has more of a title problem than a survey one. I told him I can document everything and get it over to his attorney. Oh and the two neighbors aren't getting along at ALL!
Did the recent subdivision map (from 1958) only subdivide the land shown as Lots 26-50 on the original subdivision map? Or did it include area outside of those lots. It seems to me that the newer map can't subdivide something that isn't within the limits of the land being subdivided. So if the line between lots 25 and 26 is on the outer boundary of the newer subdivision map, then no change could occur and it would be, as you said, a title issue, not a survey issue.
As long as your clients lot was sold before the replat there is no question that the boundaries are as shown on the original plat. If either neigbor wants to pursue adverse possesision supply the information the the attorney and be done with it.
You can't subdivide what you don't own. I think there is a Section in Brown's book that discusses this type of situation.
Like I said it was preliminary....If he comes back and signs the contract, I'll get much deeper into it.
Also need to check if the owner of lot #25 was a signatory to the newer subdivision or signed any type of recorded document agreeing to the new line.
Is the other side of Lot 25 skewed too?
I wonder if the 1958 map shows the 25/26 as originally laid out and it's a boundary location question, not a title question?
If this one goes to the attorneys we'll have to follow it over on ScotchLeg.com
Its possible some deed research in the 1958 files will give you your answer.